The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Voiceacting

Moderators: Marilink, Booyakasha

User avatar
The Missing Link
Posts: 21402
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2000 2:00 am
Location: New Hyrule, VIC, Australia
Contact:

#21

Post by The Missing Link » Sun Dec 04, 2016 7:30 pm

I get that there's... generally... core mechanics that remain true across most Zelda games. Yes there's (some degree of) story, (some degree of) combat, (some degree of) exploration, and (some degree of) puzzle solving across most of the games.

But does the relative lack of storytelling in the early two games (or even Four Swords for that matter) constitute a lack of Zeldaness?
Does the relatively different sense of puzzle-solving in Zelda II constitute a lack of Zeldaness?
Does the linear nature (lack of exploration) in Four Swords Adventures constitute a lack of Zeldaness?
Carpe Pullum Domesticum! (Seize the Cucco!) Image

User avatar
X-3
Moderator
Posts: 23397
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 2:00 am
Location: noiɈɒɔo⅃
Been thanked: 12 times

#22

Post by X-3 » Sun Dec 04, 2016 8:10 pm

In some of those instances, I would say yes. Story, combat, exploration and puzzle-solving don't really have on-off switches as so much dials that control how important they are to a Zelda game. I think a "huh, this is pretty different from what Zelda is" reaction comes when one of the dials is turned much lower or higher than what a player expects them to be.

So, Four Swords for example has the exploration dial turned low enough that it becomes obvious that it's different from other Zelda games.

User avatar
The Missing Link
Posts: 21402
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2000 2:00 am
Location: New Hyrule, VIC, Australia
Contact:

#23

Post by The Missing Link » Sun Dec 04, 2016 8:15 pm

I get that. Totally.

But Zelda isn't a genre. It is a franchise.

To say that Four Swords doesn't exactly fall into the (waves hands) whatever genre that Ocarina of Time, Twilight Princess, and Skyward Sword happen to be in, that's fair.

To say that Four Swords isn't a "Zelda game," to me at least, seems like a reaching statement.
Carpe Pullum Domesticum! (Seize the Cucco!) Image

User avatar
X-3
Moderator
Posts: 23397
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 2:00 am
Location: noiɈɒɔo⅃
Been thanked: 12 times

#24

Post by X-3 » Sun Dec 04, 2016 8:22 pm

I agree.

User avatar
Apollo the Just
Moderator
Posts: 14943
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2006 3:37 pm
Location: Piccolo is Gohan's Real Dad
Has thanked: 23 times
Been thanked: 42 times
Contact:

#25

Post by Apollo the Just » Mon Dec 05, 2016 5:29 am

I'm of the opinion that a series or franchise should never try too hard to do the same thing in every installment. I love OoT and TP, but I also love MM. MM would never have happened if Zelda games were all trying to be the same kind of game. I think it's important for a series to have a core sense of identity, but let's be real... every single Zelda fan has a different reason for liking Zelda. Many of the recent installments have been appealing to fans who loved OoT and its kind of story. I have nothing against that because I love OoT and love its story. But that is far from every Zelda fan's experience.

For me, playing TP was the first time in recent Zelda that made me really love the and crave more of overworld exploration / feeling like a lone explorer against the world... and BotW looks like it is catering to that exact desire. I wouldn't be excited for BotW if it wasn't for TP, I think. That's just me as a 3D Zelda fan who hasn't played the 2D games. I know a lot of 2D Zelda fans who are excited because they feel this is bringing back something that has been missing from recent installments.

Maybe there are fans who don't want this kind of game. That's ok. A lot of the "risky" titles like LA and MM are divisive at least in part because they weren't Zelda enough for some fans, but to others they are absolute favorites because they appeal to exactly what they felt was missing from the more formulaic Zelda games.

What I'm saying is... defining Zelda is pointless because it'll just continue to serve the kinds of fans who like that specific definition and completely ignores the variety of fans who like the games for different reasons. It also is just creatively stifling for developers to not be able to try new things if they aren't "Zelda" enough. You don't have to like this game or what it's going for, but it sure feels Zelda to me.
I believe in second chances, and that's why I believe in you.

