He basically says that everything after Zelda II sucks because there's no difficulty, there's a story that restricts freedom, and probably some other stuff that I don't remember.
It's long, so if you don't want to read (I'd say it's more tedious to read than he thinks the new Zeldas are to play), I'll quote a few excerpts
I'm still a Zelda fan today, but I'm not an apologist. Zelda sucks, and it has sucked for a long time. It's not the greatest series in gaming, and Ocarina of Time is certainly not the greatest game of all time (it's not even a great Zelda). The original Legend of Zelda is the greatest Zelda, Skyward Sword is the worst, and the trajectory is mostly downhill with a few exceptions (the bold horror of Majora's Mask, the focused charm of Wind Waker).
I'm going to talk about the core of Zelda, its world, gameplay, difficulty, and story. Consider it an open letter to Nintendo, or at least my plea to the goddess. I want Zelda to be saved.
Players are constantly reminded that they're shackled to a mechanistic land. There is no illusion of freedom because the gears that keep the player and Hyrule in lockstep are eminently legible. You read the landscape all too easily; you know what it's asking of you. One of the greatest offenders occurred early on with A Link to the Past: most bomb-able walls became visible. What had been a potential site of mystery in the original Legend of Zelda (every rockface) became just another job for your trusty keyring. Insert here. Go on about your business.
Zelda has felt like work since Ocarina, overstuffed with tasks, jobs, trials. And not just in the plodding opening sequences or all the requests by the feckless citizens of Hyrule. Even the sacrosanct Zelda dungeons, holiest of design holies, have fallen victim to this. So many things to do, so little pleasure in doing them. Dungeons suffer further in their over-reliance on environmental puzzles. Even calling them 'puzzles' does a disservice to all the fine puzzles in gaming. Most Zelda puzzles are tiresome and dull, but the problem isn't just puzzle quality or lack of ingenuity; it's using them as the structuring principle of a 30+ hour game. They determine the very flow of Link's dungeoneering and make the whole plunge into the dark seem more like a modest exercise, a mock trial in which you needn't break a sweat. Some claim the result is balanced, tastefully paced, well-appointed. So why do Zelda's dungeons often feel so pedestrian and domesticated, with about the same rhythm and urgency as the music we call 'adult contemporary'?
Plot in modern Zeldas is another culprit in the Case of the Sluggish Pacing. It only thinly veils the mechanics being explored, and it bends the adventure in ways that feel forced and unnatural. Especially when the needy denizens of Hyrule get involved. At this point, I fear speaking to anyone without a golden triangle on her hand. When did everyone become so inane and needy? The original Zelda had no villages or houses; the only remaining residents were hidden away in caves, the clearest indication that Hyrule had already fallen to the enemy. They were cryptic, terse, mercenary and only rarely asked anything of you (one letter to be delivered to an old woman, one grumbly Moblin to be fed). Link was a student of Hyrule and its people, learning how everything worked, how the world could be saved. He was not the people's personal benefactor slash errand boy. This makes the player feel awkwardly like both the center of the universe and an indentured servant. Myself, I need neither additional chores nor reinforcement for my solipsism.
He then spends the last few paragraphs praising demon souls and how that should be the new Zelda.
Well he's mostly right though hating on LttP bombable walls seems a bit of a stretch. I see where he's coming from with that though that kinda was the first step from changing the game from exploration based to task based
-- No problem! This is a cute and pop genocide of love!
I agree that the 3D Zeldas just feel like work and aren't very fun. But the two NES ones aren't the best either. I'd give that honor to Link to the Past or Link's Awakening.
--
"Just drown them in maple syrup. sticky maple syrup." - Taslion
I'm so sick of fan bases like this. Stop comparing and just enjoy a game for the crap it is. Yes, Zelda has been growing onto more and more babying since the old days, but that is because our fan base stays young, and youth these days would be on walkthroughs everyday and complain for it when it has the difficulty of the original Zelda.
The storyline is an advancement for old fans to actually get a touch of what Zelda had been lacking. Get rid of story? Go back to the NES and play every game there and stay there if you still want no story. Storylines are what make new age games. If they lack characters that aren't just Mary Sues or in Zelda's case ERROR, it's not a this-generation game. Look at even the most pathetic of those, Call of Duty. Even if it's all just redone combat and all the same, you look at the storyline and they show character development. Look at every game in this generation and tell me one game that actually has people in it, but no development of those characters.
--
Official Pidgeot of the B/W Boards Clan Quite frankly my Deerling, I don't give a Wormadam- GenesisSaga
There is a such thing as too much trial and error, especially in the days before the internet. And the Zelda I overworld is exactly that. The dungeon design was top notch, though.
Most of the "difficulty" in Zelda I can simply be attributed to not being able to move diagonally, and generally less polish in the controls. Which is fine for the time, but would be stupid to keep around. I agree that the games could (should) be more difficult, but don't use Zelda I as the benchmark for how to do that.
--
"One toot on this whistle will take you to a far away land." -Toad, SMB3
I never played Demon's Souls, but Dark Souls is pretty amazing. I dunno if I would call it better than Skyward Sword, but it definitely does a lot of things better in the adventure-RPG genre.
