In Mario, all of the characters have looked basically the same since Super Mario World, Luigi was always tall and had a different mustache, Mario was always shorter, with his own mustache, too. But the Zelda series was always kind of a mixed bag. Link has always had mostly the same appearance throughout the franchise, besides of course early merchandise and Wind Waker, and Wind Waker link looked so different, that Nintendo didn't even consider them as the same character in Smash 4, Toon Link is seperate from normal Link. He also had purple hair in Link to the Past which I always found odd. But Zelda, nobody seems to know what she looks like, or what she's supposed to act like for that matter.
In Twilight Princess, she looks like this, which is the look they adapted for most Smash Bros. Games
I'm not very familiar with Twilight Princess, but from what I've gathered, in this game she appears to be dark hair, she acts kind of dark as well. But then we get Skyward Sword
This iteration of Zelda is basically the complete opposite of how she was in Twilight Princess, she has blonde hair, is always cheerful, and overall really friendly. I haven't played Breath of the Wild yet, but Zelda is different once again! What's going on? Are these the same people? If so, why hasn't Nintendo created a solid example of who Zelda is after all these years?
They have the same name, but they're not the same people.
Edit: Even ignoring the inevitable timeline arguments, the Master Sword (as named) was created (or reforged from the Goddess Sword or whatever) in Skyward Sword aided by a Link that is older than the one who finds it already forged in Ocarina of Time. There are lots of things like this. They were never intended to always be the same people.
Then why are they all named Zelda? If Nintendo wanted it to be simple, it would make sense for them to either just use the same person each time, or at least give them different names. Of course, Nintendo clearly isn't aiming to be simple with their timeline, that's why it's still debated by a bunch of nerds on the internet!
DementedPurple wrote:
Then why are they all named Zelda? If Nintendo wanted it to be simple, it would make sense for them to either just use the same person each time, or at least give them different names. Of course, Nintendo clearly isn't aiming to be simple with their timeline, that's why it's still debated by a bunch of nerds on the internet!
The timeline question aside, it's not uncommon for real life royalty to reuse the same name across generations.
If you even care to ask why they're all called Zelda, it may be even more questionable on why the protagonists are all called Link, not to mention the games are called Legend of Zelda, so it is reasonable that in each of the universes/timelines there is a princess named Zelda, and the male protagonist in each setting is not necessarily named the same, yet they're still called Link (there may be an official reason to that but I don't really care).
I think this does not apply to Ganon/Gannon though as he's actually the very same villain in all the settings (correct me if I am wrong).
Isn't the fate of Link and Zelda determined by the goddesses anyway?
I.e. Link is not some random guy who accidentally stumbles into the adventure, he's literally the chosen one. That's why every Link has the same name and the same basic outfit.
Same with Zelda.
And yes, Ganon is always the same, simply getting resurrected Dracula/"Castlevania"-style if he has died in the previous game.
Well, due to the three timelines, Ganon still exists in three different variations, just like there are two different versions of George McFly. But within the same timeline, there are not multiple Ganons, but multiple Zeldas and Links.
One thing I find curious: There is one more Zelda than there is a Link: "Zelda II" had the same hero from "Zelda I", but a different princess who was put into a sleep many centuries ago.
So, that Zelda from the second game: Is she also one of the Zeldas, chosen by the goddesses? Or is she just a normal princess who simply happens to have the same name by coincidence? Because when her main story happened, she didn't seem to have her own hero named Link to rescue her, nor was her story tied to Ganon.
I think Link and Zelda are redesigned in every game for the same reason it's done in any other game series. It's to make sure the series is kept fresh and interest for it among old and new players is not lost. I guess Nintendo just didn't feel it was necessary to do it as much with the Mario series (although that one also slowly changes).
The dark look of Twilight Princess was obviously made because of criticism that the Wind Waker look got, and this is reflected on the character design (Link and Zelda both used to be mostly blonde except maybe for Link in Zelda 1). And Skyward Sword got a look with something in between the two last games to appeal to a larger mass and just to plainly make it beautiful, I think they succeeded with that. In Breath of the Wild they have a more nomadic or wild look etc.
Yeah Link and Zelda are usually not the same persons through out the games except for Link in Zelda 1 and 2 are the same (but there are two different Zeldas as DRW said), Link in A Link to the Past are the same as in Link's Awakening and the two Oracle games and finally Link in Ocarina of Time is the same as in Majoras Mask. I think possibly both Links and Zeldas are reincarnations of previous ones in some cases and their names may be part of divine interventions as DRW suspects. And although all the Zeldas are of the same royal blood line, Link is usually unrelated to other Links. One exception may be the ALttP Link who is, together with his uncle, the last descendants of the knights of Hyrule who fought Ganon. It's possible that Ocarina of Time Link is supposed to be this knight, but I'm not sure about that.
Also the Twilight Princess Link may not be a reincarnation of the Hero of Time though since he meets and receives lessons from his spirit in the game. I don't think his spirit can be in two places at once.
I'm not sure about goddess interventions in Zelda 2 but the game explains why the Zelda from Zelda 1 has the same name as the Zelda from Zelda 2 (all baby girls in the royal household had to be named Zelda after that sleeping beauty incident). But considering there are tons of Zeldas before her in the royal household it doesn't really say much.
I could be wrong but I I'm not sure if Nintendo planned the series to be in the same universe from the start. When ALttP came out it felt more like a reboot or alternate universe reusing the same characters and places. OoT however was clearly made to be the backstory of ALttP, but they screwed up and made it super complicated which had to be fixed with alternate timelines and what not.
Pokun wrote:
One exception may be the ALttP Link who is, together with his uncle, the last descendants of the knights of Hyrule who fought Ganon. It's possible that Ocarina of Time Link is supposed to be this knight, but I'm not sure about that.
ALttP plays in the fallen timeline where Link of OoT died in the final battle against Ganon. That's why Ganon had to be defeated by the knights instead of the Hero of Time.
But even if the fallen timeline didn't exist, it's logically impossible that the uncle is a descendent of OoT Link.
Because at the end of OoT, Link was sent back into his child days where Ganondorf could be stopped long before anything serious happened.
So, in the timeline where the big showdown with Ganon happened, the Hero of Time disappeared because he was sent back in time, so this timeline didn't have a Link anymore, hence he couldn't have any children there.
Pokun wrote:
I'm not sure about goddess interventions in Zelda 2 but the game explains why the Zelda from Zelda 1 has the same name as the Zelda from Zelda 2 (all baby girls in the royal household had to be named Zelda after that sleeping beauty incident). But considering there are tons of Zeldas before her in the royal household it doesn't really say much.
Which is pretty ironic: Zelda from part 1 is one of
the Zeldas. One of the Zeldas who is connected to Link and Ganon.
While the Zelda from part 2 is obviously just some random princess.
But still, the one from part 1 (the predestined one) is named after the one from part 2 (the regular one).
Pokun wrote:
I could be wrong but I I'm not sure if Nintendo planned the series to be in the same universe from the start. When ALttP came out it felt more like a reboot or alternate universe reusing the same characters and places. OoT however was clearly made to be the backstory of ALttP, but they screwed up and made it super complicated which had to be fixed with alternate timelines and what not.
