Why is there no set standard for what Zelda looks like?
Moderator: Moderators
Re: Why is there no set standard for what Zelda looks like?
Conversely, I can't think of a single reason to stick with the same Hyrule geography? Every game should be designed from the ground up with the needs it has. Should Ocarina of Time have had all the "useless" towns from Zelda 2? Or should it have been completely devoid of civilization smilar to the first Zelda? Would Breath of the Wild have been more interesting if you knew where everything was beforehand?
A Link Between Worlds actually reused the geography from LttP, and it's by far the worst flaw in the game.
A Link Between Worlds actually reused the geography from LttP, and it's by far the worst flaw in the game.
Re: Why is there no set standard for what Zelda looks like?
They could have implied that every game plays in another location, like the four "Super Mario Bros./World" games.
It's indeed a bit strange if you have locations that are definitely supposed to be the same object, like Spectacle Rock, but where the rest of the land looks different in every game.
It's indeed a bit strange if you have locations that are definitely supposed to be the same object, like Spectacle Rock, but where the rest of the land looks different in every game.
My game "City Trouble":
Gameplay video: https://youtu.be/Eee0yurkIW4
Download (ROM, manual, artworks): http://www.denny-r-walter.de/city.html
Gameplay video: https://youtu.be/Eee0yurkIW4
Download (ROM, manual, artworks): http://www.denny-r-walter.de/city.html
Re: Why is there no set standard for what Zelda looks like?
Yeah, it's almost like Nintendo figured that stuff didn't matter
Re: Why is there no set standard for what Zelda looks like?
Zelda 2 took the Dragon Quest 2 route and shrank the old world down on a bigger map and expanded a new world around it. The whole Zelda 1 world can be seen in a single screen in Zelda 2 just south of Death Mountain. Nothing changed except that Spectacle Rock is now "Monocle Rock" due to a cave-in after the battle with Ganon in the first game (and Link smashes the other eye once he retrieves the hammer from the ruins to get a Magic Container lol. I like to see this as the Megaton Hammer borrowed from the remains of the Fire Temple from OoT).
But AlttP, OoT, TP and Skyward Sword all seems to take place in a world roughly the size of Zelda 1 or a bit bigger (not as big as the Zelda 2 world though). The graveyard in Zelda 1 seems to be the remains of Kakariko from AlttP (OoT further implies this with Kakariko's connection with the Sheika and the graveyard Shadow Temple) and since people are scattered around living in caves and trees it seems that the former Hyrule has been ruined (although Zelda 2 shows that Hyrule has expanded and there's a lot more to it). Death Mountain often has roughly the same place in the north in most games, but the desert, Lost Woods and Lake Hylia jumps around quite a bit. Twilight Princess also introduces new names of provinces and even moves Death Mountain a bit (not counting the mirrored Wii version, as it doesn't seem to be canon).
I'm going to order a Switch and Breath of the Wild very soon, so please no spoilers from that game!
But AlttP, OoT, TP and Skyward Sword all seems to take place in a world roughly the size of Zelda 1 or a bit bigger (not as big as the Zelda 2 world though). The graveyard in Zelda 1 seems to be the remains of Kakariko from AlttP (OoT further implies this with Kakariko's connection with the Sheika and the graveyard Shadow Temple) and since people are scattered around living in caves and trees it seems that the former Hyrule has been ruined (although Zelda 2 shows that Hyrule has expanded and there's a lot more to it). Death Mountain often has roughly the same place in the north in most games, but the desert, Lost Woods and Lake Hylia jumps around quite a bit. Twilight Princess also introduces new names of provinces and even moves Death Mountain a bit (not counting the mirrored Wii version, as it doesn't seem to be canon).
I'm going to order a Switch and Breath of the Wild very soon, so please no spoilers from that game!
Re: Why is there no set standard for what Zelda looks like?
Interestingly, for whatever reason, the wrong rock has disappeared. It's not the one where Link blew a hole into in the first game.Pokun wrote:Nothing changed except that Spectacle Rock is now "Monocle Rock" due to a cave-in after the battle with Ganon in the first game
My game "City Trouble":
Gameplay video: https://youtu.be/Eee0yurkIW4
Download (ROM, manual, artworks): http://www.denny-r-walter.de/city.html
Gameplay video: https://youtu.be/Eee0yurkIW4
Download (ROM, manual, artworks): http://www.denny-r-walter.de/city.html
Re: Why is there no set standard for what Zelda looks like?
Yeah, there's a general layout that's kept almost-consistent throughout all the games, which is something that links the series together and gives the player a feeling of familiarity, while still retaining the incentive to explore and surprise the player with what they find. Will Kakariko be to the west or to the east this time? See that big lake, is it Lake Hylia? It doesn't have to be identical, which would be extremely boring (once again, the Link Between Worlds example is obvious), but it's always nice to draw some lines between the games. Bringing the Dragon Quest series up again, that's something it's always done extremely well, even moreso than the Zelda series, while still maintaining the mystery of the unknown - "will you get a flying carpet this time?", "Ooh, it's the boat!", "Maybe this is where I get thrown in jail?", "Then, morning comes...".
