By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo - Myths about the Legend of Zelda

Well since the announcement of the new zelda for 3ds (which I can't wait to play  cause zelda is one of my all time favorite game franchise) everybody seems to be expressing thier opinion on where they think the franchise should be heading and what's currently wrong with it, whether it be art style, 2D vs 3d, action oriented or puzzle oriented etc. Everybody seems to think that series was one way and nintendo is taking it another direction and I cannot help but think that people are remembering the games through their own eyes and not what they actually were (hell even I might be victim to this).

When I'm reading through  vgchartz I see a lot of comments on art style, how zelda should look this way or its too bright or not realistic enough, if you have not realized by now zelda has no particular artstyle to stick to and nintendo can do what it wants with zelda's art style (except you wind waker go back in your corner dammit). For the most part though zelda has always at least been a "bright" game, just look at LTTP, which most modern day zelda has adopted their overall game from to this day (I can see through your tricks nintendo) . Does that look like a dark gritty game to you? Even in the "dark" world or whatever it was called it was still pretty bright and colorful they even had you turn into a bunny, a freakin bunny.

Another one that always gets brought up is that it should go back to being more about action. This always has me confused on what zelda were people playing back in the day that was heavy on combat and action. I mean all you did was press a button and link swung his sword in one direction, there wasn't any combo or chain attack or super there was nothing special, he swung the same direction every time you pressed the button and repeated the process until the enemy died that was it. So it really confuses me where people get that from. Truth be told it is the latter games that are heavy on combat like TP or SS that allows you to learn new sword techniques. What the newer games do wrong are the fetch quest nintendo needs to remove those padding  gameplay techniques.

And this bonus one is nintendo's practical joke on western gamers, and if you have been playing nintendo games long enough you would know they make a lot of subtle jokes in their games, actually one of the best (to me at least) was phantom hourglass intro but I think it probably flew over many gamers head) which is the zelda timeline. Do you really think when nintendo was creating  zelda all those years ago and even to this day that they put thought into the timeline of the games? Come on this is nintendo they don't care, they probably only released that timeline because gamers in the west kept asking and asking and asking and since zelda is bigger in the west they decided to put something together, its probably there own inside joke though.

Now that's not to say that some games don't reference another, like MM to OOT and PH to WW, but you should know that those are nothing more than Easter eggs and not some allusion to a grander story. Just because they mention one another does not "really" mean they are connected, that's like saying yoshi is connected to the zelda world because he has a portrait in the temple of time, which we know is not so.

Maybe I might as well be remembering the games wrong because everything I wrote here is from memory, as I have never actually fully replayed a zelda game after I have beaten it, so feel free to discuss .

                                                                          



My 3ds friendcode: 5413-0232-9676 (G-cyber)



Around the Network

My only point will always be that the artists and designers behind these games need to be careful with very bright colors, and to _never_ use them.

Even in your LTTP pic up there, the colors are not grey, but they aren't flashy either. it's a delicate balance of color and tone.

But some will call me a snob for stating the obvious in visual taste, so I'll have to keep it at that.



The first two Zeldas have a heavy action elements and low puzzles.

Zelda 1 you were running around, dodging attacks, shooting boomerangs, arrows and so forth. Very fast paced. Some puzzles are present, but they are generally simple and involve pushing blocks or bombing walls or burning bushes.

Zelda 2 is almost an action platformer. A side-to-side action platformer where you run, jump and hack and slash. It has the fewest puzzles of any Zelda, mostly fetch keys and open doors.

Both Zelda 1&2 are dark games by NES standards. Monsters, bats, skeletons, dungeons. Black backgrounds. These are contrasted with brighter times in the overworlds, but the games are not cartoony by any stretch.

Zelda III: ALttP is slightly brighter than the first two and slightly more "cartoony", but not especially so. It's also not overly cartoony relative to other games of the day.

Modern Zeldas are too plodding. When you compare the combat in the orignal 3 games to newer 3D titles, the action is very different. In old Zelda you were quickly stabbing multiple enemies, running in various directions, quickly launching ranged attacks, blocking projectiles and stabbing more foes. In new Zelda you generally lock on to one or two enemies, and wait and time your moves. Very different.