ALttP was also intended as a prequel to the NES games. They even mentioned Link and Zelda from those games in the box texts and (Japanese?) manual.
So, yeah, it was intended as an on-going series.
OoT then included the timeline split. (And to fill the plot hole where ALttP says that knights defeated Ganon, they invented this third timeline/alternate continuity where Link was defeated by Ganon, so other people had to fight him afterwards.)
Link looks roughly the same because he's the avatar for the player, and "needs" to be familiar so that the player can easily identify with him.
Zelda is mostly just the object of the game herself or closely related to the object of the game, or some part of it, and "needs" to be changed to provide change between games.
---
Anyway, is there a rationale for zelda being a different zelda in zelda 2? I don't remember the game explaining that and I thought everyone at the time, perhaps people at nintendo included, thought that all actors where the same between 1 and 2.
There's this line right at the start of the game:
"After ganon was destroyed, Impa told Link a sleeping spell was cast on princess Zelda". That implies full continuity.
They certainly appear ti be the same in the officially endorsed tv-series that was based on these two, even if they revamped zelda to be more of an actual person with her own agenda. Of which the comic version basically shaped my perception of what zelda ought to look like forever (i think they drew he with a little more expression in the tv series, but i didn't see that until later).
It's such a shame they never returned to badass zelda:
What do you mean Link looks the same? Both Link and Zelda has changed roughly the same amount through out the series.
Canonically the two Zeldas in the first two games are two different princesses of the same royal family. Just try the Japanese FDS Zelda 2 and you will see it clearly says "another princess Zelda". The localizers just screwed up a bit when they fixed the Engrish and managed to hide that fact, but it's still clearly stated in the manual backstory (which is an excellent translation of the Japanese manual).
The American TV series and Valiant comics mixes Zelda 1 and 2 and only have one princess, of course it's not canon in any way. My image of Link and Zelda was partly formed from those comics but it soon changed as it didn't fit well with later games that had more dialogue. Zelda is said to be a bit of a tomboy (heard from gossip stones) but she still can act like a princess at least.
DRW wrote:
Pokun wrote:
One exception may be the ALttP Link who is, together with his uncle, the last descendants of the knights of Hyrule who fought Ganon. It's possible that Ocarina of Time Link is supposed to be this knight, but I'm not sure about that.
ALttP plays in the fallen timeline where Link of OoT died in the final battle against Ganon. That's why Ganon had to be defeated by the knights instead of the Hero of Time.
But even if the fallen timeline didn't exist, it's logically impossible that the uncle is a descendent of OoT Link.
Because at the end of OoT, Link was sent back into his child days where Ganondorf could be stopped long before anything serious happened.
So, in the timeline where the big showdown with Ganon happened, the Hero of Time disappeared because he was sent back in time, so this timeline didn't have a Link anymore, hence he couldn't have any children there.
Yes and that's the thing, the backstory of Alttp tells that the knight(s) were defeated by Ganon but the fight bought time for the sages to seal Ganon. If Link is this knight or one of them, it makes sense if he lost against Ganon in OoT. Though if that is the case and he died in the battle, he must have left (illegitimate) descendants after him sometime during the game before the final battle in the game. If he was defeated but somehow survived however it's not a problem.
DRW wrote:
Pokun wrote:
I'm not sure about goddess interventions in Zelda 2 but the game explains why the Zelda from Zelda 1 has the same name as the Zelda from Zelda 2 (all baby girls in the royal household had to be named Zelda after that sleeping beauty incident). But considering there are tons of Zeldas before her in the royal household it doesn't really say much.
Which is pretty ironic: Zelda from part 1 is one of
the Zeldas. One of the Zeldas who is connected to Link and Ganon.
While the Zelda from part 2 is obviously just some random princess.
But still, the one from part 1 (the predestined one) is named after the one from part 2 (the regular one).
More interesting though, who did Link hook up with? I bet it was Zelda 2 Zelda as he kisses her behind the curtains. He is such a playboy having two princesses, but not as much as Hero of Time though, sweeping off the feet of every girl he meets and then runs away after the smallest one (Navi) to the forest.
DRW wrote:
Pokun wrote:
I could be wrong but I I'm not sure if Nintendo planned the series to be in the same universe from the start. When ALttP came out it felt more like a reboot or alternate universe reusing the same characters and places. OoT however was clearly made to be the backstory of ALttP, but they screwed up and made it super complicated which had to be fixed with alternate timelines and what not.
ALttP was also intended as a prequel to the NES games. They even mentioned Link and Zelda from those games in the box texts and (Japanese?) manual.
So, yeah, it was intended as an on-going series.
OoT then included the timeline split. (And to fill the plot hole where ALttP says that knights defeated Ganon, they invented this third timeline/alternate continuity where Link was defeated by Ganon, so other people had to fight him afterwards.)
Yeah it's possible. Although at the time I thought they did a university switch. It was very common in the RPG genre after all.
I don't remember that from the Japanese manual though.
The map in Alttp seems to be designed after the Zelda 1 map. The Zelda 1 map is in ruins though, Kakariko is a grave yard and the castle is pretty much gone. The sea has also strangely appeared in place of Lake Hylia. The mountain has also been renamed from Hera back to Death Mountain again. Actually Zelda 1 is the only game where the name makes sense as it's the big bad's hideout, and not just some innocent mountain that has got an unfortunate name. I guess that's why the renamed it to Hera in AlttP.
Pokun wrote:
Canonically the two Zeldas in the first two games are two different princesses of the same royal family. Just try the Japanese FDS Zelda 2 and you will see it clearly says "another princess Zelda".
The manual (also the English one) makes it even clearer.
Pokun wrote:
Yes and that's the thing, the backstory of Alttp tells that the knight(s) were defeated by Ganon but the fight bought time for the sages to seal Ganon. If Link is this knight or one of them, it makes sense if he lost against Ganon in OoT.
I'm pretty sure Link is not supposed to be the knight.
Pokun wrote:
Though if that is the case and he died in the battle, he must have left (illegitimate) descendants after him sometime during the game before the final battle in the game. If he was defeated but somehow survived however it's not a problem.
Pretty unlikely. He went from the child timeline to the adult timeline. I doubt there's a possibility for him to hook up with some woman in the meantime.
And no matter if he wins or loses: If he loses, he's dead anyway. And if he wins, he's transported back into the past.
Hence, neither the fallen timeline not the adult timeline can have descendents of that Link. He was brought back to the past and lived out his live from that point on. So, the Hero of Time only existed in the child timeline in the end.
The most simple assumption is that ALttP Link is not blood-related with OoT Link.
Pokun wrote:
More interesting though, who did Link hook up with? I bet it was Zelda 2 Zelda as he kisses her behind the curtains.
Yes, that's the only canon instance where Link and Zelda actually hook up. Part 1 has no romance indication, but part 2 has. Which also makes sense: The legendary Link never hooks up with the legendary Zelda. But the Zelda from this game is just one random princess and not one of those divinely chosen beings.
