Email: Zelda and mazes

Sean,

I don’t know about the whole maze thing in Zelda. It is definitely true
that the developers must have lost touch with what made Zelda so
successful–not only are they not selling like they should, but it
appears that a lot of the people who played and loved them on the NES
(like me) are not as interested in the newer ones.

But my feeling is that this doesn’t have as much to do with maze
gameplay as you say it does. It’s an interesting point to be sure, but I
think one of your other principles comes into play more: Zelda’s items
let you kick ass. This explanation fits Zelda’s quality trend even
better than your maze one.

Zelda games have three ways to create a challenging experience for the
player: tough enemies, puzzles, and mazes. Put differently, if you are
stuck in a Zelda game, it’s either because you can’t kill something, you
can’t figure something out, or because you can’t find something. You’ve
covered puzzles already–these do not add much value/content to a game
because they only challenge the player once, and also because they are a
source of frustration. The memorable experiences in Zelda are never the
puzzles and I think we agree on that.

And as you mention, early Zelda games did not have puzzles as often as
they had mazes. But I don’t see how the experience is that much
different for the player. Mazes are still frustrating and still only
challenge you until you know where to go. No, here is the real difference.

Early Zelda games gave you items so that you could kick ass with them.
This has a lot to do with the first type of challenge: difficult
enemies. Which Zelda games have the hardest bosses? Zelda 2, followed
closely by Zelda 1. The only way a typical player could beat the later
enemies and bosses in those games is to get the more advanced items or
spells. I am a good video game player, and the only way I could beat
Zelda 2 was to save every single extra life in the game until the very
end, and even then it took me many many tries. Contrast this with later
Zelda games, where you can buy 6 potions that give you the equivalent of
1000 hearts to fight a boss with, and you’ll probably finish the game
never having used them.

Items in Zelda games no longer help you kick ass. Now the items only
make it possible to solve the puzzles in the dungeon you found the item
in, and maybe help you find 2 treasures in the overworld.

In Zelda 1, one of the dungeons gives you a magic wand. If I recall
correctly, you do not need this to complete the game. Its only purpose
is for combat–it is a big upgrade over the money-costing bow and arrow,
and getting it just feels awesome. Later you upgrade it to give it
‘fire’ ability … again, not necessary, just cool. Zelda 1 also has
hidden swords that are completely optional and only serve to make you
stronger. Finding them constitutes some of the best moments in that game.

Even Zelda 2, which has lame items, gives you the ability mid-game to
point your sword downward midair and strike from above. Not only does it
make lots of enemies way easier to kill, it just feels awesome to do.

Zelda 3 gives you the hookshot! Was there ever a bigger surprise than
when you learned how you were going to cut across those gaps? Even
though you don’t kill enemies with it, it still kicks ass … you are
like a superhero with it. It was such a revolutionary gameplay idea that
no Zelda game has ever been without it since and none probably ever will.

Actually, Zelda 3 is the greatest evidence of my theory. It had 4
different swords in it, and the 3rd and 4th were not technically
necessary, they just made you more powerful. Even better were the magic
spells. They just helped you kill enemies, nothing else. Yet I’m willing
to bet that, on your playthroughs, you pick them up–again, they are
some of the more memorable elements of the game. Beyond that there are
the optional magic wand and invisibility cape. By the time you get to
the last few dungeons, Link is an absolute badass. All of these items,
and the process of searching them out, are why people love this game so
much; the dungeons themselves are not terribly interesting.

Zelda 4 (the GameBoy one) didn’t make you solve puzzles with the bow, it
made it an optional item that you had to save up for. And then you could
attach bombs to it just for the fun of it.

And then Ocarina came along. Interestingly enough, this is actually when
they really stopped thinking up cool new items for Zelda games. But they
got a free pass because using all of the old items in 3D was completely
different. Even just getting a shield with a mirror on it was cool. It
probably helped that you became an adult halfway through and so
everything you did was stronger and better. Either way, they still did
things like setting up a fairly difficult dungeon just to hold the
optional ice arrows, which are awesome and yet not useful at all for
getting you through the game.

