RolStoppable said:
When people say "bad" in reference to Zelda, they often mean "didn't meet the high standards of the series", not bad per se. Similar to what Metroid: Other M has been for Metroid. You can find redeeming qualities, but it still falls far short of the quality and things people have come to expect from the series. PH and ST pretty much abandon the classic gameplay of Zelda. You tap on enemies to attack them and the controls in general slow the mechanics down dramatically. It's a very shallow experience compared to the dodge and attack gameplay of the initial Zelda games. As a result, the games are best described as "boring". Solve puzzles and engage in pseudo-battles, all connected by tedious overworld traveling. They are simply not games that can be replayed over and over again which goes against the common standard of most Nintendo games. SS isn't nearly as bad as the DS games, but it does quite a few things wrong too. Many people like or love SS, but there's hardly anyone who would stick up for the DS games. In other words, if you were to ask people whether they would want more PH and ST or New Legend of Zelda, you would be seeing a dramatically one-sided response. |
OK, well that definition of "bad" makes more sense.
I wouldn't say that the DS games abandon the classic gameplay. They might tweak the classic combat, but all the other pillars are intact: puzzle-solving, exploration, a great sense of humor, oddball NPCs, sidequests, minigames, a heroic storyline, etc. Perhaps I am among the minority, but I hold the DS Zelda games in high esteem. Yes, I place them in the bottom half of Zelda games -- along with Skyward Sword -- but it's hardly an insult to place behind games like Ocarina of Time, Majora's Mask, The Wind Waker, and A Link to the Past.