User avatar
Cravdraa
Posts: 9362
Joined: Wed May 30, 2001 1:00 am
Location: It's Round on the sides and high in the middle.
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 1 time

#26

Post by Cravdraa » Mon Dec 05, 2016 9:45 am

Okay, but I'm not comfortable defining Link's Crossbow training as a Zelda game. You'll have to fight me on that one, just so we're clear.

User avatar
Apollo the Just
Moderator
Posts: 14943
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2006 3:37 pm
Location: Piccolo is Gohan's Real Dad
Has thanked: 23 times
Been thanked: 42 times
Contact:

#27

Post by Apollo the Just » Mon Dec 05, 2016 9:55 am

No sorry that's actually the most Zelda game
I believe in second chances, and that's why I believe in you.

User avatar
Cravdraa
Posts: 9362
Joined: Wed May 30, 2001 1:00 am
Location: It's Round on the sides and high in the middle.
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 1 time

#28

Post by Cravdraa » Mon Dec 05, 2016 10:08 am

I see. :grumpy:


Then let this be our final battle.
:catfight:

User avatar
The Missing Link
Posts: 21402
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2000 2:00 am
Location: New Hyrule, VIC, Australia
Contact:

#29

Post by The Missing Link » Mon Dec 05, 2016 5:26 pm

[QUOTE="CuccoLady, post: 1615216, member: 30977"]What I'm saying is... defining Zelda is pointless because it'll just continue to serve the kinds of fans who like that specific definition and completely ignores the variety of fans who like the games for different reasons. It also is just creatively stifling for developers to not be able to try new things if they aren't "Zelda" enough. You don't have to like this game or what it's going for, but it sure feels Zelda to me.[/QUOTE]

Pretty much my point. Essentially, one can justifiably say, "I generally like Zelda games, but I'm not sure this specific Zelda game is for me." But one can't easily say, "That game isn't Zelda." (Unless they're talking about Halo 2 or something like that.)

[QUOTE="Cravdraa, post: 1615227, member: 21510"]Okay, but I'm not comfortable defining Link's Crossbow training as a Zelda game. You'll have to fight me on that one, just so we're clear.[/QUOTE]

Fine. But we are counting Tingle's Rosy Rupeeland though. And the CD-i games. It's only fair.
Carpe Pullum Domesticum! (Seize the Cucco!) Image

User avatar
I REALLY HATE POKEMON!
Posts: 28106
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2000 1:00 am
Location: California, U.S.A
Been thanked: 2 times

#30

Post by I REALLY HATE POKEMON! » Mon Dec 05, 2016 6:07 pm

[QUOTE="The Missing Link, post: 1615141, member: 19860"]See... okay, let me take a step back.

Define Zelda.

No seriously, define it. This is a troublesome point that I have attempted to do countless times in the past but have given up on because it's literally impossible.

Zelda is an adventure game? Nope, Zelda II is an RPG.
Zelda is a game involving dungeons? Nope, Four Swords doesn't have dungeons.
Zelda is a game with deep story? Nope, The Legend of Zelda doesn't have a lick of story in the game.
Zelda takes place in Hyrule? Nope, the Oracle games look at you.
Zelda has to have the princess and/or the Triforce? Nope, Link's Awakening.
Zelda is a game about exploration? Nope, Tri Force Heroes.
Overworld? Nope, Spirit Tracks.

The only thing that I have been able to settle on when it comes to Zelda is that it stars Link. The franchise crosses and transcends so many boundaries that it is hard to define what a Zelda game is. Certainly, for everyone out there, there is a concept of what they want Zelda to be and some algorithm to compute the difference between any given game and that ideal, but ask five people what Zelda is, and you'll get six answers.[/QUOTE]


To define Zelda all we need to do is look at Zelda for NES. That is what Zelda is, and while it can and should be experimented with and be allowed to evolve you can't say that a FPS is Zelda. It can can be called Zelda and it can star Link but it won't be a proper Zelda game. If Street Fighter VI became an RTS nobody in their right mind would defend it as a true Street Fighter game. If something strays too far from its essentials, and not just with the extreme hypothetical examples I gave, it is fair to criticize it.

