Saving Zelda (2012)(tevisthompson.com)
tevisthompson.com
Saving Zelda (2012)
http://tevisthompson.com/saving-zelda/
20 comments
Also, how do you preserve the mystery in an age where you can google a JPEG that has every bombable location highlighted?
Video games no longer have that thrill of discovery because the Internet has ruined it. I loved the original Zelda, but we can never go back to that. So while I appreciate the nostalgia, it's like saying newspapers were a better model of journalism than the web. True or not, there's no going back.
Video games no longer have that thrill of discovery because the Internet has ruined it. I loved the original Zelda, but we can never go back to that. So while I appreciate the nostalgia, it's like saying newspapers were a better model of journalism than the web. True or not, there's no going back.
You could randomize it, or generate it procedurally.
Espeically if, like in minecraft, you can set your own seed - perhaps there's an interesting social graph problem in automatically assigning the same seed to clusters of friends but keeping them somewhat random globally.
I thought about that but I remember when one of the great things about this sort of gameplay was having a friend over and being the one in-the-know for all of these little secrets and helping each other out.
But then it loses something, and you end up with Diablo. Not that Diablo is a bad game, but it's a decidedly different kind of game than Zelda.
Right, that's what makes it a classic hard design problem. The best solution, to the extent that it even exists, is necessarily going to be imperfect, and will be found somewhere in the middle.
There is no "best solution" or even a "solution". IMO games are art, so trying to solve for a solution is a fool's errand. Even games like Call of Duty -- they're pop art, which is simply the artistic process as democratic exercise. Zelda, for many of us, represents that child-like wonder that we can never return to for the same reasons game developers could never make a similar game.
I don't think we're disagreeing. There's no perfect solution; it's like designing a car or directing a film.
Though I suppose I disagree with your assertion that one can never recreate or improve upon anything that evoked childlike wonder. Portal 2 did that for Portal; Mega Man 2 and 3 did that for their prequels, Empire did it for Star Wars, and as someone with powerful childhood memories of the mid-1980s Main Street Electrical Parade, I've been hearing good things about Disney's new Paint the Night.
Though I suppose I disagree with your assertion that one can never recreate or improve upon anything that evoked childlike wonder. Portal 2 did that for Portal; Mega Man 2 and 3 did that for their prequels, Empire did it for Star Wars, and as someone with powerful childhood memories of the mid-1980s Main Street Electrical Parade, I've been hearing good things about Disney's new Paint the Night.
sure when appropriate randomize it in clever ways, but don't make it random unless it really should be random, cleverly placed secrets are part of why many players like these games, internet spoilers or not. See Myst.
Yes, it seems that around the NES era, secrets were a huge deal. The idea that you could play Mario 100 times and then one day find a hidden block that you've passed by every time was exciting.
>>>> How do you preserve the mystery while avoiding the bomb-every-block tedium?
You don't, it's part of the fun.
You don't, it's part of the fun.
This is beautifully written, but I'm unconvinced. Gamers of a certain age - not just computer gamers, I see this in roleplaying as well - seem wedded to the illusion of freedom or realism or risk, will sacrifice story or balance for their sake.
It never works. A game is ultimately never going to be able to outsmart its player; a determined player can always peek behind the curtain. Suspension of disbelief has to be willing - so why not embrace that?
And if the author wants to complain about games feeling like work, precise controller-use, meaningless deaths, or blind alleys are surely much bigger examples of that. The idea that you "actually become better" by getting better at videogame swordfights is laughable. That the original Legend of Zelda was harder doesn't make it any more heroic. Only less fun.
It never works. A game is ultimately never going to be able to outsmart its player; a determined player can always peek behind the curtain. Suspension of disbelief has to be willing - so why not embrace that?
And if the author wants to complain about games feeling like work, precise controller-use, meaningless deaths, or blind alleys are surely much bigger examples of that. The idea that you "actually become better" by getting better at videogame swordfights is laughable. That the original Legend of Zelda was harder doesn't make it any more heroic. Only less fun.
Pretty sure he means "actually becom[ing] better" at the game...
I think the author's complaint has merit, but I don't think tying this complaint to wanting Zelda to be "saved" makes sense.
