I am so glad you are talking about the “nostalgia” thing (and by extension ‘recency bias’). For years, probably a decade, ‘gamer nostalgia’ discourse has always driven me crazy. It’s so often deployed to avoid having an actual argument or even a basic coherent opinion. It drives me fucking nuts. Thank you!
It honestly drives me crazy when I see people imply that classic wow only got popular because of nostalgia, how people are so willing to hate anything blizzard related that they will just straight up lie about a game.
@sule001 not at all a verifiable argument and does not address points people make regarding their arguments. It's annoying to hear because it's a time wasting, dismissive non sequitur
It's been more than a decade. It's just another way that people like to dismiss others opinions. It was happening in the 90s when people were talking about music from the 70s they said oh it's not actually better it's just nostalgia which may be true maybe not but it was always a stupid argument because as rata points out you cannot really argue against it or give any evidence to support it.
I wanna address that classic Zelda comment. After thinking about it, I really DON'T think that BotW harkens back to specifically Zelda 1. In Zelda 1, you in fact CANNOT go straight to Gannon. And although some sequence breaking is possible, you generally are strongly guided to do the dungeons in order, and sometimes outright prevented from going out of order. If you think about it, the structure of Zelda 1 isn't really all that different from LttP. It's very misleading to characterize LttP as a "depature" from classic Zelda, it's much more of a refinement of the formula. They are fairly similar games, with the main difference being polish. What I think is actually going on here is Zelda 1 had a feeling of openness (I remember feeling like this as well) which felt novel at the time, and BotW is re-capturing that feeling. But it's not necessarily particularly more like Zelda 1 than any other Zelda.
Anyone think theres some concerning trend where some older game devs seem almost "ashamed" of their previous works and projects and are possessed of a need to be distinct from or correct their old works despite how well beloved they are?
That could be true, most creators often cringe at their old works, I would hear them talk about how they hate their old animations but the on the other hand, their friends would disagree and say it was their favourite. The same goes for me as well since I can't stand looking at a majority of my old stuff and there always a slight impulse to delete it off the internet every time I took a glance at it.
I don't think it's concerning in and of itself: improving/changing over time and discarding the old ways is normal, and looking back on old works with that critical eye is to be expected. The point of contention is what is being discarded and why: we want them to get to that point of rexamining what works and doesn't in each game, rather than dismissing the old ways as nostalgia.
This is pretty common among anyone who makes stuff. All output is the result of your past experiences. If you made Ocarina of Time, going forward, it is now your past experience. It's not necessarily something you want to return to because you've already done that, you've already overcome the barriers to making something like that and at the very least revisiting the same ideas again can frankly be pretty boring or uninspiring. This is certainly not how a person grows and develops their craft. Also recall that these are multi-year projects. A lot of stuff can happen in a year and sometimes you really don't want to sit down to a project that is going to serve as a constant reminder of the past. Like, as an example, Iwata died during the production of BotW. There were almost certainly some difficult periods during TotK's production as a result of memories of that period being dredged up due to familiarity. For you, the game is about fun and new experiences. Some things about your life might get wrapped up in your experience of the game. But your perception will always be fundamentally different from that of the person who made it.
In reference to one part of that...*interesting* comment at the end. You cannot go to Ganon at the beginning of the original Zelda. You need to beat 8 *full dungeons* first. And you get *unique items* in those dungeons. The dungeons also lock parts of themselves off behind locked doors, which require *keys* to get through.
Yeah but you can do them out of order and IIRC you only need to actually complete like 5 or 6 of them. This is the open endedness I would prefer in newer Zelda, not give you all the tools at the start then have you solve easily cheeseable puzzles
@@2changJRPGmusic You do need to do all of them; the game won't let you enter Level 9 without all 8 triforce pieces. I would definitely be down for what you're describing though!
Bro zoomers just say whatever shit they think will win them a debate even if it’s a blatant lie. Zelda 1 lays the foundation for “classic” Zelda and has almost nothing to fucking do with what the series has sadly morphed into.
