I actually had a very long and wondrous essay prepared for you. Unfortunately, it was devoured by outlook, so in my frustration I deliver unto you, the condensed version.
I believe your fundamental assessment of Zelda to be incorrect.
Your assessment being composed of:
1. Zelda is non linear
2. Arcade Gameplay is the skeleton of the Zelda experience.
What you described as Zeldas game design in your recent email about Zelda wii, is in fact, not Zelda at all, but western RPG’s such as fallout 3. Which have large, non linear sandboxes for the player to go anywhere, at any time, he chooses.
Zelda is nothing like that. Zelda, is a completely linear game. There is one path for the player to take, every time, all the time. Unlike fallout 3, Zelda games are deliberately designed, the overworld is limited, by the items the player has, a new item, or even event allows the player to access a new part of the map, where the player will find the next spot he is supposed to go to.
While the player could go to many dungeons out of order in the first zelda game on the nes, there were certain dungeons, and areas, that could not be reached no matter what unless the player had the right items. This quickly became the status quo for Zelda.
See, the reason Zelda doesnt feel linear, is because it is DISGUISED, so as not to appear linear. The player goes forwards, then backwards again upwards downward, back to the beginning and through the middle. In a conventional sense, as far as where the player goes, this could not possibly be considered linear. But in game design, it is completely linear, because that twisted path was planned, and the player must execute it the same way everytime if they wish to make any progress in the game. Look at link to the past, you have to go through those dungeons in order, you cant get to, or complete them without the item from the previous dungeon. (Breaking this pattern, is known as sequence breaking, and many times results in cool glitches or bummer having to restart the game because the player is doing things the developer didnt intend and the testers never caught. On an unreleted side note, I totally love sequence breaking.)
Since, at any given time, in any zelda game, ever made, there is only one correct spot to go to next to progress the game, the super guide can work in ANY ZELDA GAME EVER MADE. And thus, has no changing effect on Zelda wii. In fact, its quite the opposite, it allows Zelda to go back to the way it used to be, without leaving the less dedicated and easily frustrated behind (These are, of course, normal people well adjusted to society who will not spend the time, and of course, not enjoy spending hours meandering around lost, unlike use sick gaming masochists.).
Your second point, the skeleton of Zelda is arcade gameplay, I also believe to be incorrect. For if it were ture, you would not be longing for this arcade gameplay outside of Wii sports, who’s skeleton IS arcade gameplay. You want content. You want an adventure.
The adventure is the skeleton of Zelda, where the player goes, what they discover, what they find, what they see. The string of events the player ‘discovers’ (actually they are being led on a very carefully designed path) is the skeleton of Zelda, the arcade gameplay is the skin that encompasses it, keeping the player entertained from event to event, from discovery to discovery, staving off disinterest until the next wonder is uncovered.
The reason Zelda seems non linear is because of all the effort put into disguising it. Zelda is like a maze, there is a huge world with only one path to navigate it, full of dead ends. Only one path. But dead ends are boring. So they filled them with zany characters, fun things to do, secret items like a cape, or wand, heart peices, a cursed fairy that upgrades your items, a character in need of your help who will help you in return. The player is overwhelmed with content, and thus cannot distinguish the one true path among all the wondrous dead ends, all the optional dead ends that are not requirements to beating the game. But its there, its always there, the dead ends are optional, but the player must travel the true path to make progress in the game.
Unfortunately, this is where recent Zeldas go wrong. See, recent Zeldas dont let the player discover the world. The player is shown the path, handcuffed to it. The player doesnt discover ancient ruins, or sacred spirits, they are led to them on a leash. Now that the true path is in plain sight, there is little incentive to disguise the path that has been highlighted and the player shackled too. The player sees the dead ends for what they are. And since the player is no longer accidentally stumbling upon them to find the true path, and the developers have no need to disguise the linear nature of the games progression they have become chores. This is the obligatory fishing minigame, these are the heart peices I have to find, this is the minigame I must complete for an item. I have to do these things because its a Zelda game and Zelda games have these.
This change in game design came around because Nintendo believed many gamers were becoming frusterated with getting lost, and selling the games without ever finishing them. So they made sure these players could get from starting village to last temple without fail. The end result, is the change in the way the zelda series has felt over the years.
With the Superguide, we can go back to stumbling through an unknown world discovering where to go next. And since, at any given time in any Zelda game, there is only one place to go to progress the game. An item to claim, a person to see, a dungeon to defeat, the next event along the true path. The superguide would enable those gamers who were frusterated by a link to the past, and Links awakening (Man I loved this one) to never get lost (And also never find the secrets….) and us who wanted a world to discover to play the same game and enjoy it.
The superguide, will have no negative effect on Zelda’s game design, because Zelda has always had linear game design.