The issue is genre. To take an extreme example, I might like the brutal open-world genre a la Dark Souls and complain that the Forza games are all garbage because they aren't that. Most would recognize this complaint as silly, because if I want a brutal open world with no hits I should find a game that purports to contain that, not go bashing racing games because I don't like that genre as much.
What the author's doing to Zelda obviously isn't as extreme, and it is a bit more grounded (Zelda games did used to be more like what the author wanted). But it's the same type of argument: back when there were no open world games, the author played one called Zelda and really liked it. Since then (starting with the third), almost /every single title in the series/ has been an extremely dungeon-focused, puzzle-focused game. The overworld has always been a big part, and there have always been some secrets, but the defining aspect of the genre has become these dungeons and puzzles.
This isn't to say the complaints are invalid; there's nothing wrong with wanting a game that is more hidden, less hand-holding, more focused on the action and less on the gimmicks that let you solve a puzzle. But that's not asking for a better version of Zelda, that's asking for a different genre altogether. Focus on asking for new titles in that genre, and leave other genres in peace.
The issue is genre. To take an extreme example, I might like the brutal open-world genre a la Dark Souls and complain that the Forza games are all garbage because they aren't that. Most would recognize this complaint as silly, because if I want a brutal open world with no hits I should find a game that purports to contain that, not go bashing racing games because I don't like that genre as much.
What the author's doing to Zelda obviously isn't as extreme, and it is a bit more grounded (Zelda games did used to be more like what the author wanted). But it's the same type of argument: back when there were no open world games, the author played one called Zelda and really liked it. Since then (starting with the third), almost /every single title in the series/ has been an extremely dungeon-focused, puzzle-focused game. The overworld has always been a big part, and there have always been some secrets, but the defining aspect of the genre has become these dungeons and puzzles.
This isn't to say the complaints are invalid; there's nothing wrong with wanting a game that is more hidden, less hand-holding, more focused on the action and less on the gimmicks that let you solve a puzzle. But that's not asking for a better version of Zelda, that's asking for a different genre altogether. Focus on asking for new titles in that genre, and leave other genres in peace.
Twilight Princess takes 50+ hours to beat the first time and that's with being shepherded through by game mechanics. Even then a couple of things take forever to find.
I like what the author says but when you have to find something and you don't know what you're looking for you have to resort to a brute-force search. The original Zelda's overworld had 16x11=176 blocks per screen and was 16x8=128 screens. At a minute per screen that's two hours to do a rough exploration of the entire overworld. Twilight Princess is roughly four times the map size* and 8 hours looks like a long time to explore.
Compounding the problem is in the original Zelda a rock was pushable/not-pushable, a tree was burnable/not-burnable, a wall was bombable/not-bombable. That binary "I have checked this/I have not checked this" has largely disappeared. Not to mention 2-D vs 3-D.
Basically there is no fast Zelda Search Algorithm so either the game A) has a small map size, B) limits where the user needs to search, or C) takes forever.
*-http://www.ign.com/boards/threads/the-size-of-hyrule-area-co...
I like what the author says but when you have to find something and you don't know what you're looking for you have to resort to a brute-force search. The original Zelda's overworld had 16x11=176 blocks per screen and was 16x8=128 screens. At a minute per screen that's two hours to do a rough exploration of the entire overworld. Twilight Princess is roughly four times the map size* and 8 hours looks like a long time to explore.
Compounding the problem is in the original Zelda a rock was pushable/not-pushable, a tree was burnable/not-burnable, a wall was bombable/not-bombable. That binary "I have checked this/I have not checked this" has largely disappeared. Not to mention 2-D vs 3-D.
Basically there is no fast Zelda Search Algorithm so either the game A) has a small map size, B) limits where the user needs to search, or C) takes forever.
*-http://www.ign.com/boards/threads/the-size-of-hyrule-area-co...
I thought Skyward Sword was great. I thought it was one of the better Zeldas. I think all the 3D Zeldas are way better than the 2D ones. This is the kind of game I like.
I'm not that invested in it though. This guy writes freakin fiction based on Zelda (and Mario and Metroid!). This guy doesn't want to "save" Zelda. This guy is upset that Nintendo has gone in a different direction with Zelda, and not the one he thinks is "right" (ie the one he wants).
I couldn't agree more with other comments here:
"I have no patience for people who complain that a game is not what they want it to be. Zelda isn't what you want? OK then make your own game that is what you want. Don't insist that Minamoto make your vision over his own. That's narcissistic beyond all reason."
