RE: We chat about videogames and videogame accessories.
11-09-2013, 02:26 AM
The difficulty thing is part I figured you'd agree more with than I would :L
The very original Zelda, though, is much different in flow than the later ones, in a way you seem to be glossing over? Like, yes in some parts you need the raft or the candle or whatever, but the game is much more open in sequence and I remember often doing dungeons out of listed order. Not to mention that instead of each dungeon being where you find the next item/reskinned key, in the original many items were found in the overworld to be discovered or worked up to and many of the dungeon items were purely to help out with play rather than necessary to get past certain locked out areas.
On this topic, and relating to the "obvious cracked rock" bomb targets, is that something in a game that's actually helping the game? If bombs are just "use on this obvious bomb rock to make bomb rock go away and pass", if hookshot is largely "point at obvious hookshot target that looks totally out of place here to pass", if the bow is "shoot the switch to raise the bridge and pass", are those parts being in there even improving the experience at all? Why bother with the bomb rocks at all? I mean, I can see that if you see them from a distance it lets you go "ok I'm gonna bomb that to go see what's behind it" which can give you a nice little minigoal, especially if it's off the path and not something you have to do, but usually they just sort of exist to make you switch items and spend time blowing them up. It just sort of seems to be going through the motions for the most part.
I agree that the original Zelda was really hamstrung by our standards due to gameplay constraints at the least, and remaking it isn't the way to go (the author agrees, too :P). But I also agree that it had a much different feel that in some ways is better and I've been wanting to see in Zelda again since way before I read this article. I mean, look at how much appeal Skyrim has in its exploration and "sequence breaking" (if it even counts as such in that game), and that's a game with nothing at all to back up the exploration.
Do you agree at least that the franchise would be better if it weren't set up as a repeating linear sequence of "find overworld item, use item to get to dungeon, find dungeon item, use item to get to end of dungeon, use item to beat boss" where every step you can only really go one place and do one thing? Open, nonlinear advancement can be very shitty if set up poorly (on a macro or micro level), I agree, but if it's set up in a way that allows experimentation, failure and setback, and discovery, it won't just be a series of "oh this way wasn't where I needed to go damnit" until you find the "right" one.
The very original Zelda, though, is much different in flow than the later ones, in a way you seem to be glossing over? Like, yes in some parts you need the raft or the candle or whatever, but the game is much more open in sequence and I remember often doing dungeons out of listed order. Not to mention that instead of each dungeon being where you find the next item/reskinned key, in the original many items were found in the overworld to be discovered or worked up to and many of the dungeon items were purely to help out with play rather than necessary to get past certain locked out areas.
On this topic, and relating to the "obvious cracked rock" bomb targets, is that something in a game that's actually helping the game? If bombs are just "use on this obvious bomb rock to make bomb rock go away and pass", if hookshot is largely "point at obvious hookshot target that looks totally out of place here to pass", if the bow is "shoot the switch to raise the bridge and pass", are those parts being in there even improving the experience at all? Why bother with the bomb rocks at all? I mean, I can see that if you see them from a distance it lets you go "ok I'm gonna bomb that to go see what's behind it" which can give you a nice little minigoal, especially if it's off the path and not something you have to do, but usually they just sort of exist to make you switch items and spend time blowing them up. It just sort of seems to be going through the motions for the most part.
I agree that the original Zelda was really hamstrung by our standards due to gameplay constraints at the least, and remaking it isn't the way to go (the author agrees, too :P). But I also agree that it had a much different feel that in some ways is better and I've been wanting to see in Zelda again since way before I read this article. I mean, look at how much appeal Skyrim has in its exploration and "sequence breaking" (if it even counts as such in that game), and that's a game with nothing at all to back up the exploration.
Do you agree at least that the franchise would be better if it weren't set up as a repeating linear sequence of "find overworld item, use item to get to dungeon, find dungeon item, use item to get to end of dungeon, use item to beat boss" where every step you can only really go one place and do one thing? Open, nonlinear advancement can be very shitty if set up poorly (on a macro or micro level), I agree, but if it's set up in a way that allows experimentation, failure and setback, and discovery, it won't just be a series of "oh this way wasn't where I needed to go damnit" until you find the "right" one.