Re: Why is there no set standard for what Zelda looks like?
I don't mean that reusing the same map is necessarily bad, as disproven by Link Between Worlds (reusing the world is the point of the game as a sequel), but that if they had put such a restriction on themselves that they can't change the map that's already established in previous games, it would get more and more tedious to make new Zelda games the series as they would get more and more restricted. They followed that restriction in Zelda 2 but already gave up in ALttP and let creative freedom loose.
Good point. I think Ganon's lair may be made up by caves inside both rocks, and only the eastern half of the caves collapsed. The skull-shaped dungeon doesn't go much further east than the entrance (which is in the western rock) but that doesn't mean there can't be any caves in the eastern rock (as shown in AlttP). The battle with Ganon takes place in the western half of the skull though. Perhaps it caved-in when Link and Zelda was trying to get out again, as a final attempt by Ganon to stop them, and this somehow resulted in the whole eastern rock to collapse.DRW wrote:Interestingly, for whatever reason, the wrong rock has disappeared. It's not the one where Link blew a hole into in the first game.Pokun wrote:Nothing changed except that Spectacle Rock is now "Monocle Rock" due to a cave-in after the battle with Ganon in the first game
Re: Why is there no set standard for what Zelda looks like?
.....Reusing the same map is bad, as proven by Link Between Worlds.Pokun wrote:I don't mean that reusing the same map is necessarily bad, as disproven by Link Between Worlds
That game had absolutely no reason to blatantly reuse the original map (with surprisingly few actual changes), when they clearly could have just as well designed something completely new and maintained a fresh experience of discovery. There weren't even any direct story relations between ALttP and ALBW to justify this decision, and resuing the Dark World layout for Lorule in fact makes less sense from a continuity perspective.
Nostalgia is a weak excuse, though it was probably the motivation.
A Link Between World is great, but has a few obvious problems, this being one of them.
Re: Why is there no set standard for what Zelda looks like?
Why exactly do you think that the lair collapsed at all?Pokun wrote:Perhaps it caved-in when Link and Zelda was trying to get out again, as a final attempt by Ganon to stop them, and this somehow resulted in the whole eastern rock to collapse.
And why do you think that Ganon tried to stop them even though he was only a pile of ash by that point (which was even confirmed in "Zelda II")?
My game "City Trouble":
Gameplay video: https://youtu.be/Eee0yurkIW4
Download (ROM, manual, artworks): http://www.denny-r-walter.de/city.html
Gameplay video: https://youtu.be/Eee0yurkIW4
Download (ROM, manual, artworks): http://www.denny-r-walter.de/city.html
Re: Why is there no set standard for what Zelda looks like?
In the film The Fifth Element, Mangalore mercenaries will abandon their leader as soon as their leader dies. Ganon's minions are not Mangalores. (Wild mass guess follows) They may have been given orders to activate self-destruction of his base if he dies in battle.
Related tropes: Collapsing Lair, Taking You With Me, Dead-Man Switch, and Load-Bearing Boss.
Related tropes: Collapsing Lair, Taking You With Me, Dead-Man Switch, and Load-Bearing Boss.
Re: Why is there no set standard for what Zelda looks like?
Again: Where did you get the idea that the lair collapsed in the first place? Unlike "Metroid" or "Castlevania", there's nothing like that in the game at all.
My game "City Trouble":
Gameplay video: https://youtu.be/Eee0yurkIW4
Download (ROM, manual, artworks): http://www.denny-r-walter.de/city.html
Gameplay video: https://youtu.be/Eee0yurkIW4
Download (ROM, manual, artworks): http://www.denny-r-walter.de/city.html
Re: Why is there no set standard for what Zelda looks like?
I probably got the idea from some Zelda wiki's Spectacle Rock entry, I don't know if it's canon but since one rock is missing in Zelda 2 I thought it was a plausible explanation.
Oh and Tepples explained exactly my thoughts on why collapsing makes sense better than I could. I imagine a modern remake of Zelda 1 could have a final escape scene where you have to get out before it collapses (and also clarify why only the eastern rock collapses while they are at it). Besides the possibility of an automatic self-destruct mechanism it could have been Ganon's spirit using his last strength, he is not the kind of guy letting being turned to a pile of ash stop him that easily.
Oh and Tepples explained exactly my thoughts on why collapsing makes sense better than I could. I imagine a modern remake of Zelda 1 could have a final escape scene where you have to get out before it collapses (and also clarify why only the eastern rock collapses while they are at it). Besides the possibility of an automatic self-destruct mechanism it could have been Ganon's spirit using his last strength, he is not the kind of guy letting being turned to a pile of ash stop him that easily.