Quote:
Just try the Japanese FDS Zelda 2 and you will see it clearly says "another princess Zelda". The localizers just screwed up a bit when they fixed the Engrish and managed to hide that fact, but it's still clearly stated in the manual backstory (which is an excellent translation of the Japanese manual)
Oh, i see. I never owned the game and only borrowed it as a kid, so that fact has evaded me until now.
Doctor: Where does it hurt?
Me: All over my childhood
Quote:
What do you mean Link looks the same? Both Link and Zelda has changed roughly the same amount through out the series.
No, i don't think so - which is the premise of this thread;
why does/do [the] zelda[s] change so much?. Regardless the general art style, the different links are up until BotW always recognizeable for their green tunic, hood, hairstyle (with the one-shot, very mid-90:s fashion change of hairstyle from oblique fringe to gelled middle part seen in ocarina of time). The extent of his fashion change were between whether he'd wear mustard-yellow or white tights. The face has basically the same features beneath the stylism of the day. Not seen in the attached pic someone has done is the game boy title, but it's also a very close match, as you can see in the cutscenes.
Zelda held on to her half-apron through majora's mask to Spirit tracks based on the tunic from OoT, but in all else she's changed. Curly hair, straight hair, different haircuts, different headwear, different jewelry, definitely different dresses, and several faces that cannot be wholly explained by change of art style.
The best consistency we get is between windwaker, minish cap, and spirit tracks.
Yeah, the tv series and the comics are surely decanonized since long if not immediately after their airing/publication. But at the time they were active, they were officially sanctioned by NOA and formed the perception of link and zelda kids had in (the) america(s?) and europe of that time when zelda 1 and 2 still were fresh. I think that was the general perception kids had (maybe with the exception of the LttP comics) up until OoT showed up with a more liberal, remixing approach to the series.
I really would have liked a third part for the NES that is a direct continuation of the second game and where you see both Zeldas.
Yeah a sequel would be cool but it might be hard to build a story upon that. Link is basically chosen the new ruler of Hyrule (whichever Zelda he picked as wife) holding the Triforce with its full potential. Ganon, who he killed earlier, can't be resurrected without his blood. With Ganon gone and so much power in hand, who is going to stand in his way?
Quote:
No, i don't think so - which is the premise of this thread...
I don't get it. The only Zelda I can see there that had a big change without Link also having a big change is the Skyward Sword one, and that's mostly because she isn't a princess yet.
Quote:
Yeah, the tv series and the comics are surely decanonized since long if not immediately after their airing/publication. But at the time they were active, they were officially sanctioned by NOA and formed the perception of link and zelda kids had in (the) america(s?) and europe of that time when zelda 1 and 2 still were fresh. I think remember that was the general perception until OoT showed up with a more liberal, remixing approach to the series.
NOA here and NOA there why are everyone so crazy about NOA and those stupid TV series and comics? They didn't make Zelda and they definitely don't decide what's canon. They never did and never will.
DRW wrote:
I'm pretty sure Link is not supposed to be the knight.
It used to be clear to me that he was, until I remembered that the knights actually lost the war. Then Nintendo made up the defeat timeline and it made sense again.
Although Alttp clearly says knights (both language versions) he is still just a forest tomte (google it) in OoT and is never really knighted or anything in the game.
Quote:
Pretty unlikely. He went from the child timeline to the adult timeline. I doubt there's a possibility for him to hook up with some woman in the meantime.
And no matter if he wins or loses: If he loses, he's dead anyway. And if he wins, he's transported back into the past.
Well he do manages to gather quite a number of groupies, so that's not a problem. The fact that it is never depicted in the game is however.
Quote:
Yes, that's the only canon instance where Link and Zelda actually hook up. Part 1 has no romance indication, but part 2 has. Which also makes sense: The legendary Link never hooks up with the legendary Zelda. But the Zelda from this game is just one random princess and not one of those divinely chosen beings.
That's one boring rule. It's never really clear if he manages to hook up with any Zelda or not although there are clear hints of a romance in many games. Also it's not so clear what Zeldas are "chosen ones" and not. I think the goddesses are often dabbling in their lives as answers to prayers and such.
Quote:
I don't get it. The only Zelda I can see there that had a big change without Link also having a big change is the Skyward Sword one, and that's mostly because she isn't a princess yet.
To be fair, the change from the christian cross to a proper triforce crest is a pretty dramatic and lore changing difference, and both have undergone a change of hairtone. Else, i think link is a lot less changing. I guess we just decode these renditions differently.
Quote:
NOA here and NOA there why are everyone so crazy about NOA and those stupid TV series and comics? They didn't make Zelda and they definitely don't decide what's canon. They never did and never will.
Because affection is not about canon. It's about experience. Because if you're from Europe, Australia, N. or S. America, what you experienced as a kid was NOA:s version and NOA:s side products. While the japanese version is the original and canon and that's a fact and a thing to appreciate in hindsight, i think denying or retconning ones' personal past experience would be artificial (historical revisionism on a personal level) and in discord with your true memory if you played these games in the 80s or early 90s in said regions. Obviously people are going to be crazy about NOA and "those stupid TV series and comics" - it's a genuine childhood experience for those living in these regions at that time, while the japanese version is not an experience they had at all. Whatever the japanese version said or displayed doesn't hold any nostalgic value for this generation/this group, however interesting it might be to study or rewarding to appreciate.
Zelda represents the identity of each game. BotW, Skyward Sword, Wind Waker and Ocarina of Time are all very different approaches to Hyrule and the story (legend) of Zelda. You have the playful pirate Zelda, you have the Zelda that goes undercover to fight Ganon herself, and you even got the apparent romantic interest to Link.
Meanwhile, Link is a vessel for the player. I feel his design has changed as much as Zelda's, with some basic guidelines remaining intact. Zelda's clothes have changed more often (red to blue to a more consistent purple from OOT on), but she's always recognizable. If it feels like she changes more than that, I'd say it's because they usually tend to actually give her a personality too.
As for the timeline, I can't believe anyone cares about that. Nintendo sure don't.
Quote:
Zelda represents the identity of each game. [...] Link is a vessel for the player.
This.
Though I'm still waiting for them to turn the tables and let Zelda canonically be the vessel and Link a catalysator or object of the game. They considered it for BotW but went with the conservative approach anyway, with this expressed pretext (quote from memory): "But then we had this problem: If zelda was the hero, what would then link do?"
Oh i don't know, maybe be under a sleep spell or in a situation where he needs to be rescued or in a 100 year long stasis like he is in the beginning of the game? Not too hard to imagine. Damn, gender roles die hard..
edit:
Quote:
If it feels like she changes more than that, I'd say it's because they usually tend to actually give her a personality too.
That's a good point. Link is basically this empty vehicle to ride most of the time, a bit like Samus up until Other:M but less extremely so. So when they give zelda a personality that's more fleshed out than links', it's almost bound to change in some way between productions.
Pokun wrote:
Link is basically chosen the new ruler of Hyrule (whichever Zelda he picked as wife) holding the Triforce with its full potential.
Link wouldn't be the ruler. His love interest is the ancient Zelda, not the currently ruling one. And that one was never supposed to be a ruler to begin with since she was just the younger sister of the crown prince.
Pokun wrote:
Ganon, who he killed earlier, can't be resurrected without his blood.