All Zeldas from the original through to MM were done in a way that was as realistic as possible for the technology available at the time. They may look bright or cartoony today, but they weren't back then, not any more than FF or Castlevania or anything else. Games like Wind Waker or SS with its watercolors detract from what should be a realistic, serious adventure. It's not so much the brightness, but the realism. A Zelda game should push the boundaries of a system and present a deep, serious adventure. Of the recent 3 Zeldas, only TP took that approach, and thats why it sold the best.

The idea that Zeldas were more action-focused in the past is not a myth. The idea that Zelda was not cartoony in the past is not a myth. Us older Zelda fans like us some action and we like a serious focus. All Zeldas are good in their own way, but seeing ALttP 2 is very exciting, and so are the comments that Zelda U will look for inspiration from the earliest Zelda games.



With a fanbase so knowledgeable and passionate, there are bound to be quibbles about art direction, mechanics, and tone. Nothing wrong with that.

However, I'm of the opinion that all the games in the series conform to a certain formula, so it's strange to me when someone claims to hate Phantom Hourglass and love Ocarina, or hate Wind Waker and love A Link to the Past.

I also strongly disagree with fans who dislike Aonuma. I believe he's done great things for the franchise.



I do wish for a tiny bit less of puzzles though.

Way too many.



http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/profile/92109/nintendopie/ Nintendopie  Was obviously right and I was obviously wrong. I will forever be a lesser being than them. (6/16/13)

Around the Network
TheLastStarFighter said:

The first two Zeldas have a heavy action elements and low puzzles.

Zelda 1 you were running around, dodging attacks, shooting boomerangs, arrows and so forth. Very fast past. Some puzzles are present, but they are generally simple and involve pushing blocks or bombing walls or burning bushes.

Zelda 2 is almost an action platformer. A side-to-side action platformer where you run, jump and hack and slash. It has the fewest puzzles of any Zelda, mostly fetch keys and open doors.

Both Zelda 1&2 are dark games by NES standards. Monsters, bats, skeletons, dungeons. Black backgrounds. These are contrasted with brighter times in the overworlds, but the games are not cartoony by any stretch.

Zelda III: ALttP is slightly brighter than the first two and slightly more "cartoony", but not especially so. It's also not overly cartoony relative to other games of the day.

Modern Zeldas are too plodding. When you compare the combat in the orignal 3 games to newer 3D titles, the action is very different. In old Zelda you were quickly stabbing multiple enemies, running in various directions, quickly launching ranged attacks, blocking projectiles and stabbing more foes. In new Zelda you generally lock on to one or two enemies, and wait and time your moves. Very different.

All Zeldas from the original through to MM were done in a way that was as realistic as possible for the technology available at the time. They may look bright or cartoony today, but they weren't back then, not any more than FF or Castlevania or anything else. Games like Wind Waker or SS with its watercolors detract from what should be a realistic, serious adventure. It's not so much the brightness, but the realism. A Zelda game should push the boundaries of a system and present a deep, serious adventure. Of the recent 3 Zeldas, only TP took that approach, and thats why it sold the best.

The idea that Zeldas were more action-focused in the past is not a myth. The idea that Zelda was not cartoony in the past is not a myth. Us older Zelda fans like us some action and we like a serious focus. All Zeldas are good in their own way, but seeing ALttP 2 is very exciting, and so are the comments that Zelda U will look for inspiration from the earliest Zelda games.

I think you are making the games out for far more than they actually are though. Ninja gaiden , Contra, Battletoads, Shadow of the ninja these are examples of  action heavy games on the nes, you make link sound like an agile ninja in the game when he controlled closer to a tank.

Also I think the limitation of the tech and the inexperience of the developers is what gives those darker tones rather it being purposely so, for example compare the first Super mario Bros with Mario bros 3 no doubt the first one has a "darker" tone and color scheme. Yes LTTP is more cartoony  than your average snes game.

                                

Oh yeah that first pic is a boss of game that any self respecting rpg fan should play



My 3ds friendcode: 5413-0232-9676 (G-cyber)



cyberninja45 said:
TheLastStarFighter said:

The first two Zeldas have a heavy action elements and low puzzles.