And if you don't like it?
"Chill out and play skyrim."
I'm not that invested in it though. This guy writes freakin fiction based on Zelda (and Mario and Metroid!). This guy doesn't want to "save" Zelda. This guy is upset that Nintendo has gone in a different direction with Zelda, and not the one he thinks is "right" (ie the one he wants).
I couldn't agree more with other comments here:
"I have no patience for people who complain that a game is not what they want it to be. Zelda isn't what you want? OK then make your own game that is what you want. Don't insist that Minamoto make your vision over his own. That's narcissistic beyond all reason."
And if you don't like it?
"Chill out and play skyrim."
I loved the original zelda as a kid, it was loaded with eurekons imo. http://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/INT/INT7/paper/viewFile/92...
So Zelda being almost impossibly hard wasn't just a ploy to sell more Nintendo Power magazines?
I'm presently in the process of replying the original Zelda myself to see what, if anything, keeps this game at the pinnacle of game design. I've found that it's egregiously difficult not because it was trying to achieve something but simply because there was no bar with which to measure. It lacked context as any game does until its time has passed. We thought it was good because at the time it exceeded or confounded our expectations of what an action-adventure game was. In hindsight they had a vision but little genre inspiration to draw from and the result, for me, is a game that is hard only by accident.
I have been so far unimpressed with the combat in the game. The monsters have slapped-together "powers" and appear in incoherent groups. Often just a room full of one type and little synergy with mechanics. The Darknuts that are impervious to damage from the front, for example, are tedious and frustrating because the only edge of their hitbox that will take damage from your weapon is constantly moving away from the character and you can't run and hit at the same time. Throw in their random choice about when to turn and you can spend an hour making your way back to the same room to be slaughtered over and over until you get lucky enough one time to win. That's not heroism: that's persistence.
It does have many redeeming qualities of course. I agree that the completely accessible world is certainly a wonderful design decision in the early games. It is a concept well plumbed in pioneering rogue-likes such as Moria and ToME (when it was still Tales of Middle Earth). The world is presented as is and the player is plopped into an area that is suitably dangerous and exploration outwards tends to get more difficult with distance -- the occasional high-level location not withstanding. The use of items for progression is a well-trod trope of the adventure genre and used effectively in The Legend of Zelda. It's unfortunate that the series would turn the mechanic into a lock-and-key system just as the adventure game genre did instead of taking the original game's tack and using items to add new abilities instead of more areas.
If it had followed that tack the Zelda series might've felt more like the rogue-like games did around that time with items, identification, and combination being a game unto itself.
If anything the original games gave us a set of tropes and gimmicks to build upon. Wall bombing, block pushing, gimmicky-enemies, and grids of tilemaps: all of them are practically cliché today. We make inside jokes about them and print them on t-shirts.
I'm not sure what keeps the original The Legend of Zelda up there on its pedestal. It's a frustrating game to play. Without the narrative thread of its successors it makes almost no sense. And yet it holds an allure for those of us that were there before this context existed. This game was new, fresh, and exciting. Maybe it was the potential: the lure, the promise, the hidden cave of gaming goodness that we've been stumbling after all of these years. It's not so much that The Legend of Zelda was a good game for me. It objectively wasn't a great game in some respects. But it did stake one of the early flags on the shore of an undiscovered land and set our collective sights on something.
While I've enjoyed the series, for the most part, to date I can see how it is slightly disappointing how it veered from Miyamoto's vision and forged a different path. It would be interesting to see if, like Mario did with the Lost Levels, an offshoot or side-project of the series could try and revive those early mechanisms and "save the series."
I have been so far unimpressed with the combat in the game. The monsters have slapped-together "powers" and appear in incoherent groups. Often just a room full of one type and little synergy with mechanics. The Darknuts that are impervious to damage from the front, for example, are tedious and frustrating because the only edge of their hitbox that will take damage from your weapon is constantly moving away from the character and you can't run and hit at the same time. Throw in their random choice about when to turn and you can spend an hour making your way back to the same room to be slaughtered over and over until you get lucky enough one time to win. That's not heroism: that's persistence.