Whether BotW is straying too far or not is too early to call, but I'm not sure I am comfortable with what I'm seeing yet but I'll probably try it anyway. Seems a bit westernized somehow, too, but that's just me throwing out my thoughts.

User avatar
The Missing Link
Posts: 21402
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2000 2:00 am
Location: New Hyrule, VIC, Australia
Contact:

#31

Post by The Missing Link » Mon Dec 05, 2016 6:14 pm

Link was in Soul Calibur II, just saying. :p

But more seriously, let me purposefully invent a straw man based upon what you said, IRHP, to make you clarify your thoughts further:

So because the first Zelda game was 2D, Ocarina of Time isn't a Zelda game because it's 3D?
Carpe Pullum Domesticum! (Seize the Cucco!) Image

User avatar
I REALLY HATE POKEMON!
Posts: 28106
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2000 1:00 am
Location: California, U.S.A
Been thanked: 2 times

#32

Post by I REALLY HATE POKEMON! » Mon Dec 05, 2016 9:50 pm

The Missing Link, post: 1615271, member: 19860 wrote:Link was in Soul Calibur II, just saying. :tongue:
He wasn't in the remaster.

Image
The Missing Link] But more seriously wrote:Zelda[/i] game was 2D, Ocarina of Time isn't a Zelda game because it's 3D?
The way I see OoT is that it was essentially a mechanical reimagining of LoZ/LttP. It follows that familiar formula well for being 3D. To see if Miyamoto thought the same way, I just looked it up and he says pretty much what I think:

http://www.siliconera.com/2011/03/11/sh ... s-revered/
Shigeru Miyamoto On Why The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time Is Revered:

“The foundation lies in the puzzles that have appeared in The Legend of Zelda franchise since the first game,” Miyamoto suggested, on his part. “It’s taking that traditional series material and skillfully transposing it to 3D that really makes the game The Legend of Zelda. When we took series elements and used 3D composition, things just got more and more interesting.”
All of the elements are there from LoZ and also some new ones, as usual. Once a Zelda strays too far from "series elements" it's hard to really consider it "Zelda." That is why AoL is often considered a sort of black sheep, it took the series further away than almost any other main entry has.

User avatar
The Missing Link
Posts: 21402
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2000 2:00 am
Location: New Hyrule, VIC, Australia
Contact:

#33

Post by The Missing Link » Mon Dec 05, 2016 11:28 pm

In another parallel universe AoL could have become the de facto representation of Zelda. Had it been more successful or more tailored to what people wanted, it would have happened. Take the Fallout franchise. Fallout 3 and Fallout 4 are essentially entirely different genres than Fallout the original. What does it mean to be a Fallout game? Which of those two diverse game types is more "Fallout"?

Totally I get what you're saying. And while LoZ is an inspirational point from which all other Zelda games flow, that doesn't mean LoZ is the sole definition of the franchise. LttP, OoT, MM, TP, and SS dabble with changing up the elements within the framework and mutate Zelda into a broader thing. In essence, every game in the franchise that doesn't shatter the mold manipulates the mold. It makes the series different and full of variety.

Many players who love Zelda today haven't played LoZ (and possibly weren't alive when it came out!) and therefore will have a very different sense of "what Zelda is" that doesn't even factor in the original Zelda game. In fact, as was mentioned in the PAX Australia Zelda panel on which I sat, while LoZ was revolutionary back in 1986, it's not "a good game" by modern game standards. As a result, many people will go forward from this time never really appreciating LoZ and define their Zelda on the likes of, say, Twilight Princess, Skyward Sword, or... (shudder) Phantom Hourglass.

What you mean to say -- very precisely -- is that you don't believe Breath of the Wild follows in the footsteps of the original game and therefore might not be something you will significantly appreciate. (This, technically, is something that I could very well fight you on because I see a lot of the original game's inspiration in BotW, but whether or not either of us are right won't be revealed until we see a bit more of the game!) But as to "what is Zelda?" You don't own that. The original game doesn't own that. That's something that has evolved and continues to evolve as the developers nudge it in a variety of directions.
Carpe Pullum Domesticum! (Seize the Cucco!) Image

User avatar
Random User
Posts: 12982
Joined: Sat Jun 06, 2009 11:54 am
Location: SECRET BASE INSIDE SNAKE MOUNTAIN
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 3 times
Contact:

#34

Post by Random User » Tue Dec 06, 2016 12:56 am

BotW seems to me like the closest 3D representation of what LoZ set out to do on the NES.

