What is it about Zelda?

Originally Posted by JDR13
You're kidding right? There's nothing remotely unique about that. Even back in the NES days, there were lots of games that had that chacteristic.

They werent designed with that in mind though. Name me one that was designed with that in mind, before Mario and Zelda.

Many people huh? Funny that you're the only one I've seen.

Not surprising, not many Nintendo fans on this board which isnt surprising either considering the consoles dont have many WRPG's and the ones that are tended to be bad.

How many Zelda games have you actually played? The majority of the modern Zelda titles were already open-world. Not as large as BotW but open nonetheless.

I've played all the console ones and most of the handheld ones, I think the only one i missed was Phantom Hourglass. Never finished a handheld Zelda though.

Most modern Zelda games are open world but they are linear in their progression. To complete the game you need to go from A to B to C to D to E to F. So whiel they do have true open worlds, they aren't "true open world games". If that makes sense.

In Zelda BotW there is no such progression, you can get the normal ending in 54 minutes provided you are good enough. To get the alternate ending which is the same ending plus another scene you need to get all your memories and defeat the divine beasts. Getting the quest for the memories is linear but the rest is non linear.

JDR, I think you just need to play the game rather than argue about game mechanics you have not yet experienced. This is a very different Zelda game than previous iterations. What do you have to lose? You might actually like it.

Originally Posted by Damian
They werent designed with that in mind though. Name me one that was designed with that in mind, before Mario and Zelda.

Mario and Zelda weren't design specifically with that in mind. It was a characteristic. Did you personally know the developers, or are you just making shit up as you go along? It's also kind of funny that now it's suddenly changed to "before" Mario and Zelda. Especially considering that Mario was a launch title. You're only including Mario now because you realized how foolish your earlier statement was about such a thing being unique to Zelda.

Games like Ghost n' Goblins, Castlevania, etc, had the same characteristic back then. In fact, both of those games were released prior to Zelda. Having in-game secrets and hidden things was actually pretty common in NES games and not just the ones developed by Nintendo. That was obvious to those of us who aren't wearing the Nintendo fanboy glasses.

Originally Posted by Damian
Not surprising, not many Nintendo fans on this board which isnt surprising either considering the consoles dont have many WRPG's and the ones that are tended to be bad.

In other words, that was simply your opinion, and you have no idea how many people actually share it.

Originally Posted by Damian
I've played all the console ones and most of the handheld ones, I think the only one i missed was Phantom Hourglass. Never finished a handheld Zelda though.

Most modern Zelda games are open world but they are linear in their progression. To complete the game you need to go from A to B to C to D to E to F. So whiel they do have true open worlds, they aren't "true open world games". If that makes sense.

In Zelda BotW there is no such progression, you can get the normal ending in 54 minutes provided you are good enough. To get the alternate ending which is the same ending plus another scene you need to get all your memories and defeat the divine beasts. Getting the quest for the memories is linear but the rest is non linear.

The original Zelda is also linear in that you need certain items to progress past some areas, yet you just tried to tell me that BotW is considered a true sequel to Zelda 1 because they're so similar. Now I'm sure you'll respond with yet another rationalization.

Originally Posted by JDR13
Mario and Zelda weren't design specifically with that in mind. It was a characteristic. Did you personally know the developers, or are you just making shit up as you go along? It's also kind of funny that now it's suddenly changed to "before" Mario and Zelda. Especially considering that Mario was a launch title. You're only including Mario now because you realized how foolish your earlier statement was about such a thing being unique to Zelda.

Games like Ghost n' Goblins, Castlevania, etc, had the same characteristic back then. In fact, both of those games were released prior to Zelda. Having in-game secrets and hidden things was actually pretty common in NES games and not just the ones developed by Nintendo. That was obvious to those of us who aren't wearing the Nintendo fanboy glasses.

I said "before" Mario and Zelda because they cant have influenced the game if it was made after?