I'm pretty sure they would have found a way to bring Ganon back or to create an even more impressive villain. (Back then, it would have been possible to create a new villain in every game.)
But Link's shadow was a pretty underwhelming final opponent for the final chapter.
I always loved the typical gender roles though. But they could always make a spinoff with Zelda as hero. They did make Super Princess Peach after all, and she manages to do it while still not being an inch of a tomboy unlike Zelda. I guess it's part of her strength.
FrankenGraphics wrote:
Quote:
I don't get it. The only Zelda I can see there that had a big change without Link also having a big change is the Skyward Sword one, and that's mostly because she isn't a princess yet.
To be fair, the change from the christian cross to a proper triforce crest is a pretty dramatic and lore changing difference, and both have undergone a change of hairtone. Else, i think link is a lot less changing. I guess we just decode these renditions differently.
Oh Hyrule always had bibles and crosses, but it's just a change of style. Yeah I guess we do, or maybe I'm blind because Zelda's different looks are so established in my mind.
FrankenGraphics wrote:
Quote:
NOA here and NOA there why are everyone so crazy about NOA and those stupid TV series and comics? They didn't make Zelda and they definitely don't decide what's canon. They never did and never will.
Because affection is not about canon. It's about experience. Because if you're from Europe, Australia, N. or S. America, what you experienced as a kid was NOA:s version and NOA:s side products. While the japanese version is the original and canon and that's a fact and a thing to appreciate in hindsight, i think denying or retconning ones' personal past experience would be artificial (historical revisionism on a personal level) and in discord with your true memory if you played these games in the 80s or early 90s in said regions. Obviously people are going to be crazy about NOA and "those stupid TV series and comics" - it's a genuine childhood experience for those living in these regions at that time, while the japanese version is not an experience they had at all. Whatever the japanese version said or displayed doesn't hold any nostalgic value for this generation/this group, however interesting it might be to study or rewarding to appreciate.
Oh I loved those comics as much as you did back in the day. It was the only media depicting my favourite game characters outside the games themselves. As later games released I quickly realized that those comics are quite poor representation of the world and has nothing to do with the canon. The comics aren't actually anything special if it wasn't for the games they are based on, while the games actually has proper story and character. The TV series was many times worse than the comics.
Sumez wrote:
and you even got the apparent romantic interest to Link.
Oh come on! Admit it, Link and Zelda always had the hots for each other. Anti-Zelda shippers always baffles me.
Quote:
Meanwhile, Link is a vessel for the player. I feel his design has changed as much as Zelda's, with some basic guidelines remaining intact. Zelda's clothes have changed more often (red to blue to a more consistent purple from OOT on), but she's always recognizable. If it feels like she changes more than that, I'd say it's because they usually tend to actually give her a personality too.
As for the timeline, I can't believe anyone cares about that. Nintendo sure don't.
Yeah I think she always had a Zelda air about her, just as Link has a Link air about.
Nintendo sure cares about the timeline. Well at least to the point that they bothered keeping it and even releasing it. When designing new Zelda games I think they are quite liberal of what they can do, they can always come up with something ridiculous that fills plot holes later.
DRW wrote:
Pokun wrote:
Link is basically chosen the new ruler of Hyrule (whichever Zelda he picked as wife) holding the Triforce with its full potential.
Link wouldn't be the ruler. His love interest is the ancient Zelda, not the currently ruling one. And that one was never supposed to be a ruler to begin with since she was just the younger sister of the crown prince.
In the backstory the sleeping Zelda's father says he's not truly going to pass the Triforce of courage until a man with all the qualifying attributes appears, ignoring the normal law of throne succession to prevent corruptness because of the vast power the full Triforce gives you. Link is that man and he passes the test and receives the final Triforce. Who but Link is qualified to rule the kingdom after that? I guess he is pretty much forced to marry one of the Zeldas though or the royal blood will not be succeeded.
DRW wrote:
Pokun wrote:
Ganon, who he killed earlier, can't be resurrected without his blood.
I'm pretty sure they would have found a way to bring Ganon back or to create an even more impressive villain. (Back then, it would have been possible to create a new villain in every game.)
But Link's shadow was a pretty underwhelming final opponent for the final chapter.
Yeah well you can always think up of something. I think Link's shadow was an excellent choice of final opponent though (besides the fact that you can duck in a corner). The Link of Zelda 1 and 2 is a very powerful Link, he single handedly defeated Ganon when he still was almost a kid and qualified for the Triforce a few years later, mastering both the sword and different types of magic. At the end of Zelda 2 what would be a more fearsome enemy than a dark version of himself possessing his power? Conquering his dark side is the final test to qualify for the Triforce as at that point it's seemingly the only enemy he has left that can compete with him.
Pokun wrote:
I always loved the typical gender roles though. But they could always make a spinoff with Zelda as hero. They did make Super Princess Peach after all, and she manages to do it while still not being an inch of a tomboy unlike Zelda. I guess it's part of her strength.
Have you
played Super Princess Peach?
Her super powers are literally her female mood swings, it's the entire theme of the game. It's extremely distasteful.
But I agree. A playable Zelda in a non-CDi game is way, way overdue. I genuinely expected BotW would have had it back when they first teased her character in a trailer.
Pokun wrote:
Oh come on! Admit it, Link and Zelda always had the hots for each other. Anti-Zelda shippers always baffles me.
Aside from the NES games (Zelda 2 obviously ends with the two making out), it's been hinted at best. Skyward Sword was the first game to outright establish a relationship between the two. I was actually very surprised that Nintendo would make it so hamfisted - I kinda liked the subtlety.
Quote:
Super princess peach
I think this game is good way on being as misogynist one can get without being sexually objectifying.
When i played it, this sequence was going through my head:
Designer 1: So um... let's make a peach game. As for character traits: Peach is a woman, let's focus on that solely. I don't know any women, not really, do you?
Designer 2: No but i think they have wild mood swings all the time, they seem to cry a lot too.
Designer 1: *scribbles*
Some office guy leaning in through the door: And they seem to use their emotions to manipulate their surroundings, like my ex.
Designer 1: *sribble scribble* ...aaand done! Another masterpiece to proudly add to our name.
The game in itself was pretty good, but personally i couldn't stomach the caricature-like premise and never went on to see it through to the end. The two friends who had played it too said something similar.
----
I like though for giggles (from video footage, never played 'em, never will) that zelda in her first cd-i title is somewhat of a sociopath;
-"Agh, youuu kiiiilled meee..."
-"Good
"
There's also something creepy about her in the ending scene when she releases Link / plays him.
I'm glad we see eye to eye on Super Princess Peach. I had never heard anyone bring this up before I played it, so I was kind of shocked to see it. It's embarassing.
Also, the game is not really good. It's charming enough that I trucked on all the way, but the game is ridiculously kid friendly - there's not really any way you can fail a stage, and every single obstacle is a puzzle that basically says "please to use this skill on this easily identifiable object that reacts to the corresponding skill". Very boring, which is sad because the visual polish of the game is great, and really feels like it could have been a solid sequel of sorts to Yoshi's Island.