It does have many redeeming qualities of course. I agree that the completely accessible world is certainly a wonderful design decision in the early games. It is a concept well plumbed in pioneering rogue-likes such as Moria and ToME (when it was still Tales of Middle Earth). The world is presented as is and the player is plopped into an area that is suitably dangerous and exploration outwards tends to get more difficult with distance -- the occasional high-level location not withstanding. The use of items for progression is a well-trod trope of the adventure genre and used effectively in The Legend of Zelda. It's unfortunate that the series would turn the mechanic into a lock-and-key system just as the adventure game genre did instead of taking the original game's tack and using items to add new abilities instead of more areas.
If it had followed that tack the Zelda series might've felt more like the rogue-like games did around that time with items, identification, and combination being a game unto itself.
If anything the original games gave us a set of tropes and gimmicks to build upon. Wall bombing, block pushing, gimmicky-enemies, and grids of tilemaps: all of them are practically cliché today. We make inside jokes about them and print them on t-shirts.
I'm not sure what keeps the original The Legend of Zelda up there on its pedestal. It's a frustrating game to play. Without the narrative thread of its successors it makes almost no sense. And yet it holds an allure for those of us that were there before this context existed. This game was new, fresh, and exciting. Maybe it was the potential: the lure, the promise, the hidden cave of gaming goodness that we've been stumbling after all of these years. It's not so much that The Legend of Zelda was a good game for me. It objectively wasn't a great game in some respects. But it did stake one of the early flags on the shore of an undiscovered land and set our collective sights on something.
While I've enjoyed the series, for the most part, to date I can see how it is slightly disappointing how it veered from Miyamoto's vision and forged a different path. It would be interesting to see if, like Mario did with the Lost Levels, an offshoot or side-project of the series could try and revive those early mechanisms and "save the series."
Back in the original, not only was there no way to tell at glance which walls were bombable but if you ran out of bombs in one of the later dungeons where you simply had to bomb a wall to get any further, TOUGH LUCK. Up against dodongo and out of bombs because you mis-timed your last one? DIE. And if you were low on rupees to buy more bombs, tough again.
In phantom hourglass, if bombing a crack is necessary to advance, not only will there be a massive crack visible, but the DS will actually switch to a cutscene the first time you enter that room specifically highlighting the crack. If that's not enough there will be a huge SIGN nearby telling you why not try a bomb, and in case you had not thought to bring any, there's also a bomb-plant providing an infinite supply in the corner of the room. If I remember right, for the boss that you need arrows to defeat, there's some kind of infinite resupply in the room as well.
P.S. I wonder how many times you need to mention "bomb" on HN to trigger an XKEYSCORE alert?
In phantom hourglass, if bombing a crack is necessary to advance, not only will there be a massive crack visible, but the DS will actually switch to a cutscene the first time you enter that room specifically highlighting the crack. If that's not enough there will be a huge SIGN nearby telling you why not try a bomb, and in case you had not thought to bring any, there's also a bomb-plant providing an infinite supply in the corner of the room. If I remember right, for the boss that you need arrows to defeat, there's some kind of infinite resupply in the room as well.
P.S. I wonder how many times you need to mention "bomb" on HN to trigger an XKEYSCORE alert?
You are right, the first zelda was much more difficult. And that is what made it so rewarding when you found something new or finally beat a boss.
I remember also trying to burn every single bush with the blue candle and having to go out of the scene and enter again to do one more try. Took hours, days sometime.
In opposite, the latest versions of the game are so easy. For example In Twilight Princess, I did not even die once versus the final boss... What a disapointment.
In opposite, the latest versions of the game are so easy. For example In Twilight Princess, I did not even die once versus the final boss... What a disapointment.
There's a balance there. Personally, I like how Link to the Past handled that: some walls have cracks in them, some (but not all) cracks can be bombed open into doors, but you can always tell the difference by tapping the wall with your sword and listening to the sound.
I'm curious to know the authors opinion on the recent 3DS Zelda title - was it A Link Between Worlds? It did away with the linear dungeon style and allowed players to explore the world to their own preference.
I was wondering this as well. He didn't mention it. It wasn't a complete revolution for the franchise, but it gives me hope that we'll get something that isn't just a recycled Ocarina of Time someday.
It came out after the article was written.
I actually just started it last week and was put off by all the scripted events and lecturing in the beginning. I even tried wandering off and was stopped and told it wasn't time to go that way yet. I put it down. I'll probably pick it up again soon and see how it is after things open up. But I can't figure out what compels the designers to offer such a bad first impression.