Zelda 1 you were running around, dodging attacks, shooting boomerangs, arrows and so forth. Very fast past. Some puzzles are present, but they are generally simple and involve pushing blocks or bombing walls or burning bushes.

Zelda 2 is almost an action platformer. A side-to-side action platformer where you run, jump and hack and slash. It has the fewest puzzles of any Zelda, mostly fetch keys and open doors.

Both Zelda 1&2 are dark games by NES standards. Monsters, bats, skeletons, dungeons. Black backgrounds. These are contrasted with brighter times in the overworlds, but the games are not cartoony by any stretch.

Zelda III: ALttP is slightly brighter than the first two and slightly more "cartoony", but not especially so. It's also not overly cartoony relative to other games of the day.

Modern Zeldas are too plodding. When you compare the combat in the orignal 3 games to newer 3D titles, the action is very different. In old Zelda you were quickly stabbing multiple enemies, running in various directions, quickly launching ranged attacks, blocking projectiles and stabbing more foes. In new Zelda you generally lock on to one or two enemies, and wait and time your moves. Very different.

All Zeldas from the original through to MM were done in a way that was as realistic as possible for the technology available at the time. They may look bright or cartoony today, but they weren't back then, not any more than FF or Castlevania or anything else. Games like Wind Waker or SS with its watercolors detract from what should be a realistic, serious adventure. It's not so much the brightness, but the realism. A Zelda game should push the boundaries of a system and present a deep, serious adventure. Of the recent 3 Zeldas, only TP took that approach, and thats why it sold the best.

The idea that Zeldas were more action-focused in the past is not a myth. The idea that Zelda was not cartoony in the past is not a myth. Us older Zelda fans like us some action and we like a serious focus. All Zeldas are good in their own way, but seeing ALttP 2 is very exciting, and so are the comments that Zelda U will look for inspiration from the earliest Zelda games.

I think you are making the games out for far more than they actually are though. Ninja gaiden , Contra, Battletoads, Shadow of the ninja these are examples of  action heavy games on the nes, you make link sound like an agile ninja in the game when he controlled closer to a tank.

Also I think the limitation of the tech and the inexperience of the developers is what gives those darker tones rather it being purposely so, for example compare the first Super mario Bros with Mario bros 3 no doubt the first one has a "darker" tone and color scheme. Yes LTTP is more cartoony  than your average snes game.

                                

But it isn't this:

Thankfully the game also has some darker tones:

But the choice in colors for the overworld is inexcusable. It has no appeal and looks like Playskool art:

Or like cheezy cgi:



Veknoid_Outcast said:
With a fanbase so knowledgeable and passionate, there are bound to be quibbles about art direction, mechanics, and tone. Nothing wrong with that.

However, I'm of the opinion that all the games in the series conform to a certain formula, so it's strange to me when someone claims to hate Phantom Hourglass and love Ocarina, or hate Wind Waker and love A Link to the Past.

I also strongly disagree with fans who dislike Aonuma. I believe he's done great things for the franchise.

What is so strange about it? Phantom Hourglass is basically a 2D Zelda, whereas Ocarina of Time is a 3D Zelda game. These games play completely different, it is quite understandable if someone loves one of them and hates the other. Even more extreme with Wind Waker and A Link to the Past which play COMPLETELY different.



KHlover said:
Veknoid_Outcast said:
With a fanbase so knowledgeable and passionate, there are bound to be quibbles about art direction, mechanics, and tone. Nothing wrong with that.

However, I'm of the opinion that all the games in the series conform to a certain formula, so it's strange to me when someone claims to hate Phantom Hourglass and love Ocarina, or hate Wind Waker and love A Link to the Past.

I also strongly disagree with fans who dislike Aonuma. I believe he's done great things for the franchise.

What is so strange about it? Phantom Hourglass is basically a 2D Zelda, whereas Ocarina of Time is a 3D Zelda game. These games play completely different, it is quite understandable if someone loves one of them and hates the other. Even more extreme with Wind Waker and A Link to the Past which play COMPLETELY different.

Well, that's the thing. I don't believe they play very different at all.



I love Zelda, and within that series Link to the Past is my favorite with Minish Cap being second. The 3D entries have been great, but to me top down classic style is what I want. Besides, everyone should figure Wii U Zelda will be a contrast to the 3DS entry.