Board 8 > So why is the Zelda franchise so consistently, great?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Not be a desperately slow and miserable slog through a completely unenchanting world with dungeon items that don't do anything once you've left the dungeon

Honestly that sounds exactly like Wind Waker except maybe the dungeon items part

Wind Waker is a joyfully slow and pleasant slog

Aside from the 2D/3D Mario platformers, are there any series as long running (length and number of entries) as Zelda that you would consider being better at being consistently great?

This topic is insane

Someone says an absolutely freezing cold take of "Zelda is consistently good" and people can't help buy go WELL ACTUALLY I PERSONALLY DIDNT LIKE ONE OF THE DS SPINOFFS

I say this as someone who likes Zelda less than the vast majority of this board

KamikazePotato posted...

This topic is insane

Someone says an absolutely freezing cold take of "Zelda is consistently good" and people can't help buy go WELL ACTUALLY I PERSONALLY DIDNT LIKE ONE OF THE DS SPINOFFS

I say this as someone who likes Zelda less than the vast majority of this board

Pretty much this.

Does it have some below average games? A couple stinkers? Sure, but Zelda is pretty much the epitome of a consistently quality franchise. Next to Mario.

But sure sound off contrarians.

I don't know the exact degree this is accurate, but I've heard the core Zelda team has actually been pretty consistent since Skyward Sword, and was also pretty consistent from OoT to WW (though Miyamoto obviously left as director after OoT). So yeah, the core team that made BotW is largely the same core team that made SS, just add a ton of people from everywhere else (especially from MonolithSoft, though they were already helping on SS as well). I guess people would find it funny a team with so many of the same people could take such different approaches to Zelda? But also not really, when completely identical teams are capable of making entirely different games too.

There's not a 3D console Zelda I'd put below a 9 and that is true for most of the rest as well. Then there are the DS games and random outliers.
LightningStrikes posted...

I mean we can talk about the DS games and Skyward Sword but listing Twilight Princess as part of a downward trajectory is just wild to me. Those dungeons are still some of the all time greatest game design.

I feel the exact same way about Skyward Sword's dungeons. (And TP's though). They're basically on par to me, but SS has better bosses.

TomNook7 posted...

Lmao

topic: why are zelda games so good?

a bunch of detractors: theyre not

The most predictable B8 response

Ive never played Spirit Tracks or Phantom Hourglass, but Id be amazed if I found them to be worse than Zelda 2 if I ever get the chance to play them anyways. Maybe 2 consoles from now the Nintendo device will be able to play DS/3DS games

If we aren't allowed to give our opinions on the topic at hand then what was even the point of making the topic

Sorry I thought the Zelda series was shit between 2006-2011! I wish I didn't!

_Blur_ posted...

There's not a 3D console Zelda I'd put below a 9

Not even an 8.8?

Paratroopa1 posted...

If we aren't allowed to give our opinions on the topic at hand then what was even the point of making the topic

It's fine, you could make this topic about any popular series and you'd get the same response

It's more of an observation that B8 loves to be proudly contrarian when given the opportunity, myself included!

Popping in to say I don't think the Zelda games are consistently great, because they're consistently amazing instead.

In all honesty I also think the willingness to use the franchise for experimentation has also helped elevate out. Say what you will about Skyward Sword, it took an incredibly experimental approach with its tech. TotK is probably the first somewhat redundant game in the series since TP or ST. That's not an insult btw, I'm enjoying TotK far more than BotW

I fucking hate open world games. Feels like gameplay caps out after 5 hours and nothing you do can ever matter because the game intends for you to be able to do anything in any order.

The personal opinions in here are fine, even if contrarian. You are free to like and dislike, love and hate whatever the hell you want.

But broadly speaking, the general consensus is that Zelda has been a top quality franchise since its inception. So instead of interjecting which Zelda game doesn't fall in line with the level of quality you expect from it, I ask which other gaming franchise can match it? Of course, broadly speaking. The obvious answer is Mario. Something more recent, but just doesn't have the sheer number of titles I would go with GTA.

Also maybe not a franchise, but Capcom since Monster Hunter World has been on another level.

I cant think of any, but for me theres no game series Ive played yet Id say is consistently great. Pokmon has bad games. Mario has some I dont like much. Final Fantasy has more than a few stinkers along with Tales of. Maybe if I get around to all the other Trails stuff I could pick that, but well see.

I saw a tweet the other day about one of the shrines in TotK involving a segmented bridge and a car driving through lava and it had a bunch of developers gushing about how simple it looked compared to how difficult it would be to programme and pull off without any physics bugs, especially on the Switch. One of the comments mentioned how this was possible because Nintendo have really good working conditions and don't have a huge amount of turnover, so developers are used to working with each other and with the software and hardware and can hit the ground running a lot faster than most other developers.