They were probably afraid that people wouldn't be able to figure out what to do if you didn't hold their hands during the first hour or so. After all the scripted events and lecturing, though, it's anything goes. They do provide some ways of getting hints if you get stuck, but you have to actively seek these out. By default, after the initial lecturing, if you see something interesting you can go explore it whenever you want.
Chill out and play skyrim. You're in your 30s.
Skyrim has close to nothing of what the author is asking for.
A living world to explore, go anywhere at any time at any level (and potentially get slaughtered), ignore the story or discover it at your own pace, focus on combat over puzzles, increased difficulty if you want it, reduced focus on items, plenty of hidden mysterious dungeons, non-linearity?
The main thing the author complains about is difficulty. I'm playing through Skyrim for the first time now, and the fact is that no matter where you go, enemies level up as you do. With very few exceptions, there are no places you can go that are too dangerous for you at your current level.
The dungeon "puzzles" are almost insultingly easy, too. Even easier than typical modern Zelda dungeon puzzles.
I'm loving the game, especially the non-linearity and the numerous choices without clear right/wrong answers. But it really just does not provide what the author is looking for.
The dungeon "puzzles" are almost insultingly easy, too. Even easier than typical modern Zelda dungeon puzzles.
I'm loving the game, especially the non-linearity and the numerous choices without clear right/wrong answers. But it really just does not provide what the author is looking for.
I think this sense of discovery is one of the reasons I love Minecraft so much. Wandering in a deep cave, trying to follow the sounds to find a stronghold or spawner is amazing. Mining a wall and suddenly finding some diamonds is so rewarding!
Discovery creates an amazing gaming experience, but it takes some patience to get it. It might be frustrating at the beginning. Back in the early 90's you just had a few games, you had to get most of them. Now, people are exposed to millions of games for several platforms. If a game doesn't catch the attention of a player in the first few minutes, it's ditched for another one.
It's the market what's sinking Zelda, sadly...
Discovery creates an amazing gaming experience, but it takes some patience to get it. It might be frustrating at the beginning. Back in the early 90's you just had a few games, you had to get most of them. Now, people are exposed to millions of games for several platforms. If a game doesn't catch the attention of a player in the first few minutes, it's ditched for another one.
It's the market what's sinking Zelda, sadly...
I wonder if the time is ripe for a procedurally generated Zelda game? Several minecraft-inspired projects on Kickstarter mention LoZ as inspiration.
When I played notch's minicraft, it had a distinctly Zelda-ish feel to it, including being hard enough that you have to really pay attention what you're doing sometimes. And he wrote that in what, 24 hours or something?
When I played notch's minicraft, it had a distinctly Zelda-ish feel to it, including being hard enough that you have to really pay attention what you're doing sometimes. And he wrote that in what, 24 hours or something?
ask and ye shall receive:
http://lennasinception.com/
So much of what he laments as being lost in the recent Zelda games such as mystery, exploration, and difficulty are spot on assessments of what make these games, and I think games in general these days, less compelling to a certain type of player. I can only think of a few games that I feel do these things right, with the most recent notable example being the Souls series of games (Demon Souls, Dark Souls 1 & 2, Bloodborne).
In a Souls game the "story" is not fed to you in bursts of out-of-place exposition but instead is found in the layout of the environment, the description of items, and the types and placement of certain enemies. Hidden areas and items abound, and without a guide you would be hard-pressed to find everything available in the game in a singe play through. You are not generally kept out of areas that are too difficult to you. In fact, some of the more difficult parts of the game are readily accessible from quite early on. So you die. You die a lot. Which brings us to difficulty. While I don't think these games are as hard as they are sometimes made out to be (you can out-level much of the difficulty if you want to spend the time doing so), the learning curve at the beginning is steeper than I have seen in a series in a long time. Games now have almost conditioned you to expect the developers to give you a break in the form of a special item or by restoring your health to full before a difficult section like a boss battle. This is not the case in the Souls series.
I kind of checked out of Zelda games after Ocarina of Time as I found the series less and less interesting as I grew older, though I still remember the old games fondly. While the characteristics of these older games are harder to find in newer titles these days, they are still rewarding and being used to good effect outside of the Zelda universe.