User avatar
I REALLY HATE POKEMON!
Posts: 28106
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2000 1:00 am
Location: California, U.S.A
Been thanked: 2 times

#35

Post by I REALLY HATE POKEMON! » Tue Dec 06, 2016 2:01 am

The Missing Link, post: 1615301, member: 19860 wrote:In another parallel universe AoL could have become the de facto representation of Zelda. Had it been more successful or more tailored to what people wanted, it would have happened. Take the Fallout franchise. Fallout 3 and Fallout 4 are essentially entirely different genres than Fallout the original. What does it mean to be a Fallout game? Which of those two diverse game types is more "Fallout"?
I never even beat FO3, and barely played a couple sessions of FO4 but from what I can tell fans are very divided on that question, so as a casual fan I can't really answer it. As for AoL, maybe it could have been more influential, but what difference would it make? It wouldn't erase its origins. Maybe Street Fighter VI will be an RTS, and maybe VII as well, and so on. All it would mean is the series changed drastically and would then be whatever it would be, an RTS in this case. In some ways it is a matter of perspective; it wouldn't be a proper Street Fighter in the eyes of most fans, like how AoL is widely considered the black sheep, it would just be an RTS based on the Street Fighter IP and that's all. Of course, you can look at it from the creator's perspective which may be different. That isn't the case with LoZ and OoT, however.
The Missing Link]Totally I get what you're saying. And while LoZ is an inspirational point from which all other [i]Zelda[/i] games flow wrote:Zelda[/i] into a broader thing. In essence, every game in the franchise that doesn't shatter the mold manipulates the mold. It makes the series different and full of variety.
Of course LoZ isn't the only consideration when making later games but it certainly was a guideline at least until OoT, I'm sure it still had a heavy influence after that as well. According to Miyamoto the foundation of the series is still the same as it was in LoZ. Dumping Link in an ocean or putting him on a train isn't going to change that too much, neither will giving him a gimmicky wolf form or controlling him with a stylus or motion controls, but there's clearly some limit and they're aware of it.
The Missing Link]Many players who love [i]Zelda[/i] today haven't played LoZ (and possibly weren't alive when it came out!) and therefore will have a very different sense of wrote:Zelda[/i] is" that doesn't even factor in the original Zelda game. In fact, as was mentioned in the PAX Australia Zelda panel on which I sat, while LoZ was revolutionary back in 1986, it's not "a good game" by modern game standards. As a result, many people will go forward from this time never really appreciating LoZ and define their Zelda on the likes of, say, Twilight Princess, Skyward Sword, or... (shudder) Phantom Hourglass.
Zelda came out February 21, 1986 and it definitely shows. I have at least played it and was alive for its American release, so that's close enough, right? I appreciate what it did for gaming and see a very good core structure, but it is not a good game by today's standards, IMO. Still, I think it's an important check list for the series. Even if someone defined Zelda by Twilight Princess they'd still be defining it by LoZ because it's just edgy OoT with gimmicks which is just 3D LoZ.
The Missing Link]What you mean to say -- very precisely -- is that you don't believe [i]Breath of the Wild[/i] follows in the footsteps of the original game and therefore might not be something you will significantly appreciate. (This wrote:Zelda[/i]?" You don't own that. The original game doesn't own that. That's something that has evolved and continues to evolve as the developers nudge it in a variety of directions.
What I mean to say is that there are lots of signs that this game will be a significant departure from the rest of the main series. It seems like it will be another AoL in the sense that it could be something quite different from much of what came before it. The most notable differences to me include the physics, mechanics, and item usage. Aonuma has been pretty open about the changes, saying they're rethinking Zelda conventions and that he wants to alter series norms. I don't mind some changes, I actually want them because there's no point in rehashing LoZ and OoT infinitely, but this just doesn't feel like Zelda to me. With so many changes, both big and small, all at once I think it's a bit much. Even little things like the color of Link's clothes, the subtitle, his being right-handed, and even the terminology they use to refer to the game ("open-air") hint to me that they're purposefully trying to reinvent the series even more drastically than they let on. However, to me it just seems like someone looked at LoZ and said "how can we make this Skyrim and Dark Souls" because none of it seems particularly fresh, just different from Zelda and familiar to other games.