But no more free passes after Ocarina. This is when everyone already
agrees Zelda started going downhill, but people have the wrong idea of
why. I’ll tell you why. It’s because, first of all, they decided we
didn’t want to play as Link anymore in our Zelda games (so we control
other things like a stupid plant or fish man or alternate
mind-controlled characters or statues or a wolf). And more importantly,
they couldn’t think up any more cool items that just made you kick ass.
The items in the Majora’s Mask dungeons are the 4 different types of
arrows from Ocarina … unbelievable if you think about it. I kept
waiting for them to throw a cool new item at me in Wind Waker, but here
are what I got: A gimped hookshot, a bow and arrow, a mirror shield, and
a non-gimped hookshot. Oh wait … how could I forget the magical leaf?
It blows puffs of air. There are bright yellow plastic toys that do this
exact thing in real life.

Twilight Princess is the worst offender. Off the top of my head, there
is a wand that lets you control statues, a spinny gear you can ride on,
and … this is really astounding … a second hookshot. Yes, they’ve
resorted to giving you the same item twice in one game! None of these
items has any use other than in puzzles specifically designed to use
them. Why not just put the red/blue/yellow keys from Doom in the
treasure chests? There are probably more examples, but I have a hard
time remembering what was in Twilight Princess because the game is so
unremarkable.

They tried to cover that lack of effort by letting you play as a wolf.
Fortunately for them, the wolf sections were good enough to make a
fairly decent wolf game. But a wolf game is not a Zelda game and does
not sell like a Zelda game. The patterns are so clear to me. They can no
longer develop the core Zelda gameplay (cool items) so they add other
things. And they even repeat themselves with the things that they add
(mind-controlled characters, creature transformations). Think about
this: when was the last game that doesn’t force you to control someone
other than Link? The last great Zelda game: Ocarina. Coincidence? Well,
why would it be fun to play as someone that has fewer abilities than Link?

I think you have a point with the mazes, and without a doubt, the
overworlds are 100% less interesting since the jump to 3D. The return of
mazes would be great for the series, but they won’t save it. And there
are definitely other things that need fixing. Dungeons–does every game
really have to have fire, water, ice, and forest dungeons? I can think
of half a game’s worth of dungeon themes in 5 minutes, ones that could
house some really cool stuff: electricity/machinery, jewel-filled mine,
mountain tops, or an abandoned enemy fortress. This is an area where
Nintendo can’t seem to break new ground in any of their franchises.
Mario 5 had practically no great new world ideas. Yet Sega was great at
working around that problem (Sonic games) and Retro did it with Metroid
Prime 2. But those things won’t save Zelda either.

The only thing that will really save Zelda is if they tell their team to
think up some good items, so that there is enough for Link to do without
needing other playable characters. And if they can’t do that, the world
will be OK without another Zelda game.

I agree with everything you are saying. I brought up the topic of ‘maze gameplay’ because of what Aonuma has recently been saying. After Ocarina (and maybe even including it), Zelda’s overworlds felt horrible. I am also pointing to the ‘maze gameplay’ as what Zelda has instead of the crappy puzzles that infest the modern versions.

I disagree that ‘maze gameplay’ ages like the puzzle gameplay does. I still get lost in the early Zelda games. Also, the map and compass are only relevant if the dungeon feels like a maze. Since now all dungeons are stupid puzzles, what point does the map and compass have? They feel out of place. Some games like Metroid are heavily based on ‘maze gameplay’, and I don’t think they have aged at all. Unfortunately, ‘maze gameplay’ in 3d is too overwhelming (which is one reason why I think hurt Metroid Prime series accessibility).

You are absolutely correct that it is about Link kicking ass. A Miyamoto interview from the 80s or early 90s described Zelda as ‘feeling of growth’ where ‘you start off weak and afraid, but at the end you feel you can overtake anything’. The reasons why gamers dislike games with ‘story’, games with ‘atmosphere’, games with ‘puzzles’, is that it is not about the gamer kicking ass, it is about the developer kicking ass.

What you said about getting a new sword so you could kick ass more and all is extremely relevant to some other games. MegaMan became popular because, aside from the freedom of choosing your first stage, when you get that first new weapon from a boss, you feel like you are kicking ass. A totally new layer of the game is created. You are now playing the stage in a totally different way. Then you get another weapon. And then another. And then, yet another. You were going around kicking ass by hurling metal blades everywhere. The weapons made the stages not just easier to go through but created a different experience. A game like MegaMan 2 has so much replayability since you can go through the game with just boomerangs or just using heatman’s weapon. It is too much fun.