FrankenGraphics wrote:
I like though for giggles (from video footage, never played 'em, never will) that zelda in her first cd-i title is somewhat of a sociopath;
I honestly think the CD-i games are better than their reputation. Sure, they aren't good games, and have some pretty damn broken collision detection, but I think they also have appealing qualities that help justify the game aside from the obvious unintended(?) hilarity of the animated scenes.
Kusoge for sure, but kusoge worth playing through, IMO.
Hm, now that you mention it, i remember it lacked significant challenge. My overall impression (as far as i can remember) was i thought it looked really pretty.
It's just that i can't imagine myself getting a cd-i to begin with
If i would, it would be
specifically for the zelda titles!
Yeah I'd play them as well if I could, only because of the Zelda license and their infamous kusoge status of course. Not sure it's worth getting a CD-i only because of those though.
Sumez wrote:
Pokun wrote:
I always loved the typical gender roles though. But they could always make a spinoff with Zelda as hero. They did make Super Princess Peach after all, and she manages to do it while still not being an inch of a tomboy unlike Zelda. I guess it's part of her strength.
Have you
played Super Princess Peach?
Her super powers are literally her female mood swings, it's the entire theme of the game. It's extremely distasteful.
I haven't beaten it but I played it a fair bit.
But two Scandinavians unfairly bashing the game because of its theme, has my homeland really fallen that far into the extremist feminist propaganda over the past few years?
So the game is misogynistic because it focuses on Peach's typical feminine qualities? That side of her has always been a big part of her character, so I think it only makes sense that her own game would focus on those qualities.
Some people often complain that damsel in distress types of characters are helpless and useless (although they just can't see that their helplessness is part of their strength). Peach is one of few of them who manages to be a platform hero while still retaining 100% femininity, but then they find something else to complain about, her femininity in particular. I think it's just that they don't like her character, it's solely a matter of taste, not about being a misogynist.
If you consider feminine qualities to be a weakness I think you are just being unfair. There's no way a girl like Peach can compete with a man like Mario in muscle strength, that would just be unfair and stupid. Her femininity is her strength, and she knows how to use it.
Sumez wrote:
Pokun wrote:
Oh come on! Admit it, Link and Zelda always had the hots for each other. Anti-Zelda shippers always baffles me.
Aside from the NES games (Zelda 2 obviously ends with the two making out), it's been hinted at best. Skyward Sword was the first game to outright establish a relationship between the two. I was actually very surprised that Nintendo would make it so hamfisted - I kinda liked the subtlety.
Well in Zelda 1 it was enough that Link was the hero and Zelda was the princess that he saved, there was no need for the game to give any more hints. Skyward Sword gave the most hints and has the most romantic dialogue but they still intentionally leave it open for the player to imagine the rest in every game (and in Skyward Sword you can get pretty deep with another girl without it affecting anything else). It's really no different from most TV drama and other media with an open ending.
Pokun wrote:
has my homeland really fallen that far into the extremist feminist propaganda over the past few years?
I'm not sure finding tear geysers distasteful makes you a feminazi.
Pokun wrote:
There's no way a girl like Peach can compete with a man like Mario in muscle strength, that would just be unfair and stupid. Her femininity is her strength, and she knows how to use it.
I'm not sure I like this quote either. Mario has never been about strength. (Aside from breaking bricks, but even Peach can do that in Super Mario 3D World) It's Wario who is.
Even if not cannon, Super Smash Bros Melee is, in my opinion, the best form of Peach we've ever gotten. It's the perfect balance of daintiness and badassery and never treads over to hysteria like in Super Princess Peach. I can't say I ever took offense by the game, but I did find it a little disappointing because of this.
Quote:
And although all the Zeldas are of the same royal blood line, Link is usually unrelated to other Links. One exception may be the ALttP Link who is, together with his uncle, the last descendants of the knights of Hyrule who fought Ganon.
For the most part I believe every Link and Zelda is the same person reincarnated along with Impa and the King of Hyrule (Zelda's father). This could still co-exist with the idea that Link in LTTP is descended from the knights of the Imprisoning War.
It's also interesting that LTTP is the last Zelda game to have any explicit talk about "bloodlines". The hero lineage concept makes more sense in Castlevania where Dracula can apparently smell the common dna markers in his latest opponent ("We meet again, Blood of Belmont").
Regarding the original topic, Zelda in Skyward Sword was very sheltered while the one from Twilight Princess was obviously battle-hardened. And it's often implied in the series that Hyrule fights wars or maybe even has civil wars, but we're never given any elaboration. One critic of Twilight Princess said the story is a jumbled mess with a big problem being the lack of focus on Zelda as a character. But it's possible that was done on purpose because this incarnation of her you don't want to know too much about.
Pokun wrote:
But two Scandinavians unfairly bashing the game because of its theme, has my homeland really fallen that far into the extremist feminist propaganda over the past few years?
So the game is misogynistic because it focuses on Peach's typical feminine qualities? That side of her has always been a big part of her character, so I think it only makes sense that her own game would focus on those qualities.
You don't need to be "feminist" to recognize how stupid it is to base a main character on demeaning prejudices about her gender.
I don't care if the game is "misogynistic", and I never used the word. I care that the theme is embarassing and cringeworthy as hell. Peach can be as feminine as she wants, but she deserves a game where she's a hero, not where she wins by crying uncontrollable.
And yeah, she deserves it not because she's female or whatever, she deserves it because she's a well liked video game character with a long history. Just like Zelda.
I was going to add that there's a difference between being feminime and being a caricature of being feminine, but forgot it. You know what they did there with SPP right? They took the traits of a toddler - not the traits of a femme - and masked it in the vestiges of femininity. They did so because they did focus on one and one only trait to use as the basis of both mechanics and premise: her gender. Ergo; they litterally belittle her by her gender. Seeing how few feminine representations there are in the mushroom kingdom, and they still decided to do that with one of the few; that says something too.
Yes, in many of the mario games she plays the role of a damsel in distress. No problem. Classic childrens' story scenario many can relate to. But here is a game about her and what she does for an adventure. And they botched it, imo. They made mario is a plumber, so he goes through pipes and it happens to fit the "swineherd rescues princess" archetype, which they crystallized in SMB1 even if it was there in DK. Princess Peach is a princess in a kingdom, so why didn't it appear as obvious for the designers to get inspired by the tasks of royal administration? For instance, there's a kingdom to govern, a royal family to represent, subjects to visit and help and keep safe. Because they were hypnotized by peach being a woman and didn't know how to handle it any other way, i'd say that's why. Current local politics aside, it's think it's still a tasteless premise for a game they way it was executed.
Finally, let's to the gender swap test. What if for King Knights' campaign in shovel knight, they focused solely on king knight being a man? What would it be about, if it was pushed to the same degree of exaggeration as super princess peach?
On misogynism...