I'd rather they went with a sci-fi setting or completely changed genres again if they're going to make big changes, not just copy similar games.

Anyway, I don't need to own anything. Ignoring Aonuma's desire to now change the series and focusing on your question about if OoT is a Zelda game or not thanks to it being 3D, I actually think that OoT is a perfect example of how to change a series while keeping the formula the same. Miyamoto happens to agree and "what is Zelda" is something he owns/owned. Aonuma doesn't seem like he's able to change the series enough to keep it interesting while maintaining the classic formula, and that's a tall order so I can't fault him, but it's his job to make it happen. I consider what he's doing to be a bit lazy.

I should say, I still think it will be a good game for what it is, and it isn't changing so much to the point where I wouldn't at all recognize it as a Zelda game. I'll definitely reserve full judgement until I try it.

User avatar
е и ժ е я
Supermod
Posts: 41090
Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2002 1:00 am
Location: Enough. My tilde has tired and shall take its leave of you.
Has thanked: 38 times
Been thanked: 16 times
Contact:

#36

Post by е и ժ е я » Tue Dec 06, 2016 1:33 pm

Looks more like a proper Zelda than the majority of the 3D titles. Nonlinear action with a dark fantasy theme is pretty much one of the only things truly core to the series. If anything, TES and Souls are a lot closer to the core aspects of LoZ than Skyward Sword or Twilight Princess.

Though I wouldn't take the opinion of anyone who can't enjoy the first game. I mean, I own the original FDS version and the japanese guide for it, so of course I think it's a good game. You can like the Ocarina formula but it's not the only way to make a Zelda. I'd say it honestly is a pretty watered down version, actually. But you know what they say, everyone's got their own opinions. It's just that mine is more right than theirs.

Glad to see the Ihop Seal of Quality is stamped upon the surface of this new title as it is the Switch. Wild Breath confirmed for Gotye.
I muttered 'light as a board, stiff as a feather' for 2 days straight and now I've ascended, ;aughing at olympus and zeus is crying

User avatar
I REALLY HATE POKEMON!
Posts: 28106
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2000 1:00 am
Location: California, U.S.A
Been thanked: 2 times

#37

Post by I REALLY HATE POKEMON! » Tue Dec 06, 2016 2:10 pm

As TML said, LoZ simply isn't that good by modern standards. If it released today it wouldn't even stack up against some of the merely decent indie titles available, music aside. LttP holds up infinitely better and it will resist age for far longer despite being released only 5 years after LoZ. Seeing as Zelda series rankings and general "best games of all time" lists generally feature either LttP or OoT near or at the top and not LoZ, it seems you wouldn't take a lot of people's opinions, maybe most people's. Nostalgia goggles are hard to remove or sometimes even notice, but since I didn't grow up with LoZ I don't even have them.

User avatar
X-3
Moderator
Posts: 23397
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 2:00 am
Location: noiɈɒɔo⅃
Been thanked: 12 times

#38

Post by X-3 » Tue Dec 06, 2016 4:03 pm

There's not enough sudden and gratitious rape, ungodly horrors and politics for Zelda to be dark fantasy

User avatar
е и ժ е я
Supermod
Posts: 41090
Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2002 1:00 am
Location: Enough. My tilde has tired and shall take its leave of you.
Has thanked: 38 times
Been thanked: 16 times
Contact:

#39

Post by е и ժ е я » Thu Dec 08, 2016 3:21 am

^ I think the brutal, cursed, post-civilization setting and undead nightmares from Zelda are in disagreement with that sentiment. It's just got different window dressing, the elements are all there.