In a Souls game the "story" is not fed to you in bursts of out-of-place exposition but instead is found in the layout of the environment, the description of items, and the types and placement of certain enemies. Hidden areas and items abound, and without a guide you would be hard-pressed to find everything available in the game in a singe play through. You are not generally kept out of areas that are too difficult to you. In fact, some of the more difficult parts of the game are readily accessible from quite early on. So you die. You die a lot. Which brings us to difficulty. While I don't think these games are as hard as they are sometimes made out to be (you can out-level much of the difficulty if you want to spend the time doing so), the learning curve at the beginning is steeper than I have seen in a series in a long time. Games now have almost conditioned you to expect the developers to give you a break in the form of a special item or by restoring your health to full before a difficult section like a boss battle. This is not the case in the Souls series.
I kind of checked out of Zelda games after Ocarina of Time as I found the series less and less interesting as I grew older, though I still remember the old games fondly. While the characteristics of these older games are harder to find in newer titles these days, they are still rewarding and being used to good effect outside of the Zelda universe.
Actually, when I was playing Dark Souls a few months ago, somebody asked me what it was like and after thinking for a few moments, I told them "It's like a hardcore Zelda game". At base, I think the Souls games and the Zelda games are made on the same template.
while I agree with part of what the author says, I feel a very important thing is not being considered: cartoons, books, toys, videogames, food, comics, soft drinks were all better when I was younger.
I feel "A Link To The Past" is the best ever Zelda. My brother, who's younger than me, swears Ocarina of Time is the best Zelda. I am sure there are kids in their teens now that feel Skyward Sword is the best Zelda.
I feel "A Link To The Past" is the best ever Zelda. My brother, who's younger than me, swears Ocarina of Time is the best Zelda. I am sure there are kids in their teens now that feel Skyward Sword is the best Zelda.
I never liked Zelda. That is until I discovered the NES Zelda's. I grew up with the Super Nintendo. So when I came up RPGs and adventure games were unappealing, neverending, tedious chores that had nothing to do with the fun that was Super Mario Bros., Street Fighter, Super Metroid, StarFox etc.
Woah. Battletoads was also hard, but I'm not dying for someone to recapture the magic of the last level. It would appear that the difficulty is the only vaguely objective comment in the essay, and one could argue that most gamers don't want/never wanted to be challenged the way Link II was challenging. Hell, I hated Link II because at the age I was when it came out it wasn't demanding, it was downright impossible.
Meanwhile, Link to the Past was just about the perfect game to me. I remember watching my aunt play the original and it seemed fun, but Link to the Past was brilliant in my eyes.
A nice work of criticism and some interesting points, but the "mystery" and "ambiance" of what makes a game great is way too subjective for this to be very useful.
Now I'm gonna go dust of Shadow of the Colossus ...
Meanwhile, Link to the Past was just about the perfect game to me. I remember watching my aunt play the original and it seemed fun, but Link to the Past was brilliant in my eyes.
A nice work of criticism and some interesting points, but the "mystery" and "ambiance" of what makes a game great is way too subjective for this to be very useful.
Now I'm gonna go dust of Shadow of the Colossus ...
This is how I feel about most games. And more specifically MMOs...
Ultima Online was amazingly fun and brutal. If you died your body was free to loot by anyone.
But ever since World of Warcraft. All we have are carebear mmos with soul bound items and no reason to explore or do anything besides grind.
I don't know how people find most of today's games fun. They are so boring.
I miss the games I played as a kid on my SNES and Sega Mega Drive. Hours sunk into games with no save points or having to be careful when low on items or health. :(
Ultima Online was amazingly fun and brutal. If you died your body was free to loot by anyone.
But ever since World of Warcraft. All we have are carebear mmos with soul bound items and no reason to explore or do anything besides grind.
I don't know how people find most of today's games fun. They are so boring.
I miss the games I played as a kid on my SNES and Sega Mega Drive. Hours sunk into games with no save points or having to be careful when low on items or health. :(
> I miss the games I played as a kid on my SNES and Sega Mega Drive.
I think this may be a defining factor for a lot of people in this thread. As a kid, time management is extremely different. You presumably had much more time and less options of things to pick from, so for the most part, video games may have taken up a large percentage of what you enjoyed, and even what you cared about.