I was the one using the word misogynist, so i'd better be the one standing for it. To be more exact, i said it was a good way on being as misogynist as one can get. Meaning games can probably get a lot worse. Anyway, I said so because what the team or person who designed this game relied heavily on the on the myth of hysteria; which associates feminimity with unrationality, distress, ungovernable emotional excess, or even as freud would have it, "lack of masculinity" (which a woman according to the same joker only can "regain" via motherhood). This myth-building around expressions and somatic symtoms categorized as hysteria in the past (but not by modern medicine) was historically and to this day in some ways still is used as a technique to invalidate womens' simple demand to be taken seriously. An extraordinarily aggressive example of this were the efforts to stamp out the suffragette movement, but it can take much subtler forms aswell. In other words, it (using hysterical caricatures) is and has been the practice to disarm and ridicule women. I cannot not see the cultural backdrop against which SPP is painted, so that made the game basically unplayable for me, and my friends too it seems. Now, you would think a 7 year old child who plays this game wouldn't know the historical backdrop, and that's in a way correct. Heck, it could even be potentially healthy and embracing to play a game if it were about expressing emotions, even when portrayed in exaggeration (pretty common in child media). That'd be great, i think. But at that age it has also already become abundantly clear what is generally percieved as high- and low-status. Those lines are already drawn in kindergarten and all over other child media. It (the game) doesn't exist in a social vacuum, and neither does its computer-human interactions. It is embedded in and created from attitudes (everything that’s cultural is), some more heavily loaded than others, and in this case, i find some of those attitudes disagreeable to modern times.
Not everyone will have the same experience, which is of course fine. If the experience of SPP is totally benign to someone, that's great.
I value just about everything you have written in this thread (especially challenging my views on link/zelda), Pokun, but i think that ringing the "extremist feminist" bell is a way to write off those who've had this other experience without having to touch the underlying subject.
FrankenGraphics wrote:
misogyny
You're reading into it too much, please go read up on the five elements, before making such ridiculous claims.
Do note how the color, emotion, and general theme of each of the game's animations, match up with these elements
exactly.
It's almost like the thought of belittling women never crossed their minds at all! Funny, that.
Seeing misogyny where there clearly is none, says more about yourself, than anything else.
Not to mention that the magic wand also affects many of the enemies, too! Not just Princess Peach! So there's also that.
So, just because there’s one other layer (the symbolism of the elements), and that her wand is magic with the ability to spellbind, it automatically makes the other layer invalid? I honestly don’t think so.
It adds some nuance (which of i’m guilty of reducing), that’s all.
I try to distance myself from the horribly aggressive feminist movement that's been growing other the last few years, because I feel exactly like Pokum, that it's become extremely loud and so obsessed with attacking everything that anyone standing outside of it will have a hard time taking it seriously.
And that's sort of sad, because there
is an issue, and it needs focus. I just don't feel like the correct way to approach it is to antagonize people who don't understand it. I try to remain neutral so I can recognize an issue when there is one, instead of actively looking for one. It tends to get me enemies in both camps, but I really value objectivity in a sensitive matter such as this.
On the subject of "Super Princess Peach", I don't feel like there's a reason to demonize it for doing anything horrible. The developers didn't mean anything bad with it, and I don't feel that the game itself could possibly cause any harm to anyone, directly or indirectly - it's merely the cause of a society that already has some odd priorities. But I think you should still be able to recognise that the concept is ridiculously stupid and unfair towards her character, without making too much of a fuss about it.
Yeah, just to be perfectly clear, i don’t think anyone intentionally villanously aimed for what i identified as a misogynist expression while playing. It does’t aim to represent peach caricature-like. It’s a game about expressing emotions (like i also said). It’s just that against the issue-ridden backdrop of womens’ history (which is also more or less visible depending on if you have experience of life as a woman or not and what that entails) it comes off as something entirely else.
Any backdrop is always going to embed itself into a piece of work everytime someone decodes it, and i think that’s a thing designers ought to at least discuss.
It was never my purpose to lash out at the games'/its designers’ intentions, merely to express how the game felt like and why social structure and history plays a part in that.
Edit:
Given that gender has become one of the most politically loaded questions of today (a bit like it was ~100 years ago, too), it might not have been the best start to joke about the a fictional design meeting like i did. I kind of regret that.
OK so it sounds like we are on the same page in the end. Caricatures and stereotypical depictions like hysteria is a common thing in Mario games and similar media, but everyone don't always have to like them all.
Espozo wrote:
Pokun wrote:
has my homeland really fallen that far into the extremist feminist propaganda over the past few years?
I'm not sure finding tear geysers distasteful makes you a feminazi.
Just to be clear, I didn't mean to say that anyone on the forum is an extremist, I just meant that some recent local political trends may have swayed some opinions in this thread. I might have been too quick to judge though.
strat wrote:
Quote:
And although all the Zeldas are of the same royal blood line, Link is usually unrelated to other Links. One exception may be the ALttP Link who is, together with his uncle, the last descendants of the knights of Hyrule who fought Ganon.
Since Skyward Sword we know...
Yeah without spoiling anything we can say that there is talk about the spirit of the hero that is forced to fight evil many many times. If this means that all Links are the reincarnation of the same spirit or not is hard to tell, and it also gets confusing if you consider Wolf Link being taught by the spirit of the Hero of Time, despite they are both being the same spirit of the hero if that is true.
Another thing I always thought was funny is that the descendants of the seven sages are all humanoid while the original sages included Goron and Zora. I guess it's possible that someone in their bloodlines may have married Hylians or other humanoids at some point though.
FrankenGraphics wrote:
Princess Peach is a princess in a kingdom, so why didn't it appear as obvious for the designers to get inspired by the tasks of royal administration? For instance, there's a kingdom to govern, a royal family to represent, subjects to visit and help and keep safe.
Because that kind of sim is for Koei.
Alp wrote:
You're reading into it too much, please go read up on the five elements, before making such ridiculous claims.
Which five elements?
- Earth, fire, wind, water, heart? (GO PLANET!)
- Earth, fire, wind, water, Leeloo Boron Dallas? (Mool-tee-pass!)
The duties and adventures of a young royal could for sure be expressed in a lot of forms, action platformer, puzzle platformer, rpg-lite, anything in between. A sim sounds for the worse to me? Probably a personal preference though.
I just like to think of the Zelda series as being similar stories that occur in parallel universes, or reincarnation in the same universe after eons have passed. I've never understood why anybody wants to try to make sense of it all with a timeline or what not. Parallel universes are way cooler than logic.
GradualGames wrote:
I just like to think of the Zelda series as being similar stories that occur in parallel universes
In this case, Nintendo tends to disagree with you.
That IS pretty much the basis for all the Zelda games though. They are just separate stories that tend to draw on elements from eachother.
Nintendo don't care about the timeline. They just saw a trend, and released it to pretend they care.
Sumez wrote:
Nintendo don't care about the timeline. They just saw a trend, and released it to pretend they care.
That's an unproven statement. There has been a continuity right from the start:
"Zelda II" is a direct sequel to "Zelda I" anyway.
"A Link to the Past" might look like just an alternate universe or retelling of the original game, but the box makes it clear that it's a prequel to the NES games:
Quote:
Venture back to Hyrule and an age of magic and heroes. The predecessors of Link and Zelda face monsters on the march when a menacing magician takes over the kingdom.
"Link's Awakening" is a sequel to ALttP.
And when "Ocarina of Time" came out, they emphasized that this is the first game in the series. So, again, not just an alternate take on the original NES and SNES games.