Oh I see, I missread your post. But reusing the same world was the whole purpose of that game. They first was going to make a remake of AlttP but then decided to make a new game in the same world. I haven't beaten the game yet but I think it worked allright, although I wish the two games was more connected.Sumez wrote:.....Reusing the same map is bad, as proven by Link Between Worlds.Pokun wrote:I don't mean that reusing the same map is necessarily bad, as disproven by Link Between Worlds
......
Nostalgia is a weak excuse, though it was probably the motivation.
A Link Between World is great, but has a few obvious problems, this being one of them.
Re: Why is there no set standard for what Zelda looks like?
Oracle of Seasons also started out as a Zelda 1 remake. I'm glad they ended up changing the world map completely.
Re: Why is there no set standard for what Zelda looks like?
I'm starting to think the greatest philosophical question of our time is what to make of LBW.
The reuse of the setting of LTTP creates an irritating dichotomy - is LBW a brilliant redesign of LTTP or a goofy imitation? The dungeons are more sophisticated but the core design is still ripped straight out of the old classic. There's more detail in the mechanics but they're still the same mechanics. You could say both games can co-exist or just enjoy the games without worrying about which is better but that's like taking the easy way out.
My biggest problem with LBW is how ridiculously polished the combat is. It feels less like fighting the enemies than just whaling on them and only taking a hit if you make a mistake. Yet the game covers up this flaw by running so smoothly it's mindless fun to wander around killing enemies (and there's a lot of ways to do that).
The reuse of the setting of LTTP creates an irritating dichotomy - is LBW a brilliant redesign of LTTP or a goofy imitation? The dungeons are more sophisticated but the core design is still ripped straight out of the old classic. There's more detail in the mechanics but they're still the same mechanics. You could say both games can co-exist or just enjoy the games without worrying about which is better but that's like taking the easy way out.
My biggest problem with LBW is how ridiculously polished the combat is. It feels less like fighting the enemies than just whaling on them and only taking a hit if you make a mistake. Yet the game covers up this flaw by running so smoothly it's mindless fun to wander around killing enemies (and there's a lot of ways to do that).
Re: Why is there no set standard for what Zelda looks like?
LBW would definitely have been better if LttP didn't already exist. I wish the redundancy of the overworld wasn't a thing, because I loved the dungeons.
Actually I'd say the game's biggest problem is a combination of how excellently it handles combat and enemy design, while at the same time doing absolutely nothing to entice the player to even try putting up a fight, making combat pretty much pointless.
Sure, after the NES games, Zelda have always been very easy games, focusing more on the experience, world building and puzzles than on challenging gameplay, but in Link Between Worlds, enemies do so little damage that you'll be fine off just running straight through a dungeon tanking damage from all the enemies, and still come out fine in the other end - it's like there is no reason to even have the enemies there.
I didn't realise just how great the game actually is until I played Hero Mode on the second playthrough (it's a shame that you have to play on normal first to unlock it), and at the same time limiting myself to the initial three hearts by never picking up additional heart containers.
Sounds like something that would be insanely hard, but the game is designed to be so forgiving, that it actually feels completely fair, only getting a bit scary in the very end, where enemies will be able to two-shot you. But since the game is designed in a way that a careful player will easily be able to avoid ever taking a hit, why does it allow you to take 40 hits? Even on "hero" mode.
I recommend everyone taking the 3 heart challenge in LBW, it really makes the game shine. Two bad it never got a genuine follow-up.
That doesn't sound like a problem?strat wrote: My biggest problem with LBW is how ridiculously polished the combat is.
Actually I'd say the game's biggest problem is a combination of how excellently it handles combat and enemy design, while at the same time doing absolutely nothing to entice the player to even try putting up a fight, making combat pretty much pointless.
Sure, after the NES games, Zelda have always been very easy games, focusing more on the experience, world building and puzzles than on challenging gameplay, but in Link Between Worlds, enemies do so little damage that you'll be fine off just running straight through a dungeon tanking damage from all the enemies, and still come out fine in the other end - it's like there is no reason to even have the enemies there.
I didn't realise just how great the game actually is until I played Hero Mode on the second playthrough (it's a shame that you have to play on normal first to unlock it), and at the same time limiting myself to the initial three hearts by never picking up additional heart containers.
Sounds like something that would be insanely hard, but the game is designed to be so forgiving, that it actually feels completely fair, only getting a bit scary in the very end, where enemies will be able to two-shot you. But since the game is designed in a way that a careful player will easily be able to avoid ever taking a hit, why does it allow you to take 40 hits? Even on "hero" mode.
I recommend everyone taking the 3 heart challenge in LBW, it really makes the game shine. Two bad it never got a genuine follow-up.