So, that, I guess.

LightningStrikes posted...

What did OoT/MM/WW do right that TP did wrong?

Absolutely worthless overworld, tedious controls and narrative design

The real question to SS haters is what did SS do so poorly that TP did not also do? (almost all SS haters love TP)

foolm0r0n posted...

Absolutely worthless overworld, tedious controls and narrative design

The real question to SS haters is what did SS do so poorly that TP did not also do? (almost all SS haters love TP)

I am here to bond with my dear brother foolmo over such an important question

Really, I think my love for SS was birthed by it just being TP but done better (focus on dungeons and story, just a way better story and a dungeon focus that made it so the whole game felt like one massive dungeon). SS is just TP done right, so it always makes me laugh that such similar design philosophies result in such wildly different opinions...especially from a game that was so beloved at launch. Curious

E: Shit WW was part of that bunch.... It's probably bad now, but at the time, WW legit had the best exploration ever in a game. Wind Waker absolutely crushed all other Zelda games in the exploration department until BotW

Paratroopa1 posted...

Sorry I thought the Zelda series was shit between 2006-2011! I wish I didn't!

I dunno, that's kind of like if I said Mario was shit from 1998-2006 because Super Mario Sunshine and New Super Mario Bros. sucked

I guess to me it's like, well, I wouldn't call these games great but they seem to hit for people, and I think this is one of the strengths of Nintendo's series. Even when their A-teams go out on a limb and try something new or weird and kind of fail at it, they can commit to the bit and salvage something at least decent out of it. Like, Skyward Sword should be WAY worse than it is, but it's got a lot of inspired ideas to keep things interesting.

This might be my perspective as someone who thought BotW was just ok, even though in terms of popular impact it's clearly an all-timer. TotK has really salvaged the new style of Zelda for me, but six years ago I thought the things I liked about the series were innovated out of existence.

(TP doesn't have an excuse though - that's just obviously the Zelda team responding to the stupid backlash Wind Waker got.)

This topic has been ridiculous over the word "consistently" -- it's a lot of why I love ya'll because I am laughing and enjoying reading the responses, but also come on now.

1980s - LoZ
1990s - LttP and OoT
2000s - MM, WW, and TP
2010s - LBW and BotW
2020s so far -TotK

All of those games were GotY-contenders, here and elsewhere. Each of those decades can reasonably have at least one LoZ-game in their top five games of their decade, here and elsewhere. These are some reasons why LoZ could reasonably be considered the greatest game series of all time, here and elsewhere -- it already won a Best Series Ever contest here in 2006 and is about to probably win its fourth GotY since then (plus a fifth game was runner-up as well).

Even if you're picking on SS, name another game that tried what SS did with motion controls and was better. Similar deal with the LoZ-games on the DS -- did other games that were similar on the portable systems actually match or beat what ST and PH did? Maybe! I just don't know them.

"Consistently" is fine. It's not like the topic said "always" and it's easy to know what you meant.

Am I really that out of line for thinking that a series that had 4 games in a row that I hated isn't consistent? Like, I'm not trying to play some kind of semantics game here, but I do think that's a genuine hiccup in the supposed perfect consistency of the series, it wasn't just one game

foolm0r0n posted...

The real question to SS haters is what did SS do so poorly that TP did not also do? (almost all SS haters love TP)

Tadtones is the worst thing in any 3D Zelda

(I think SS is very good)

Paratroopa1 posted...

Am I really that out of line for thinking that a series that had 4 games in a row that I hated isn't consistent? Like, I'm not trying to play some kind of semantics game here, but I do think that's a genuine hiccup in the supposed perfect consistency of the series, it wasn't just one game

no but I'm also not taking "consistently great" as "perfectly consistent"

this isn't a dig or anything I think genuinely what is occurring is that people have built different tolerances for what they deem consistent or not

To get more on-topic in accordance witb the title again, the series has grown and experimented in so many ways both in 2D and 3D that it's hard to name one single thing that thematically covers the whole series...but if I had to choose something, I got one that hasn't been named in the topic yet.

LoZ has terrific emphasis on music.

Its melodies from their earliest games were bangers, they have successfully transitioned from chip-tunes to full orchestrations, , they have musical instruments be named in their titles, they have you play memorable ditties that are important to the storyline, and its sound effect are distinct. Even little puzzles like the music fading in and out in the Lost Woods was great. Also remember how cool Sheik was upon arrival? Yeah well Sheik had a harp and it was beautiful.

It's reasons like these over decades that made tying LoZ with Crypt of the Necromancer an easy fit for the Cadence of Hyrule. The LoZ-series is an all-timer for game music -- been the case for almost forty years.