As a kid, I would sit for hours playing the nes Zelda and repeatedly dying, picking up the controller, and having another go. But now, now if I even have time to play video games, I just want to sit down and play some mind-numbing, flashy video game to blow off some steam. After a day of work, I don't want to continually be challenged and exert mental effort.
I just wish that both clever and mind-numbing games were still being built, but lately consumer trends have skewed towards the mind-numbing.. which I do believe is unfortunate for people with more time and interest in playing quality video games, namely the next generation of kids.
I think this may be a defining factor for a lot of people in this thread. As a kid, time management is extremely different. You presumably had much more time and less options of things to pick from, so for the most part, video games may have taken up a large percentage of what you enjoyed, and even what you cared about.
As a kid, I would sit for hours playing the nes Zelda and repeatedly dying, picking up the controller, and having another go. But now, now if I even have time to play video games, I just want to sit down and play some mind-numbing, flashy video game to blow off some steam. After a day of work, I don't want to continually be challenged and exert mental effort.
I just wish that both clever and mind-numbing games were still being built, but lately consumer trends have skewed towards the mind-numbing.. which I do believe is unfortunate for people with more time and interest in playing quality video games, namely the next generation of kids.
There are still hundred-hour adventure games and RPGs created today, just not very many. Personally, the trend I keep finding annoying is the trend towards making a few of the things needed for "100%" require either some other hardware/platform/console/game, some multiplayer/online activity, or some mindless pervasive collection with no in-game benefit (especially if it requires some of the previous things; I'm looking at you, Wind Waker photos/statues). I used to go for 100% in every game; I don't anymore.
Yeah, I could see how that would be quite frustrating and defeating. There was no satisfaction greater than fully completing a game. Can you imagine reading a book with some of the chapters missing and requiring external resources to read?
I too played the original Zelda as a kid. I memorized every tile of the world, and every tile of every dungeon and would draw maps for classmates on graph paper. Telling them where each secret was, etc.
The original Zelda worked just like the later ones. You needed the raft to get across the water. You needed the bomb to get into the hidden door. You needed the candle to burn away a bush. You needed the boomerang to get the key.
The core of Zelda has not really changed, it is what it's always been. Skyward Sword was a terrific game, and the others have all been great too.
I have no patience for people who complain that a game is not what they want it to be. Zelda isn't what you want? OK then make your own game that is what you want. Don't insist that Minamoto make your vision over his own. That's narcissistic beyond all reason.
The original Zelda worked just like the later ones. You needed the raft to get across the water. You needed the bomb to get into the hidden door. You needed the candle to burn away a bush. You needed the boomerang to get the key.
The core of Zelda has not really changed, it is what it's always been. Skyward Sword was a terrific game, and the others have all been great too.
I have no patience for people who complain that a game is not what they want it to be. Zelda isn't what you want? OK then make your own game that is what you want. Don't insist that Minamoto make your vision over his own. That's narcissistic beyond all reason.
What a great article.
Zelda will never again be what this guy is looking for; there is simply too much pressure now for AAA games to be cinematic, cater to all audiences and easily expose all of their (extremely expensive) content to the player on demand - people want to get what they paid for.
The kind of experience he's looking for is now a niche corner of gaming: roguelikes offer random world generation, truly punishing death, and the need to really explore and figure things out (because it's a little different every time).
The biggest problem that a game has to deal with nowadays is how to treat failure. How do you offer risk/reward, and punish the player in a way that they keep coming back?
As a game player, I've discovered that the best thing you can do nowadays is try every game you can get your hands on, especially the enormous world of indie games out there. I've had to work through the natural instinct to stick to the prettiest, biggest-budget games and start trawling the indiest of the indie on Steam. You can find a better experience with a small game that made design decisions that resonate with you rather than a AAA, zillion-dollar-budget blockbuster that needs to cater to everyone, so seek out games that are opinionated. I can't tell you how many times I've been so pleasantly surprised by a $10-$15 deal and sunk hours and hours into it... maybe it's about as many times as I've gotten bored with another AAA chore simulator.
Zelda will never again be what this guy is looking for; there is simply too much pressure now for AAA games to be cinematic, cater to all audiences and easily expose all of their (extremely expensive) content to the player on demand - people want to get what they paid for.
The kind of experience he's looking for is now a niche corner of gaming: roguelikes offer random world generation, truly punishing death, and the need to really explore and figure things out (because it's a little different every time).