My remark that Zelda Wii will be linear centric due to Super Guide has hit a nerve with many of my email. Zelda Wii is, at least, two years away and nothing has been shown about it. I never understand why people want to live in feel-good-hype about a game that is years off. We won’t know much until it is shown. But the direction the Zelda team has been going has been lowering my confidence. The more is showed off about Spirit Tracks, the more I shake my head.
Anyway, this was a good and valiant attempt. And, for that, I applaud you.
But now it is my turn.
Of course Zelda is “linear” because it has an ending. All video games that have a defined ending is “linear”. Just because you have to get items in order to get somewhere else does not make the game “linear”. By such a definition, even the “non-linear” games would all end up “linear”.
Your error was applying your new standard to only Zelda. But when treated universally, all games become “linear” under your broad stroke.
Let us take the king of RPGs, Ultima. Let us take what many consider the king of that series: Ultima 7 (Part 1, of course. Part 2 is very linear).
No one ever describes Ultima 7 as “linear”. In fact, it is considered the epitome of the “non-linear” game. Yet, in Ultima 7 you start off in the game confined in a walled town (Trinsic). You are ordered to go around and “investigate” the murder. When you do all these things, you get the password to leave the city. This is Copy Protection of the 90s at its finest!
The main game of Ultima 7 involves you chasing Elizabeth and Abraham on a wild goose hunt throughout the world. Wherever you go, they have just suddenly left. And new scenarios emerge with new murders and other occurrences. You must do certain events within the game such as freeing the Time Lord or destroying the Moon Gates. You must get material from a comet to make special helmets. You are not allowed to go in certain areas or do certain things and, especially, say certain things until you have done previous things or obtained previous items. All the things you do lead you to the final event of destroying the Black Gate which ends the game.
Ultima 7, which is replayed over and over again, always ends with the destruction of the Black Gate (with the exception of those choosing to walk into the Black Gate at the end and return home, but this occurs only in the last minute of the game), yet despite the same destination, the journey differs each time when playing the game. How is this possible?
It is possible because you have freedom. It is natural for someone to choose to do something different than what they did before. You can go left before you go right. You can use a bow instead of using a sword, or a magical hoe for that matter. You can make money by stealing dragons’ gold. You can also make money by baking bread. You can make money by stealing the mint. There are many different ways to play the game. At the end of each play, the gamer will feel like he had gone through a slightly different plot than what he saw before.
The “non-linearity” of early Zelda games had nothing to do with it being ‘disguised’. It had everything to do with the lack of text, the lack of dialogue, and the lack of cinematics and story. In the earlier Zeldas, you could go into dungeons into different order. Sure, you had to get a special item sometimes, but you could do it. With the earlier Zeldas, the overworld allowed different experiences to be had each time you played the game. While Link to the Past clearly shows how the vicegrip of “story” and “cinematics” were increasing, once in the Dark World Link is fully free to go wherever he pleases and however he pleases. He has to get some items first, sure.
Modern Zeldas ram a story down your throat. You don’t have much part at all in defining this story. No. Your role is to do nothing more than to move to a certain location or to kill a certain monster to trigger the next cinematic while gives you the next goal. The game becomes predictable. There are no surprises because you, the player, have no control over the story of the game. The more detailed the story becomes, the less control the player has.
And the stories suck anyway. Video game developers are crappy story tellers. Being a good story teller is very difficult. People who get paid to write books or to make movies are very rare among the population. Developers have not spent the decades necessary to form such a craft.
When game companies get the person to make music for the game, they get someone who is a professional musician (someone who can sell music anywhere). The programmers do not suddenly declare themselves master musicians and start making the music. (They used to have to do this as was necessary when a few people made games.)
When game companies get the people to make art for the game, they get someone who is a professional artist. They, themselves, do not suddenly declare themselves “master artists” and start drawing. This might have been necessary in the early games, but everyone has recognized that people need to know the craft of music in order to make good music or that people need to know the craft of art in order to make good art.
So why is that nonprofessionals, who do not possess the ability to sell a story to a book publisher or somewhere else, are writing the stories in these games?
Why is it that nonprofessionals, who do not possess the craft of movie directing and would be laughed out of Hollywood, are directing the ‘cinematics’ and the ‘flow’ of these games?
The result is mixing garbage with good food. It spoils the entire dish.
This is why I say it is better to have no story than a bad story. Just because the nonprofessionalism is not immediately recognizable as bad art or bad music is does not mean the consumer does not feel the bad story and bad flow. The consumer very well does. It is a reason why the consumer doesn’t want to finish or replay the game.
Ultima 7 is very interesting in this regard. The writing was all done by a hired and established playwright. This is a big reason why the NPCs all feel three dimensional and why the game feels very “rich” and “warm”. Yet, despite all the talking and all the text, no one describes Ultima 7 as “linear”.