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

no but I'm also not taking "consistently great" as "perfectly consistent"

this isn't a dig or anything I think genuinely what is occurring is that people have built different tolerances for what they deem consistent or not

Well then, like I said, I do think it's consistently great except for the gaping hole in the middle where the series sucked for a pretty significant amount of time

To answer the topic question, these games get years of polish to improve every aspect as much as possible. That helps a lot.

Paratroopa1 posted...

Am I really that out of line for thinking that a series that had 4 games in a row that I hated isn't consistent? Like, I'm not trying to play some kind of semantics game here, but I do think that's a genuine hiccup in the supposed perfect consistency of the series, it wasn't just one game

I think it's more that the people saying it's not great aren't really answering the question the topic is asking, haha.

Well the answer to why it's consistently great is because Nintendo is good at making video games and they hit upon a really tried-and-true formula with Zelda, and they've always taken care to make them good. don't think there's much of a question to be answered

BlueCrystalTear posted...

Says the guy with an extremely hot take. Skyward Sword is a 3/10 game, an excruciating filler-fest with poor controls and momentum-stifling gameplay. The general reception to that game is that without the Zelda coat of paint, nobody remembers it.

calling a game with a 93 critic score and 8.1 user score great: extremely hot take

calling the same game a 3/10: objectively true

Paratroopa1 posted...

Am I really that out of line for thinking that a series that had 4 games in a row that I hated isn't consistent? Like, I'm not trying to play some kind of semantics game here, but I do think that's a genuine hiccup in the supposed perfect consistency of the series, it wasn't just one game

Depends on how you're looking at this topic. I took it as more of a general consensus thing. If someone made a topic saying "why are Mario games so consistent?" I wouldn't bother responding with "it isn't, Mario games aren't good" even though I literally don't like any of them. Twilight Princess is very much a beloved game outside of the vocal detractors, and honestly I don't think anyone considers the DS spinoffs to be mainline games worth bringing into the conversation anyway.

KamikazePotato posted...

honestly I don't think anyone considers the DS spinoffs to be mainline games

If you're talking about Phantom Hourglass and Spirit Tracks here I'm not sure what makes them not mainline in your view?

Because they were 2D games released after OoT, and on a handheld. Double whammy hit to their prestige, which puts them squarely in spinoff territory. Even games like New Super Mario Bros. which were released on the main console were basically relegated to the status of being 'on the council, but not a master' due to 2D.

You may be surprised to learn that NSMB was in fact a DS game.

Anyway that's not at all how I'd define a spinoff so uh, you do you I guess.

Replace 'spinoff' with 'side game' if you want to. There's a clear difference in how seriously people take a game like Phantom Hourglass versus Skyward Sword. If Phantom Hourglass comes out and sucks, it doesn't matter, because it's not as important. If Skyward Sword sucks, that's a problem, because it's supposed to be a marquee release.

I 100% consider the DS games to be mainline Zelda games, never really considered otherwise

the only one Im iffy on is Tri Force Heroes. That one maybe doesnt count.

The DS games are absolutely mainline games. The multiplayer games are where it gets debatable.

However, I think its fair to say that there are flagship titles for the series that would be the single player console games. Though then we argue about if AoL and MM count.

KamikazePotato posted...

Depends on how you're looking at this topic. I took it as more of a general consensus thing. If someone made a topic saying "why are Mario games so consistent?" I wouldn't bother responding with "it isn't, Mario games aren't good" even though I literally don't like any of them. Twilight Princess is very much a beloved game outside of the vocal detractors,

I can get behind this but then Zelda really isn't special at all. Most big name series have good reception through and through with maybe 1 hiccup.

even PH and ST still have higher scores than games like NSMB 2. If you refuse to call Zelda consistent, I don't think you can call any long running series consistent.

I never thought of any of the handhelds games a mainline. To me the mainline games are LoZ, II, LttP, OoT, MM, WW, TP, SS, BotW, and TotK

It's probably because the technical limitations of handheld games through the years meant that they were always "behind" the main series mechanically, so they felt like side games. But in the case of PH and ST specifically, I feel like they don't even play similarly enough to the console games to be considered mainline

KingButz posted...

Not even an 8.8?

Wowww i just recently came back to b8 for the first time in years and i forgot all about this. People were so MAD about that score lmao. I still remember somebody saying an 8.8 my fucking ass and somebody drew a comic of a goomba saying that. Does anybody still have that comic?

And you know whats funny - it turned out 8.8 was actually a really good score for TP lmao

TomNook7 posted...

Wowww i just recently came back to b8 for the first time in years and i forgot all about this. People were so MAD about that score lmao. I still remember somebody saying an 8.8 my fucking ass and somebody drew a comic of a goomba saying that. Does anybody still have that comic?