As for Ghost'n'Goblins, I cant really say because i didnt play the original and Castlevania
secrets were easy to find, AFAIK all the secrets were breakable walls?

In other words, that was simply your opinion, and you have no idea how many people actually share it.

I go to other forums than this. One of the others is a Nintendo board and another is a closed general forum for older gamers. There are many people that share this sentiment or have moved to this position after playing BotW, saying "this is the best Zelda, I didnt know i even wanted this".

The original Zelda is also linear in that you need certain items to progress past some areas, yet you just tried to tell me that BotW is considered a true sequel to Zelda 1 because they're so similar. Now I'm sure you'll respond with yet another rationalization.

There was only one gated dungeon and that was the raft, you could do the dungeons in any order otherwise.

I think I will actually like BotW. Wow am surprised.

Originally Posted by luj1
I think I will actually like BotW. Wow am surprised.

Hmm… I would very much like your opinion on the game. It would be nice to have an opinion of someone who has never played a Zelda game, ie with no bias or preconceived notion.

I just saw a piece of gameplay (a speed run to be precise) and was startled by the free-form openness. Reminded me of Outcast. And the parachute of MDK2.

So it appears to me as a sort of a hybrid game, a third-person 3D action-adventure with some very modest RPG elements I'd say.

Originally Posted by luj1
So it appears to me as a sort of a hybrid game, a third-person 3D action-adventure with some very modest RPG elements I'd say.

To me it seems like how close it can be an RPG but without being one. The main thing about RPG's is the progression and getting boosts for stats etc. Some RPGs gate the progression through doing quests. Funnily enough this game does that but its not really an RPG. Hence why we see discussion on it.

Originally Posted by Damian
I said "before" Mario and Zelda because they cant have influenced the game if it was made after?

As for Ghost'n'Goblins, I cant really say because i didnt play the original and Castlevania
secrets were easy to find, AFAIK all the secrets were breakable walls?

No one said anything about influencing them. My point was simply that there was nothing unique about the way that they had secrets and hidden stuff to find. You were acting as if Mario and Zelda were the only NES games that featured that.

Originally Posted by Damian
I go to other forums than this. One of the others is a Nintendo board and another is a closed general forum for older gamers. There are many people that share this sentiment or have moved to this position after playing BotW, saying "this is the best Zelda, I didnt know i even wanted this"

Good for them, but you should understand that seeing a few people say something on a message board doesn't mean they represent the majority. If a truly large amount of people felt that way, it would be common knowledge, especially to someone like myself who has followed BotW pretty closely.

Originally Posted by Damian
There was only one gated dungeon and that was the raft, you could do the dungeons in any order otherwise.

You could try, sure, but I'm pretty sure it's not possible to go straight to 7th or 8th dungeon and actually be able to survive them. You also had to have both the magical sword and the silver arrow in order to defeat Gannon, so that fact alone dictates that things had to be done a certain way.

Originally Posted by rossrjensen
JDR, I think you just need to play the game rather than argue about game mechanics you have not yet experienced. This is a very different Zelda game than previous iterations. What do you have to lose? You might actually like it.

You might want to follow the discussion a little more closely. I'm not debating anything about the mechanics of BotW, I'm simply debunking some of Fanboy's bullshit claims.

Originally Posted by JDR13
No one said anything about influencing them. My point was simply that there was nothing unique about the way that they had secrets and hidden stuff to find. You were acting as if Mario and Zelda were the only NES games that featured that.

I still contend that the secrets werent easy to find. 90% of the secrets in the game were found randomly or people meticulously burning bushes one by one by burning one bush, leaving screen and repeating. None of the secrets were easy to find. Hence why they had value and people shared them.

Good for them, but you should understand that seeing a few people say something on a message board doesn't mean they represent the majority. If a truly large amount of people felt that way, it would be common knowledge, especially to someone like myself who has followed BotW pretty closely.

Now you are changing goal posts here. I said many people not the majority. The majority of Zelda players would not have played the original Zelda. I am one of the few that have played it and hold it highly. I recognize most people would be content with how Zelda was. I wasnt and many people werent.