^^ OoT being "best game ever" is nostalgia goggles at its finest. I played Zelda when it was current, but didn't own it and never finished it until I was older and the SNES wasn't even current at the time. It lost some of its magic (as a kid, even the gold cartridge made it seem like some holy artifact) but it is definitely a gem in the rough. I like it in a huge way because the parts of the gameplay that matter are what's present. None of the fat. The forward-only combat and grid-like movement promotes very tactical gameplay. It is not made in the same way that current games are. There are few games that feel similar, even today, and that is not simply because they have improved but rather that industry perceptions are very different and design has become more and more homogenized.

But you're making impractical leaps. Simply because the mainstream honors Ocarina does not mean that they cannot enjoy LoZ or its elements. That's an irrational conclusion.

Miyamoto was incorrect in the quote above. There were not many puzzles in the first Zelda, if you could even say that the game contains puzzles. There was a deliberate lack of proper information, peppered with hints. The gameplay was framed as a persistent world, the first of its kind, at the time. It was created to sell the concept of long-form gameplay and exploration over the bite-sized arcade format which was designed to fleece quarters from players, to justify the FDS. Ocarina is a dated facsimile of that concept, and it was restricted heavily by the Mario 64 engine it was based upon as well as the rudimentary limits of the N64. Take Hyrule Field, for instance. You cannot see the other side of it, there is almost no height - the walls are all one story tall. The ranch obscures the far sides. This was all on purpose, because the N64 could not handle a draw distance. Understanding how the persistent world and tone, or at least the perception of it, is important to the core of the franchise is integral to understanding the appeal of the franchise.

The puzzles are important to one thing in particular, and that is selling sequels. Sandbox worlds are becoming commonplace. Nintendo needs dungeon puzzles, character contrivances, etc, to push their new games over their old ones and those of their competitors. We're reaching a point where almost all of the major players in the industry are creating these persistent fantasy worlds, so of course you will see similarity. The barriers to entry are down. Watching Zelda tackle it in a way unique to its concepts and those relating to the past games in the series is what makes it worthwhile. Other games are marketed with their base-level story concepts as the primary push, but very few of them are actually pushing any sense of wonderment and unknown as Zelda does.

So I feel I understand the perspective that another OoT-derived Zelda would do. But I see that OoT was an attempt to create the appearance of a Zelda game on immature hardware, and it is now inevitable that many fans will unrealistically expect Zelda to adhere to that intermediate format. If that is what you expect more of, then you are expecting disappointment.


Beside that, I see these massive tentacled machines as obvious derivation from octoroks, and these vast open lands as what the concept and promotional art of Zelda have always promised. Nintendo continues to create concepts which feel similar but new in the sense that we may now guess. It's the rest of the industry's adherence to conceptual norms and linear trends which makes their variations less remarkable. Perhaps they may step outside the bounds of what constitutes Zelda to you, but the complaints you've made all fall in line with this assessment and I will likely be happy with the game if it does make good on the core ideas which set Zelda apart. The superficial is much less important to me.
I muttered 'light as a board, stiff as a feather' for 2 days straight and now I've ascended, ;aughing at olympus and zeus is crying

User avatar
Daos
Posts: 8878
Joined: Sat Apr 20, 2002 1:00 am
Location: Earth

#40

Post by Daos » Mon Jan 09, 2017 11:21 am

Sorry to bump a month old topic but have you seen this concept art from Breath of the Wild? I really thing it supports your idea that the game is more of a callback to the original then any of the past titles.
Image

Does it look familiar? That's because it's very similar to art of the original LoZ.
Image

I grew up with the original Zelda games and honestly I felt like those games were more about exploration at your pace and just exploring the world way before Elder Scrolls or any of the other games that get attention for being open world.

And yes, I did see them as dark fantasy. There may not have been cutscenes or much dialogue but in the original people were hiding in caves from the monsters who were everywhere. Ganon ruled the kingdom. In the 2nd game you did have towns but you had Ganon's spies in the towns and there was still a pretty dark and oppressive atmosphere to it all.

Post Reply

Return to “The Legend of Zelda: See That Mountain?”