And you know whats funny - it turned out 8.8 was actually a really good score for TP lmao

I tried googling 'an 8.8 my fucking ass' to see if anything would pop up. This did not work the way I intended.

foolm0r0n posted...

Absolutely worthless overworld, tedious controls and narrative design

The real question to SS haters is what did SS do so poorly that TP did not also do? (almost all SS haters love TP)

Did TP also have ridiculous padding like making you reclimb the mountain just because?

I never actually even played TP. Came out when I was out of the country for an extended period

Speaking of old internet cringe, anyone remember GANNON-BANNED?

masterplum posted...

Did TP also have ridiculous padding like making you reclimb the mountain just because?

I never actually even played TP. Came out when I was out of the country for an extended period

The most common complaint about TP I've seen is that there isn't enough padding. The wolf sections weren't enough to sate people's lust for protracted sailing or hunting down unnecessary heart pieces.

KamikazePotato posted...

I tried googling 'an 8.8 my fucking ass' to see if anything would pop up. This did not work the way I intended.

lmaooo

masterplum posted...

Did TP also have ridiculous padding like making you reclimb the mountain just because?

I never actually even played TP. Came out when I was out of the country for an extended period

I'd argue most 3D Zeldas have a fair bit of arbitrary padding. I think it sticks out more in particular games depending on your own tastes, but I'm not sure SS was any worse than TP or TWW. Saying that as someone who thinks the latter two are great while thinking SS is just okay. I just never liked the padding argument, especially when comparing it to other 3D Zeldas.

I'm curious how people felt about the SS remaster? I had pretty fond memories of the game's combat, and still think it holds up as a strong case for motion controls enhancing a gameplay experience. But I opted to play through the remaster without them, as the analog controls sounded intriguing, and I think it hurt a lot of what I enjoyed about the original, and I think it contributed to me having a much more negative opinion on the game as a whole.

tazzyboyishere posted...

I'd argue most 3D Zeldas have a fair bit of arbitrary padding. I think it sticks out more in particular games depending on your own tastes, but I'm not sure SS was any worse than TP or TWW. Saying that as someone who thinks the latter two are great while thinking SS is just okay. I just never liked the padding argument, especially when comparing it to other 3D Zeldas.

I'm curious how people felt about the SS remaster? I had pretty fond memories of the game's combat, and still think it holds up as a strong case for motion controls enhancing a gameplay experience. But I opted to play through the remaster without them, as the analog controls sounded intriguing, and I think it hurt a lot of what I enjoyed about the original, and I think it contributed to me having a much more negative opinion on the game as a whole.

I think my biggest issue with Skyward sword padding is the game was already very long. Padding a game from 20 to 30 hours is whatever, but skyward sword had a good 35-40 hours of excellent game

So the extra 10-15 hours of random fetch quest and redo already done sections was maddening to me. Just cut it all and I would have thought SS was in discussion for best Zelda game because the highs were so good.

I dont hate SS because it was all bad, I hate SS because it is 75% best Zelda of all time 25% garbage which is maddening.

It's incredibly impressive indeed. For a series to be widely regarding as a top tier series for so many generations straight. Mario is in a similar boat. No one coming into this topic to say "it's not, I disliked x" is changing that. Fact is the series has had great reception for a very long time, and on top of that great reception, a bunch of the games have been some of the best critically received games of their times. I don't love them all, but they somehow manage to keep it fresh enough for sure.

HaRRicH posted...

These are some reasons why LoZ could reasonably be considered the greatest game series of all time, here and elsewhere -- it already won a Best Series Ever contest here in 2006 and is about to probably win its fourth GotY since then (plus a fifth game was runner-up as well).

I'm just returning back to this point to be more clear -- no other game series has been more consistent for winning GotY since GaneFAQs decided LoZ was the greatest game series here and confirmed that already-common perception held elsewhere in the world.

LoZ - 2006, 2013, 2017, probably 2023 (runner-up in 2011)
SSB - 2008, 2014, 2018
FF - 2016, 2020 (runner-up in 2006)
Mario - 2007 (runner-up in 2010, potential runner-up in 2017)
RE - 2019 (runner-up in 2021, potential runner-up in 2023)
CoD - 2009 (runner-up in 2007)
(GoW - runner-up in 2018 and 2022)
(Pokemon - runner-up in 2026, potential runner-up in 2013)
(Xenoblade - runner-up in 2013, potential runner-up in 2022)

What game series would people propose is more consistent? I can see a legitimate case for Smash as far has not having any misses. I can see a legitimate case for Mario in terms of longevity. What else? LoZ is clearly in the conversation.

There's a reason why when a new mainline LoZ-game comes out, we usually predict it to be GotY. The series is consistent.