The biggest problem that a game has to deal with nowadays is how to treat failure. How do you offer risk/reward, and punish the player in a way that they keep coming back?
As a game player, I've discovered that the best thing you can do nowadays is try every game you can get your hands on, especially the enormous world of indie games out there. I've had to work through the natural instinct to stick to the prettiest, biggest-budget games and start trawling the indiest of the indie on Steam. You can find a better experience with a small game that made design decisions that resonate with you rather than a AAA, zillion-dollar-budget blockbuster that needs to cater to everyone, so seek out games that are opinionated. I can't tell you how many times I've been so pleasantly surprised by a $10-$15 deal and sunk hours and hours into it... maybe it's about as many times as I've gotten bored with another AAA chore simulator.
Egoraptor talks about many of the same things in his video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOC3vixnj_0
Part of the problem, I think, is that the Japanese market has a lot of gamers who like to have their hand held, and relatively few who want an open-world adventure. The same may even be true of the Western markets, but open-world games such as Fallout do NOT sell well in Japan, and attempts by Japanese developers to put those elements into Japanese games provoke criticism from the fan base that the game is "too Western". So you get this thing of a game where what to do next is always real obvious. Go where the thing tells you, fight these enemies by waiting for an opening and then attacking, bomb the obviously bombable wall, etc. Press a food pellet, get a reward. An open-world game confronts them with the unpleasant possibility of the unexpected. Now you have to survive, and what you have to do to survive isn't obvious. So you're going to die, and die, and die an awful lot in the game, and there's nothing like the artificial feeling of "making progress" brought about by the scripted game's obvious action-reward mechanism. But each death, each failure brings with it new knowledge about how the game works and so when you finally do "make progress" it's because you gained understanding through effort and that's much more rewarding.
Part of the problem, I think, is that the Japanese market has a lot of gamers who like to have their hand held, and relatively few who want an open-world adventure. The same may even be true of the Western markets, but open-world games such as Fallout do NOT sell well in Japan, and attempts by Japanese developers to put those elements into Japanese games provoke criticism from the fan base that the game is "too Western". So you get this thing of a game where what to do next is always real obvious. Go where the thing tells you, fight these enemies by waiting for an opening and then attacking, bomb the obviously bombable wall, etc. Press a food pellet, get a reward. An open-world game confronts them with the unpleasant possibility of the unexpected. Now you have to survive, and what you have to do to survive isn't obvious. So you're going to die, and die, and die an awful lot in the game, and there's nothing like the artificial feeling of "making progress" brought about by the scripted game's obvious action-reward mechanism. But each death, each failure brings with it new knowledge about how the game works and so when you finally do "make progress" it's because you gained understanding through effort and that's much more rewarding.
I think Zelda Classic should be mentioned [1]. It's a port of the first Zelda to the PC with a powerful map editor. Considering that this has been out for more than 15 years - I imagine Nintendo knows or has heard about it and seems to be ok with it.
Nintendo seems to be ok with fan made ports as long as they aren't selling it - as seems to be the case with Mari0 [2].
There was some work being done on porting Super Metroid to the PC but I think that has been lost in time. Many years ago I contacted the author and instead of giving me the source he gave me compiled binaries :(. I can post a link if people are interested.
[1] http://www.zeldaclassic.com/
[2] http://stabyourself.net/mari0/
Nintendo seems to be ok with fan made ports as long as they aren't selling it - as seems to be the case with Mari0 [2].
There was some work being done on porting Super Metroid to the PC but I think that has been lost in time. Many years ago I contacted the author and instead of giving me the source he gave me compiled binaries :(. I can post a link if people are interested.
[1] http://www.zeldaclassic.com/
[2] http://stabyourself.net/mari0/
For those interested (i.e. shameless plug of my own project ;)), I'm working on a game editor that will allow you to create Action Adventures. Definitely not complete yet, but you can already create some nice levels, and add NPC conversations :). http://rpgplayground.com
But there's a very hard game-design problem here: Completionism.
Modern gamers are obsessed with finding every last object, every achievement, 100%. If you play the original Zelda in this way, it becomes a tedious process of acquiring 12 bombs, running back to a particular screen, and bombing 12 blocks in a row checking to see if there's a secret cave... then, you're out of bombs and you have to commute back and do another round...
How do you preserve the mystery while avoiding the bomb-every-block tedium?