This same reason is why 2d Mario is so much more popular than 3d Mario. In 2d Mario, you can beat the entire game as small Mario. The power-ups only assisted you in beating the levels. One reason why I prefer Super Mario Brothers 3 over Super Mario World is that Super Mario World goes downhill in the later game. Power-ups are way too numerous, too common, too accessible. You can even store a power-up in an ‘item box’ to use in the middle of a level! And there is the ‘secret area’ in Donut Plains where it freely gives out power-ups. If that wasn’t enough, you can just start any completed stage over again and exit as soon as you have a power-up. The game destroyed its challenge. I did not feel I was ‘kicking ass’ at the end.

At least, not so much as in Super Mario Brothers 3. Look at this:

When I got the Hammer Suit in Mario 3, boy I felt like a million bucks! “I kick ass now!” I thought to myself. I felt the same way when I got the Tanooki Suit and even the Frog Suit. The power-ups were more rare and found only in the later stages of the game (though tons of Frog Suits in the watery world of Stage 3).

In 3d Mario, you don’t have anything like that. It has totally different ‘core gameplay’ than 2d Mario. In 3d Mario, you are not little Mario where you can beat all the levels with help from ‘power-ups’. Instead, levels are designed more like puzzles and power-ups are more like ‘tools’ to get to the stupid star. In other words, you must get Cloud Mario not because he is helpful in an area with tricky jumps but because it is impossible to make jumps without using the power-up. This is one of the big reasons why 2d Mario players despise 3d Mario gameplay.

As you have so well said, this is the same error that pollutes modern Zelda. Before, Zelda had the core gameplay of Link running around with a sword. Items were only used to enhance that core gameplay. Link would get a better sword or he would get a wand that would roast his enemies or boomerang to stun them from afar. Throughout all of this, the core gameplay stayed the same and the power-ups were supplements to it like spice on an already good dish. Today, Zelda lacks any core gameplay. Incorrectly, Nintendo believes Zelda’s gameplay is about puzzles and story.

A good measuring stick is to start a stopwatch when you start a Zelda game and see how long it takes until you get a sword and start kicking ass. In early Zelda games, it took no time at all. In later Zelda games, you have to suffer through stupid dialogue and do ridiculous things like herd rams to fishing to other things before you got a sword and started kicking ass. I felt it was the worse in Wind Waker because they gave you a sword and then took it away in the Forsaken Fortress. Is Zelda about stealth gameplay, and Link hiding in barrels? It most certainly is not.

When Nintendo showed off Skyward Sword, they showed off some of the items but didn’t show off the context of the game. How will this game be played compared to prior Zeldas? What I really, really liked was how you could use different items to take out an enemy. For example, you could attack an enemy with a sword, roll a bomb into it, use a bow and arrow, or something else. It increases replayability and allows the player to kick ass.

There is so much potential with Motion Plus and Zelda. Unlike the narrow swordplay of Wii Sports Resort, Zelda can do things like give Link new swords, a new shield, and cast spells or use items at attacking enemies.

Unfortunately, Skyward Sword will not be this. As I feared, Skyward Sword will just be the crappy Zelda we know but with motion controls bolted on. In other words, the game still revolves around crappy puzzles and crappy story. Listen to Aonuma explain the context of the game here. At the end, Aonuma says…

“Maybe we can make some field areas operate like dungeons…” (meaning, puzzle based overworld, lovely…) to “or a dungeon where you go in, and you are not battling enemies. Say you lose your sword and you have to flee from the enemies and solve puzzles.” It is time to raise the ‘red flag’ on Skyward Sword. I will not buy such a game.

None of what Aonuma says is about the player kicking ass. It is about Aonuma and the Zelda team kicking ass. Who gives a care about them? Gamers only care about what they can do in the game. It sounds like Skyward Sword will be even a further departure of what Zelda is.

When a horse has a broken leg, you cannot mend it. The only thing to do is to take the horse out to the back and shoot it. And this is what should happen with Skyward Sword and the Zelda Team in general, they should be disbanded immediately. Blizzard’s strength is they know how to cancel games. Remember Warcraft Adventures or Starcraft Ghost?

