This guy wrote a neat little article where discusses the fact that 3D Dot Game Heroes is more Zelda than Zelda itself in recent years. Seems to me he’s taken a queue from your blog.
http://www.zeldauniverse.net/articles/the-missing-link/3d-dot-game-heroes-more-zelda-than-zelda/
I doubt it has anything to do with me. He came to it on his own conclusion.
As I think more about Zelda, there seems to have been only five Zelda games made: Zelda I, Zelda II, Link to the Past, Gameboy Zelda, and Ocarina of Time. The rest of the games seem like ‘sidestories’ or spin-offs from Zelda as they throw in some odd gameplay mechanic or do something else: Majora’s Mask, Wind Waker, Twilight Princess, Minish Cap, the two GBC Zelda games, Phantom Hourglass, and Spirit Tracks. What annoys me is that Nintendo doesn’t seem interested in making Zelda games anymore but Zelda spin-off games instead. “In this game, Zelda has choo choo trains.” “In this game, Link turns into a wolf.” “In this game…”
One of the problems, I think, is that the Zelda team always knows there will be another Zelda game. The best games get made when there is the thinking that this is the very last type of game it will be. Every 2d Mario game was made with the thinking that ‘this is it, this is the last one’. When Legend of Zelda came out, Miyamoto and the others were not thinking of constant sequels. Since there is always an expectation of another Zelda, I think this has created mediocre conditions when making a Zelda game (or any game). I always know when a game is going to be mediocre as soon as the developer refers to it as ‘franchise’. Franchise means ‘we know we are going to make more of them’. At that point, the passion isn’t put into making the game they currently are working on. This is also a reason why I think the earlier games made in the 80s or 90s were good because there was no such thing as a ‘video game career’. It wasn’t considered a ‘real job’. Many were youngsters who thought after that ‘game’, they would have to get a ‘real job’.
The more I think about Zelda, the more I am leaning towards the belief that the issues of linearity and storyline are not the viruses causing the problem, they are symptoms of another virus altogether. It is one that perhaps has remained hidden. What is this virus?
Rampant romanticism. Someone, or several people, of Nintendo developers are embracing a rampant romanticism style to the video game. This rampant romanticism is creating the ‘storyline’, the ‘bad dialogue’, the ‘linearity’, and all. It feels like modern Zelda games are all revolving about this rampant romanticism and everything else, like exploring the few caves or the heart containers and the (small) overworld, are there merely because of tradition as if ghosts from the past.
The Rampant Romanticism looks like it could be what is holding back 3d Mario. In the Iwata Asks segment, Miyamoto revealed that he had a long talk with a developer (Koizuma or something) because he kept sticking in the story into the Mario game. He did this with Mario Galaxy 1 for example. Miyamoto was like, “Hey, this isn’t Zelda! What is going on here?” Incredibly, the guy must have argued with Miyamoto in a bar for five hours about what he was doing. Miyamoto then returns saying, “It isn’t about cutscenes and all. It is about resonance.” That developer got his way. The ‘resonance’ is just another way of saying ‘rampant romanticism’.
Let me use a book equivalent. You ever read a book where it goes on, pages and pages, about the description and backstory? It talks about the flowers, how the mountain looks, how the sunlight falls off the mountains, and talks about every strand of hair on a main character. You’re screaming, “Get on with it, already!”
All the strange decisions regarding Zelda appear to have hatched from this ‘rampant romanticism’. When Miyamoto says, “This is a Mario game, it doesn’t need a story. Zelda games are what has the story,” many people will disagree with Miyamoto. Since when has Zelda been about a ‘story’? Its “story” was identical to Mario in that the hero saves the princess.
Video games are all about creating interesting choices. Without choice, the game turns into a different medium like a movie where you sit there and watch or a book where you sit there and read dialogue. And it must be interesting or else the game becomes a chore.