You could try, sure, but I'm pretty sure it's not possible to go straight to 7th or 8th dungeon and actually be able to survive them. You also had to have both the magical sword and the silver arrow in order to defeat Gannon, so that fact alone dictates that things had to be done a certain way.

Many people play Zelda one and do the dungeons in different orders. So you are wrong there. When my dad played he would get the white sword before he did any of the dungeons for example.

Originally Posted by Damian
I still contend that the secrets werent easy to find. 90% of the secrets in the game were found randomly or people meticulously burning bushes one by one by burning one bush, leaving screen and repeating. None of the secrets were easy to find. Hence why they had value and people shared them.

Who said that the secrets were easy to find? I don't recall that even being part of the discussion. Why don't you just admit that it was silly to act like that characteristic was unique to those two games?

Originally Posted by Damian
Now you are changing goal posts here. I said many people not the majority. The majority of Zelda players would not have played the original Zelda. I am one of the few that have played it and hold it highly. I recognize most people would be content with how Zelda was. I wasnt and many people werent..

Well "many" means different things to different people. Maybe you saw 5 people say something similar and that means many to you. Regardless, you have no way of knowing how many people actually have that opinion so we'll leave it at that.

Originally Posted by Damian
Many people play Zelda one and do the dungeons in different orders. So you are wrong there. When my dad played he would get the white sword before he did any of the dungeons for example.

Good for him.

I've no idea where this is going and I started this thread.
Seems overall massive improvement in interaction with the world and has plenty of those clever Nintendo design moments ( when they're not dancing on the stage like idiots ), but performance, story, characters, lack of good side content, and poorly implemented durability are an issue.
Plus the world seems a bit too empty with little enemy variety.

Carry the torch and so forth, JDR. * ( and Damian of course).

Originally Posted by JDR13
Who said that the secrets were easy to find? I don't recall that even being part of the discussion. Why don't you just admit that it was silly to act like that characteristic was unique to those two games?

Point me to where I said the games having secrets made it unique? Clearly you have no idea what i am talking about. I am talking about games putting in secrets in such a way that had value enough to be talked about.

Good for him.

So are you conceding the point that Zelda 1 had "open world gameplay"?

Originally Posted by BoboTheMighty
I've no idea where this is going and I started this thread.
Seems overall massive improvement in interaction with the world and has plenty of those clever Nintendo design moments ( when they're not dancing on the stage like idiots ), but performance, story, characters, lack of good side content, and poorly implemented durability are an issue.
Plus the world seems a bit too empty with little enemy variety.

Carry the torch and so forth, JDR. * ( and Damian of course).

I think durability was perfect. I was never without a weapon for example unless i wasted my stronger weapons on weaker mobs. I dont see how it would have worked any other way without it forcing you to keep the same weapon for long periods of time.

A little late to this thread. I'm generally a Zelda fan, so count me in as one of the "gross man-child audience" members.

The Legend of Zelda
Great game, played it. Still occasionally like to gaze at the gold box and gold cartridge.

The Adventure of Link
Didn't like it. Never finished it. I never liked the side-scrolling aspects of the game. Still have it though and it's in great condition too.

A Link to the Past
Fantastic game. Like the first Zelda, it is top down. The world was large and fun to explore. So many secrets to find. Finished it.

Ocarina of Time
Played it about halfway through and lost interest. I can't remember why it lost me.

Majora's Mask
I bought it (still have it) but never played it (never even started it). Not sure why.

Wind Waker
My favorite Zelda. Played it to the finish when it first came out. Played it again with my boys to the finish when they were 8 and 11 - they (and I) had a blast… on the Wii U no less. The Wii U's screen controller was actually great for inventory and map reference.

Twilight Princess
Played it to the castle when first released then lost interest. A few years before Wii U came out, I gave it another go. Played again to the Castle area and lost interest again. Not sure why I fizzled out each time, as I found the game generally fun.