From: kevwaffles | #015 Most of the "difficulty" in Zelda I can simply be attributed to not being able to move diagonally, and generally less polish in the controls. Which is fine for the time, but would be stupid to keep around. I agree that the games could (should) be more difficult, but don't use Zelda I as the benchmark for how to do that.
Eh? You should use Zelda I as a benchmark, just not for silly reasons like not being able to move diagonally.
From: pjbasis | #017 Eh? You should use Zelda I as a benchmark, just not for silly reasons like not being able to move diagonally.
My point is that it's not really that hard at all once you learn to compensate for the mechanics. Except for the final dungeon, though. That place is nuts.
--
"One toot on this whistle will take you to a far away land." -Toad, SMB3
From: pjbasis | #019 Also the comparison is against newer entries; you're not saying it's comparable, are you?
Huh? Do you mean is LoZ comparable in terms of difficulty to later installments? Then, within only the 2D Zeldas, I'd have to say yes for someone used to LoZ's game mechanics. LoZ is still the hardest, but not to the extent most people who make that argument tend to claim.
Actually, LttP is still pretty easy outside of a few bosses. LA compares somewhat better.
--
"One toot on this whistle will take you to a far away land." -Toad, SMB3
From: pjbasis | #017 Eh? You should use Zelda I as a benchmark, just not for silly reasons like not being able to move diagonally.
He has a point. One of the big difficulties in Metroid 1 is not being able to shoot diagonally, either. It's a very small thing, but it amounts to a lot in the actual gameplay.
-- _foolmo_ 'Oh please, if foolmo made that analogy you'd think it was picture perfect' - Biolizard28
From: foolm0ron | #021 He has a point. One of the big difficulties in Metroid 1 is not being able to shoot diagonally, either. It's a very small thing, but it amounts to a lot in the actual gameplay.
Yeah I get it, but enemies can't exactly do that either.
And the designers knew the limitations. It's their fault for not making the enemies tougher when you could attack diagonally.
Still haven't goten to beat Skyward Sword yet (I've got to play maybe an average of 8 hours a week since release and I'm takin my time and not using a guide, dealin with a bunch of stuff). So I can't really truly rate it yet, but I'm pretty sure it'll be atleast second to Link to the Past. Besides that though, going up till Zelda 2 and WW this is the order I'd give...
ALttP>OoT>TP(Wii)>Zelda 1>Zelda 2=WW>the rest
The problem with Zelda 1 is that too many of the Secrets are too obscure. Yes, there is technically challenge in that, but it's mainly about how much you know about the designers which I don't think you really need as much as they make you deal with in the game. Since you can tell just by looking at few parts of Zelda right of the start that they are going for some realism, there are some spots that you can kind of guess based off of that (though also technically there is some knowledge about the designers in there cause you have to know what they're going for). But there's not enough of that. It be different if maybe they gave you the red candle earlier, or extra bombs, but they don't.
OoT was one of the first truly epic 3d adventure games, so you can't really knock it. It beats TP though because, though TP is really good, it still has the problem of having tired things from OoT. OoT doesn't beat ALttP mainly because it does have some cumbersome parts and the atmosphere is far better in ALttP.
ALttP is like an almost perfectly refined Zelda 1, maybe they could of did the shot from the master sword more like Zelda 1 but it isn't bad, maybe it could of had a bit more of a lonely feel, but there was really only one town, Zora domain wasn't that big, and there were only a few residents scattered throughout the Kingdom, but other then that, it pretty much has no other flaws (and both of those are highly debatable if they even are let alone by how much).
Zelda 2 has it's challenging parts but is lacking in almost every other area.
WW has the story, but is lacking in almost every other area.
From: pjbasis | #023 Yeah I get it, but enemies can't exactly do that either.
They get to damage you through contact, and most don't have to stop to attack you at close range. Lack of mobility for the player is much more crippling than lack of mobility for the AI.
That's why Megaman didn't get significantly easier by adding the slide or the charge shots. You still had the same basic combat mobility you always did.
--
"One toot on this whistle will take you to a far away land." -Toad, SMB3
WazzupGenius00 posted... Mega Man 5 is insanely easier because of its charge shot, actually.
It's also easier for other reasons though, mostly that boss patterns are hilariously transparent and easy to avoid. Some of the Dark Man stages can get a bit hairy in MM5 but that's really about it, and the charge shot doesn't necessarily have anything to do with it. I would say slides and charge shots most certainly do make the game easier though.
Oh, that said though, Zelda 1 is very, very obviously much more difficult than any other Zelda other than 2, and it's not even close. The game is simply far less forgiving.
I really have to agree on what he says about Link. 1. He should not be everyone's errand boy. 2. He should be actively searching for a way to save the world, going against all odds. Instead, all he's doing is following a set path that the gods laid out for him because he is the chosen one. Majora's Mask is the only 3D Zelda to do this right.
--
Hey, its that SuperNiceDog! Congrats to the Guru 2011 winner