No game can be non-linear because every game has its limits. The idea is to create the illusion of non-linearity. It is to give the illusion of control. You are pretty limited in what you can do in oldschool Zelda, but you have the illusion and experience that you can do what you want. One of the reasons why Gradius was so successful, despite being a linear space shooter, is that it gave the illusion of non-linearity in its interesting choices. The interesting choices were from what type of weapons you could power up. So you could replay the game over and over and try something different.
Rampant romanticism doesn’t allow for such interesting choices. It doesn’t allow for the illusion of non-linearity. Rampant romanticism is obsessed with its own characterization and its ‘opera’ of a plot. You do not play the video game; the video game plays you. The video game strives to move your emotions as opposed to the player investing his emotions based on the choices he makes.
One glaring difference between 2d Mario and 3d Mario is that 3d Mario games force you to use a certain power-up at a certain location. You must use the Cloud Mario power-up to get through the level. In 2d Mario, you could beat the entire game as little Mario. Power-ups and even Yoshi were so well received back in 2d Mario (as opposed to 3d Mario) because they helped you out. They were supplementary to your quest.
In the same way, the old Zelda games had items and power-ups and all to help you out. While many were used as a type of ‘key’ to get to another part of the land, they could still be used to help.
Mario and Zelda were built in the core of coin-op type gameplay, otherwise known as arcade gameplay. Coin-op gameplay is very difficult. It is very difficult to play Super Mario Brothers games as small Mario all the way through. It is very difficult to play Zelda games without using the power-ups. By default, the games were extremely difficult. However, the power-ups made the player think he had ‘outsmarted’ the difficult game as he flew over the area with his raccoon tail or used his boomerang to stun enemy units.
Here’s another example: the Final Fantasy games. Rampant Romanticism is at high display as the Final Fantasy games progressed. The games became more and more of an opera until that is all they were. But once upon a time, Final Fantasy games rested on a type of very difficult RPG gameplay. The game was very difficult. However, by using items, using spells you bought, and leveling up, the difficulty got much easier. And you felt you ‘outsmarted the game’ or ‘outsmarted the fictional opponents’ because you did things to make yourself stronger.
All the Old School games seem to share that trait. The game, itself, is very difficult. However, there are power-ups and other things you can do to beat it. The typical shmup is very illustrative of this.
Think of Mega Man. At first, you are giving an interesting choice. What robot master do you choose? Mega Man is very difficult just using the default weapon. But once you get other weapons, you have more interesting choices about whether to use such weapons. And it makes the game very fun. Mega Man is soon using metal blades to saw through those jumping rabbits who, prior, would knock him off into the lava.
In order for there to be value playing a game, there must be some sense of accomplishment. By making the default gameplay hard and giving the player power-ups and other tools, the player feels like a genius when he ‘beats’ the game.
You always had interesting choices in Zelda. You could go the cave or go wander around. Since you had no sword, you probably wouldn’t be wandering around for long! In Zelda II, where do you go when the game begins? While the game was actually linear in that you needed the candle to see through the cave to get to the next area, it gave an illusion of choice. In Link to the Past, the game did not force you to get out of bed. You could sit there sleeping. Of course, the game corralled you into the castle and to save Zelda. But you felt like it was your choice all along.
My favorite Zelda is Zelda II due to its unique blend of platforming, RPG action, and Metroid type gameplay. But I know that today’s market wouldn’t appreciate games that difficult. Out of all the early Zelda games, I think Link to the Past has the best ratio of gameplay to exploration to story. While I think Link to the Past is extremely easy, like Super Metroid is extremely easy, the game does satisfy me. Link to the Past still has that coin op arcade gameplay at its core. Ever since Zelda went 3d, the combat has not been fun. Perhaps motion controls can fix this. Wii Sports Resort is great fun even just shooting a stupid target or a Mii holding a plastic sword. Imagine how much fun it would be shooting a dragon with arrows or attacking an Iron Knuckle with the sword.
The reason why rampant romanticism is never ‘magical’ is because it is forced. Games that operate like scripts are never magical. Let the player write his own script, and he will believe the adventure was all his doing. And when he slays the final monster, he will feel that he has beaten the game as opposed to the game’s script coming to an end.
Malstrom's Articles News 