The "Zelda" games were always intended to be an ongoing series. It was never about retelling or updating the same story, like with the movies "Spider Man", "The Amazing Spider Man" and "Spider Man - Homecoming". Or like Grimm's "Snow White" and Disney's "Snow White".
It was always a connected series, only playing centuries apart, but the same universe and continuity. Just like "The Silmarillion", "The Hobbit" and "The Lord of the Rings".
Possibly, although it may be possible that there where disagreements within Nintendo during development of AlttP. But yes after that it's clear that there's a continuity: Ocarina was definitely designed after the backstory written in AlttP's manual, Link's Awakening is a direct sequel to AlttP and Oracle games are designed to take place in between ALttP and LA and so on. On the other hand I don't think Nintendo cares too much about consistency with certain things. For example they like to redesign the map with no explanation as why Hyrule's geography changes so much. Of course it wouldn't feel like a new game if they had used the same exact map in all games since Zelda 1. The world has to be redesigned for the same reason that levels in Mario games have to be new in every game despite them taking place in the same world.
strat wrote:
Quote:
And although all the Zeldas are of the same royal blood line, Link is usually unrelated to other Links. One exception may be the ALttP Link who is, together with his uncle, the last descendants of the knights of Hyrule who fought Ganon.
Since Skyward Sword we know...
I edited that post to remove the spoiler (In case someone here is vaguely interested in playing Skyward Sword but somehow never got to it).
Pokun wrote:
On the other hand I don't think Nintendo cares too much about consistency with certain things.
Well, inexplicably redesigning Hyrule doesn't annoy me as much as ignoring previously established rules. It's a stretch, but there could be reasons why Hyrule or the Mushroom Kingdom or Donkey Kong Island appear different in different games other than continuity errors.
https://splatoonus.tumblr.com/post/1065 ... ve-a-total...except now they don't.
https://splatoonus.tumblr.com/post/1677 ... ted_post=1
I wouldn't say that the inconsistency in Hyrules geography annoys me, I fully understand that not redesigning it in every game wouldn't benefit the games much. However it's a bit annoying that I can't think of a good enough excuse for the changes to satisfy me with.
That one about Splatoon might have been more of a joke though. Transformations usually doesn't make biological sense.
Conversely, I can't think of a single reason to stick with the same Hyrule geography? Every game should be designed from the ground up with the needs it has. Should Ocarina of Time have had all the "useless" towns from Zelda 2? Or should it have been completely devoid of civilization smilar to the first Zelda? Would Breath of the Wild have been more interesting if you knew where everything was beforehand?
A Link Between Worlds actually reused the geography from LttP, and it's by far the worst flaw in the game.
They could have implied that every game plays in another location, like the four "Super Mario Bros./World" games.
It's indeed a bit strange if you have locations that are definitely supposed to be the same object, like Spectacle Rock, but where the rest of the land looks different in every game.
Yeah, it's almost like Nintendo figured that stuff didn't matter
Zelda 2 took the Dragon Quest 2 route and shrank the old world down on a bigger map and expanded a new world around it. The whole Zelda 1 world can be seen in a single screen in Zelda 2 just south of Death Mountain. Nothing changed except that Spectacle Rock is now "Monocle Rock" due to a cave-in after the battle with Ganon in the first game (and Link smashes the other eye once he retrieves the hammer from the ruins to get a Magic Container lol. I like to see this as the Megaton Hammer borrowed from the remains of the Fire Temple from OoT).
But AlttP, OoT, TP and Skyward Sword all seems to take place in a world roughly the size of Zelda 1 or a bit bigger (not as big as the Zelda 2 world though). The graveyard in Zelda 1 seems to be the remains of Kakariko from AlttP (OoT further implies this with Kakariko's connection with the Sheika and the graveyard Shadow Temple) and since people are scattered around living in caves and trees it seems that the former Hyrule has been ruined (although Zelda 2 shows that Hyrule has expanded and there's a lot more to it). Death Mountain often has roughly the same place in the north in most games, but the desert, Lost Woods and Lake Hylia jumps around quite a bit. Twilight Princess also introduces new names of provinces and even moves Death Mountain a bit (not counting the mirrored Wii version, as it doesn't seem to be canon).
I'm going to order a Switch and Breath of the Wild very soon, so please no spoilers from that game!
Pokun wrote:
Nothing changed except that Spectacle Rock is now "Monocle Rock" due to a cave-in after the battle with Ganon in the first game
Interestingly, for whatever reason, the wrong rock has disappeared. It's not the one where Link blew a hole into in the first game.
Yeah, there's a general layout that's kept almost-consistent throughout all the games, which is something that links the series together and gives the player a feeling of familiarity, while still retaining the incentive to explore and surprise the player with what they find. Will Kakariko be to the west or to the east this time? See that big lake, is it Lake Hylia? It doesn't have to be identical, which would be extremely boring (once again, the Link Between Worlds example is obvious), but it's always nice to draw some lines between the games. Bringing the Dragon Quest series up again, that's something it's always done extremely well, even moreso than the Zelda series, while still maintaining the mystery of the unknown - "will you get a flying carpet this time?", "Ooh, it's the boat!", "Maybe this is where I get thrown in jail?", "Then, morning comes...".
I don't mean that reusing the same map is necessarily bad, as disproven by Link Between Worlds (reusing the world is the point of the game as a sequel), but that if they had put such a restriction on themselves that they can't change the map that's already established in previous games, it would get more and more tedious to make new Zelda games the series as they would get more and more restricted. They followed that restriction in Zelda 2 but already gave up in ALttP and let creative freedom loose.
DRW wrote:
Pokun wrote:
Nothing changed except that Spectacle Rock is now "Monocle Rock" due to a cave-in after the battle with Ganon in the first game
Interestingly, for whatever reason, the wrong rock has disappeared. It's not the one where Link blew a hole into in the first game.
Good point. I think Ganon's lair may be made up by caves inside both rocks, and only the eastern half of the caves collapsed. The skull-shaped dungeon doesn't go much further east than the entrance (which is in the western rock) but that doesn't mean there can't be any caves in the eastern rock (as shown in AlttP). The battle with Ganon takes place in the western half of the skull though. Perhaps it caved-in when Link and Zelda was trying to get out again, as a final attempt by Ganon to stop them, and this somehow resulted in the whole eastern rock to collapse.
Pokun wrote:
I don't mean that reusing the same map is necessarily bad, as disproven by Link Between Worlds
.....Reusing the same map is bad, as proven by Link Between Worlds.
That game had absolutely no reason to blatantly reuse the original map (with surprisingly few actual changes), when they clearly could have just as well designed something completely new and maintained a fresh experience of discovery. There weren't even any direct story relations between ALttP and ALBW to justify this decision, and resuing the Dark World layout for Lorule in fact makes
less sense from a continuity perspective.
Nostalgia is a weak excuse, though it was probably the motivation.
A Link Between World is
great, but has a few obvious problems, this being one of them.
Pokun wrote:
Perhaps it caved-in when Link and Zelda was trying to get out again, as a final attempt by Ganon to stop them, and this somehow resulted in the whole eastern rock to collapse.
Why exactly do you think that the lair collapsed at all?
And why do you think that Ganon tried to stop them even though he was only a pile of ash by that point (which was even confirmed in "Zelda II")?