Skyward Sword
Like Majora's Mask, bought it, but never played it. It's always in the back of my mind to play it though.

Breath of the Wild
Eventually will play it. Everything I've read about it seems like it will be fun for me. Open world, tough enemies, lots of mechanics. Sounds fun.

Originally Posted by Damian
Point me to where I said the games having secrets made it unique? Clearly you have no idea what i am talking about. I am talking about games putting in secrets in such a way that had value enough to be talked about.

I think I have a pretty good idea what you're talking about. The problem is that you're full of shit half the time, and you keep changing your claims after I provide examples of why they're not true.

Here's what you said…

Originally Posted by Damian
You didnt share secrets etc? The game was designed like that..

To which I replied with

Originally Posted by JDR13
What does that have to do with anything I said?

and then you responded with…

Originally Posted by Damian
It is a major point why the game is unique. The game was designed with the idea you find a secret and share with your friends at school in mind. That was a major tenant of the games design. The same game design is used in Super Mario Bros and Mortal Kombat.

So now you're changing your tune yet again by suddenly claiming that you meant "putting in secrets in such a way that had value enough to be talked about" which still wouldn't be true anyways since lots of NES games had secrets that were worth talking about.

Originally Posted by Damian
So are you conceding the point that Zelda 1 had "open world gameplay"?

Where did I claim otherwise? I never said it wasn't open world, only that things have to be done a certain way.

Look, I get that English isn't your first language. Am I correct? I think you need to just stop dragging this out now because you're only making yourself look bad.

Originally Posted by TheMadGamer
Twilight Princess
Played it to the castle when first released then lost interest. A few years before Wii U came out, I gave it another go. Played again to the Castle area and lost interest again. Not sure why I fizzled out each time, as I found the game generally fun.

I think Twilight Princess is one of the best Zelda games. If you have a Wii U, you should grab the HD version and give it another try. Or you could also play the Gamecube version using Dolphin for higher resolution, anti-aliasing, etc.

The only negative (for me) with Twilight Princess is how slow it starts out. The first 5-6 hours are like one long tutorial, and I find it boring as hell. It's a great game though once it opens up.

Originally Posted by JDR13
I think I have a pretty good idea what you're talking about. The problem is that you're full of shit half the time, and you keep changing your claims after I provide examples of why they're not true.

Here's what you said…


To which I replied with and then you responded with…


So now you're changing your tune yet again by suddenly claiming that you meant "putting in secrets in such a way that had value enough to be talked about" which still wouldn't be true anyways since lots of NES games had secrets that were worth talking about.

What part of "share secrets" dont you get? It is pretty clear that i was always talking about the game being designed with sharing with friends in mind.

Where did I claim otherwise? I never said it wasn't open world, only that things have to be done a certain way.

Look, I get that English isn't your first language. Am I correct? I think you need to just stop dragging this out now because you're only making yourself look bad.

Then it is not "open world gameplay". It seems to me that you are twisting my words to mean something else to prove your point. I wont let you get away with it.

Originally Posted by Damian
What part of "share secrets" dont you get? It is pretty clear that i was always talking about the game being designed with sharing with friends in mind.

And you're claiming that those two games are the only games in the entire NES library that had that characteristic?

Originally Posted by Damian
Then it is not "open world gameplay". It seems to me that you are twisting my words to mean something else to prove your point. I wont let you get away with it.

I'm not twisting anything here as you certainly don't need any assistance in making yourself look foolish.

So now it's not open world if some things have to be done a certain way? Because I could make a long list of open world games where some things have to be done before others in order to complete the game. In fact, that would describe nearly every open world game ever made.

I think the issue here is that you don't fully understand what "open-world" means. It refers to having complete (or close to complete) freedom to go wherever you want in the game world. It doesn't mean you don't have to complete certain things in order. Gothic, Risen, TES, Two Worlds, The Witcher 3… I could go on, but I think you get the point. They're all open-world, but you still have to complete some quests in a linear fashion to advance the game.