Above: Despite how much money has been spent on it, Blizzard kills their mediocre projects. Nintendo, unfortunately, recycles bad food by trying to mix some good food in it and serves it to their increasingly dissatisfied diners.

Ever since the establishment of a ‘Zelda Team’, Zelda has gone straight to the crapper. The reason why it took a long while was only because Zelda had reached such a height above and beyond any other video game. I would prefer no Zelda game instead of the garbage Nintendo keeps putting out.

Why is Nintendo so stuck on stupid? This has been a question I’ve been asking for decades. I have watched Nintendo refuse to make any 2d Mario games and keep trying to ram 3d Mario down our throats for decades despite 3d Mario being a massive decline from 2d Mario. So why did Nintendo keep doing it? In the first Mario Galaxy, we know that Nintendo developers snuck in ‘story’ behind Miyamoto’s back (which I find shocking. Why would anyone do anything behind Miyamoto’s back? Why the defiance?). With Galaxy 2, the same defiance occurred again with Miyamoto having to take one guy out to a bar and sit him down because he kept throwing in more and more story. Now, I am not a video game developer, but if I was, I can’t imagine defying someone like Shigeru Miyamoto.

New Super Mario Brothers DS, which did not involve Miyamoto, appears to have been green lit by the business side because the DS was in trouble to the PSP. Yet, NSMB DS goes off to sell more copies than any other game ever made aside from the original Super Mario game. The salesmen wanted a NSMB game for the Wii. Note that it was not Nintendo developers who wanted to make it. So Mario 5 was made. It ends up saving the Wii from the oblivion of User Generated Content (which may or may not have been spearheaded by Miyamoto).

It is not ignorance on Nintendo’s part. They know what we want. They just don’t want to make it. Miyamoto is quoted as saying, years ago prior to the Wii launch, as saying that young Nintendo developers want to make games they grew up with like Final Fantasy or 2d Mario and “I tell them, we’ve already made these games. We do not want to make them again.” There is another quote where Miyamoto acknowledges that many folks want the return of Tanooki Mario but he doesn’t want it.

Emailer, when it comes to Zelda, I believe Nintendo knows what you want. They just don’t care about giving it to you. They do not want to make the games you or I want to play. They want to make the games they desire to develop. The reason why there is so much puzzles and stories and scenarios and other crap is because it is ‘more fun’ for them. But it is not fun for the gamer.

I sense Nintendo developers are in complete denial about this. They keep saying that their ‘new’ games do not sell as well because of accessibility. But I say it is the game itself.

If you go to Metroid.com right now, what do you find? You find the trailer where Samus Aran moans about how ‘young and naive’ she is. And when the website comes up, you get soft piano music. Is it any wonder why Nintendo’s core market is in decline? The problem is not in the stars but in themselves. They have totally left the reservation.

How many Zelda disasters is it going to take until Nintendo wises up? WindWaker was not enough. Twilight Princess was not enough. And it looks like Skyward Sword will not be enough. I sense that Nintendo has wisened up, but it is just raw defiance. They will keep making the game that is ‘fun’ for them to develop until it sells. Well, Nintendo, I am not going to stick around or hand over money so you can play around. I’ll give my money to someone who is interested in making a video game, not developers who are poisoned by vanity.

The bottom line is that we never would have gotten a new 2d Mario if Sony wasn’t poised to knock Nintendo out of the handheld market. And it was because of that success is why we got games like Mario 5 and the upcoming DKC 4 or Kirby Epic Yarn. It took the near destruction of Nintendo to actually give us games we wanted.

So the only way, emailer, we will get the Zelda we want is only after Zelda has been destroyed, its reputation made a joke, and its corpse dragged around for several more games “with many puzzles” and “amazing story”.

This vanity and defiance of game developers appears to be a microcosm of what is going on throughout the Japanese game industry. The Japanese game industry used to be feared, used to be respected, used to be seen as making the greatest games. Today, they are increasingly seen as a joke. The reason why is because the Japanese video game industry is not interested in making video games. Final Fantasy games used to be revered. Today, they are laughed at. The same goes for Mario and Zelda (and now Metroid once Other M comes out).

Games of the past took around a dozen people. Today, there are many more people. Budgets for games have increased by many digits. There is absolutely no reason why they cannot make the games we want to play unless it is just open defiance to the market.