In the film
The Fifth Element,
Mangalore mercenaries will
abandon their leader as soon as their leader dies. Ganon's minions are not Mangalores. (Wild mass guess follows) They may have been given orders to
activate self-destruction of his base if he dies in battle.
Related tropes:
Collapsing Lair,
Taking You With Me,
Dead-Man Switch, and
Load-Bearing Boss.
Again: Where did you get the idea that the lair collapsed in the first place? Unlike "Metroid" or "Castlevania", there's nothing like that in the game at all.
I probably got the idea from some Zelda wiki's Spectacle Rock entry, I don't know if it's canon but since one rock is missing in Zelda 2 I thought it was a plausible explanation.
Oh and Tepples explained exactly my thoughts on why collapsing makes sense better than I could. I imagine a modern remake of Zelda 1 could have a final escape scene where you have to get out before it collapses (and also clarify why only the eastern rock collapses while they are at it). Besides the possibility of an automatic self-destruct mechanism it could have been Ganon's spirit using his last strength, he is not the kind of guy letting being turned to a pile of ash stop him that easily.
Sumez wrote:
Pokun wrote:
I don't mean that reusing the same map is necessarily bad, as disproven by Link Between Worlds
.....Reusing the same map is bad, as proven by Link Between Worlds.
......
Nostalgia is a weak excuse, though it was probably the motivation.
A Link Between World is
great, but has a few obvious problems, this being one of them.
Oh I see, I missread your post. But reusing the same world was the whole purpose of that game. They first was going to make a remake of AlttP but then decided to make a new game in the same world. I haven't beaten the game yet but I think it worked allright, although I wish the two games was more connected.
Oracle of Seasons also started out as a Zelda 1 remake. I'm glad they ended up changing the world map completely.
I'm starting to think the greatest philosophical question of our time is what to make of LBW.
The reuse of the setting of LTTP creates an irritating dichotomy - is LBW a brilliant redesign of LTTP or a goofy imitation? The dungeons are more sophisticated but the core design is still ripped straight out of the old classic. There's more detail in the mechanics but they're still the same mechanics. You could say both games can co-exist or just enjoy the games without worrying about which is better but that's like taking the easy way out.
My biggest problem with LBW is how ridiculously polished the combat is. It feels less like fighting the enemies than just whaling on them and only taking a hit if you make a mistake. Yet the game covers up this flaw by running so smoothly it's mindless fun to wander around killing enemies (and there's a lot of ways to do that).
LBW would definitely have been better if LttP didn't already exist. I wish the redundancy of the overworld wasn't a thing, because I loved the dungeons.
strat wrote:
My biggest problem with LBW is how ridiculously polished the combat is.
That doesn't
sound like a problem?
Actually I'd say the game's biggest problem is a combination of how excellently it handles combat and enemy design, while at the same time doing absolutely nothing to entice the player to even try putting up a fight, making combat pretty much pointless.
Sure, after the NES games, Zelda have always been very easy games, focusing more on the experience, world building and puzzles than on challenging gameplay, but in Link Between Worlds, enemies do so little damage that you'll be fine off just running straight through a dungeon tanking damage from all the enemies, and still come out fine in the other end - it's like there is no reason to even have the enemies there.
I didn't realise just how great the game actually is until I played Hero Mode on the second playthrough (it's a shame that you have to play on normal first to unlock it), and at the same time limiting myself to the initial three hearts by never picking up additional heart containers.
Sounds like something that would be insanely hard, but the game is designed to be so forgiving, that it actually feels completely fair, only getting a bit scary in the very end, where enemies will be able to two-shot you. But since the game is designed in a way that a careful player will easily be able to avoid ever taking a hit, why does it allow you to take 40 hits? Even on "hero" mode.
I recommend everyone taking the 3 heart challenge in LBW, it really makes the game shine. Two bad it never got a genuine follow-up.
Having a Hero Mode in recent Zelda games seems to be an excuse to hardcore games so they can keep Zelda games being easy for beginners. I don't really get what's the problem is, why Nintendo keep making so easy games. Back when we where beginners the games was hard and no one complained, we just kept playing no matter how many times you died. The games became popular despite being very hard.
Oh and another problem with modern Zelda games is the broken economy. LBW was an attempt to fix this by making you need money to get the items. Only problem is that you don't need so much money unless you die, and since the game is so easy you never die. The only time I've died so far was when I let my guard down against a Lionel that was surprisingly powerful.
The Zelda games with best economy are AlttP and Zelda 1, LA is OK too and Zelda 2 has no economy. Anything from Ocarina and later are seriously bad (Ocarina being the worst one of all). Wind Waker gets a bit better as you get big wallet upgrades and there are actually things to spend money on, but on the other hand the game is constantly showering you in rupees so it isn't very challenging. I don't get peoples complains about Tingle charging so much for map deciphering, it's not like you need the rupees for much else anyway. Twilight Princess is annoying because instead of throwing rupees you can't carry away it puts them back in the chest so you can come back and get it later (not that you will ever need that much of it). This makes it annoying for completionists like me that want to open all chests but don't care too much about their useless content. OoT is bad because your wallet is so incredibly small even with upgrades and the majority of the things you can buy will be found for free if you just cut a few bushes or pots. The only things you may need money for in the end are bombchus (that you still get a lot of for free during the game) and mini games like fishing.
I hope they finally fixed the problem in Breath of the Wild, but I have my doubts.
I absolutely agree with your comments on economy. LBW tried to fix it, but it ended up pointless.
BotW is very different in that regard. Basically what you need money for is armor and unlocking the ability to upgrade them, but you'll never have enough money for all the armor in the game unless you go out of your way to grind tediously. The economy is alright, but only works because they make stuff very expensive, and counterbalance that by making the stuff you can use money on mostly useless for anything other than vanity purposes.
Best example of well balanaced economy in the game is when you need to go to Death Mountain. You start out needing to buy some potions that will let you resist the heat. They are semi expensive but not to a higher degree than keeping you from just buying a huge amount and never worry about them again. Once you use them you can farm for stuff in the area that allows you to brew your own potions, and it allows you to access a store where you can buy an expensive armor which applies the effect permanently.
Yes I recently got a Switch and the new Zelda, it really does seem like they have fixed the economy problem. I'm still very early in the game though and rupees are rare (however selling things seems to be the main way to get rupees). Buying clothes are expensive so it seems like rupees finally are the valuable stones they used to be.
Difficulty also seems to be fixed. Enemies are more often dangerous to fight so you often have to come up with a plan to not risk too much, and there are enemies that are simply out of your league so you have to avoid them until you get strong enough. Dying also actually has consequences in that you loose everything not saved, auto saves happens often though so it's seldom a frustrating thing. Gone are the days when you could fall from a skyscraper and only loose a quarter of a heart. Now cliffs are dangerous things if you slip.
I really like this game. The only disappointment so far is that I haven't seen any real Zelda dungeons with map, compass, keys, monsters, puzzles and dungeon boss yet. Only small wayside shrines with just one or two (so far) very easy puzzles. I guess they focus more on the overworld this time around (which is really done well on the other hand). Dungeons in Zelda games can sometimes be very long and tedious though so this might be a good change.