Modern Zeldas are heavy handed. The game whacks you on the head with a cinematic skillet with many dialogue boxes. You are not allowed to imagine anything else. You are not even allowed to do anything else.
I didn’t have ANY of that in the early Zeldas. The fun thing about these type of games is that I had no idea what my journey would be when I replayed the game. It always ended up being very different than the previous game. No playthroughs of Zelda I or Zelda II are the same. The combat varies so much as well as the players’ approaches to it. Zelda III had that more in areas than as a unified whole.
Hell, even Mario 5 is more non-linear than Zelda is today. When you replay Mario 5, you can (and likely will) go a different path through the game.
Non-linearity is about the control the player has over the player and what can be done in the game world. In a broad definition, all games are ‘linear’ because almost all games have endings and all game worlds have limits due to the finite content. Modern Zelda likes to take control away from the player.
To repeat what you say:
Your second point, the skeleton of Zelda is arcade gameplay, I also believe to be incorrect. For if it were ture, you would not be longing for this arcade gameplay outside of Wii sports, who’s skeleton IS arcade gameplay. You want content. You want an adventure.
The adventure is the skeleton of Zelda, where the player goes, what they discover, what they find, what they see. The string of events the player ‘discovers’ (actually they are being led on a very carefully designed path) is the skeleton of Zelda, the arcade gameplay is the skin that encompasses it, keeping the player entertained from event to event, from discovery to discovery, staving off disinterest until the next wonder is uncovered.
This is nonsense. It is akin to saying that people like classic Mario because it focuses on adventures to new worlds and realms just like 3d Mario. No, people like classic Mario because of the arcade gameplay. This is why 3d Mario lost so many Mario fans from the 8-bit and 16-bit generations.
The earlier Zeldas were not played under a guise of “Ooohhh, I cannot wait to explore and hunt for that next cave”, or “Ooohh, I cannot wait to torch all the trees in Hyrule to find the entrance of the dungeon.” Instead, it was, “Screw this! Where is that Nintendo Power magazine that shows me where it is?” There was heavy use of maps then which negates any idea that players played Zelda for the “adventure” of the “game world”. What game world? That blocky mess?
Zelda used to be an action RPG. Things would attack you all the time. It was a very intense game. It was a thrill to upgrade your sword or armor. Do you ever upgrade your sword or armor in Modern Zelda? You do, but it isn’t for the purpose of combat (as it was in earlier Zelda). Your sword even used to shoot out across the screen. This was very useful. Where did that go?
The items in Modern Zelda are nothing but keys by another name. The boomerang is not used in combat (not often, at least). No, the boomerang is to be used to solve a puzzle at point 42X. Once solving the puzzle with the boomerang, the door (or barrier) opens. Modern Zelda is nothing more than moving from one room into another. They should rename the series to Legend of Lolo.
In earlier Zelda, something like the downward thrust or upward thrust totally changed the nature of the game and made the player feel more powerful. If Zelda II was remade today, the downward thrust would only be used once, maybe twice, and that is to get past a barrier so you could go into the next room. Zelda never used to be primarily about puzzle solving. It used to have action.
It was very easy to die in Zelda. This was not because the game was hard. It was because if you blinked or were slacking off, you could easily get enough hits which would ensure death. (Zelda used to be an intense experience.) Today, the only way to die in Zelda is to for the player to drop dead from boredom.
If the Adventures of Lolo was brought into 3d, you would not see any difference between it and the Modern Zelda game.
One big change is that Zelda used to have competition. There were many action RPGs that were Zelda-like. Some of these games were intentionally made like Neutopia. Crystalis was better than Zelda. Battle of Olympus was a damn good game. Some even call Guardian Legend similar to Zelda. However, the N64 didn’t have much in third party support which lopsided many of the Nintendo software there. What other RPG could you buy on the N64 that was not Zelda?
In addition, every franchise gets some bizarre *boost* in sales when it goes 3d. But that *boost* is just that, a boost. It is temporary and the franchise immediately begins deflating. Metroid Prime shows this. Final Fantasy shows this. The high sales for a game like Ocarina do not truly illustrate its popularity.
Most people who played Ocarina did not finish the game (myself included). Miyamoto assumed this was because the game was too difficult. Therefore, Zelda games have become easier. However, the sales for Zelda games are falling apart and this is striking with no competition.
Perhaps there is another reason why most people did not finish Ocarina. This reason has never been offered before because no one has the balls to offer it. In fact, every other reason is explored with every effort ignoring this reason. Do you want to know this possible reason? Here it is:
Maybe Ocarina of Time was not that good of a game in the first place. Maybe people stopped playing the game not because the game was hard but because they were bored and not having fun anymore.
Malstrom's Articles News 