For me the thing that I miss the most about older zeldas is the new tools. Each dungeon you used to get a new tool and that could even unlock things in the world. now you get all tools at the beginning.. whats fun about new tools is that you have new puzzles that you can solve with the new tool, sure nintendo is very good at using a couple mechanics in inovative ways but with new tools you get brand new puzzles, you got one more thing to think about. One of the big flaws of old zeldas though is that because of that new tool thing pretty much every puzzle in a dungeon is gonna be linked to the new tool so very often it's pretty easy to find the solutions. Like if you obtain a fire wand that throws fireball you'll know what to do if you see a block of ice blocking the path or torches that need to be lit or a chest hanging by a rope, just throw fire at it.. the tool often is just like a key instead of a piece of a puzzle. In botw and totk the tools need to be used together and they find new ways to have you use them together in innovative ways. I think the best of both worlds would be a zelda that is semi-linear where you have the freedom of doing 3 dungeons in any order and then it unlocks 3 more and in those next 3 you need to use all the tools you obtained so far together + the new tool in this dungeon, and then again 3 more dungeons after that etc. I'm also not a big fan of the open-ended puzzles of botw and totk, I often find a way to cheese and then wonder what the real solution was supposed to be and sometimes I can't even tell if I cheesed it or not. In botw and even more in totk, you have so much freedom that you can use the same solution and apply it to many puzzles which makes it repetitive and once you are like 1/4 of the way though the game the puzzles aren't really difficult because you know how to you use tools in pretty much all the ways they can be used already.
Resident Evil 4 is a perfect example for the nostalgia argument. Last week I played through the original, which I played as a kid, and yesterday I bought and started the remake from last year. Both are absolutely excellent games. I introduced my girlfriend to both games because she's always enjoyed Ada as a character, she had never played either game though (just the re2 remake). She prefers the original. It's clunkier, it's a bit janky at points, but she absolutely adored it and thought the remake was just okay. The pacing is different, the design is different, the characters are even a little different, and the old one hit her tastes more. For me, on the other hand, as somebody who loved the old game back in the day and loved it just as much recently, so far I think the remake is pretty much a universal improvement. If nostalgia was such a universal and unavoidable factor, I would prefer the original and she would prefer the remake, right? Usually people like what they like for legitimate reasons and they're usually honest when they bother to talk about why. There's no reason to doubt a goddamn opinion, people.
The thing with the nostalgia argument is that it completely misses the point of what's being argued in the first place. The argument isn't "nostalgia doesn't exist," it's "nostalgia is not the only reason people could prefer older games." That's essentially what was stated in Aonuma's interview and that's what's being debated. Nostalgia is a dumb argument because it isn't provable, but even if it wasn't, it still isn't even what's being debated in the first place! What's being debated is Aonuma suggesting that nostalgia is the only possible reason people could prefer the old over the new, which is objectively false.
@sule001 I love breath of the wild. It didn't "feel like a bad change," it felt like a breath of fresh air because the style had gotten stale at that point. You are making up a person to be mad at. Are people not allowed to personally prefer the older style?
Hey I really enjoy you posting these clips! You don't put much out anymore, and I just want to hear you rant about things more. I vote keep doing them please. lol love your stuff
Here’s my pitch for a packaged retort to the, “classic Zelda is the first few 2D games” line. Ocarina is the beginning of the Classical Zelda period. The original through Link’s Awakening represents the Baroque period.
Despite being 2D, Link to the Past absolutely resembles "classic" Zelda games like OoT more than it does its predecessors. LttP set the standard for Zelda until BotW.
Zelda 1&2: The Baroque Age A Link to the Past to The Minish Cap: The Golden Age Twilight Princess to Triforce Heroes: The Experimental Era Breath of the Wild: The Redemption Tears of the Kingdom: I blame COVID
@@Level_Eleven I would blame covid if Elden ring didn't exist which was made in the same time period and same country with the same restrictions as Tears of the Kingdom was.
Ratatoskr, you do need to play Zelda 1 or at least research it so you can argue these "classic Zelda" people. They are wrong about Zelda 1. It is not as open as they claim. You need to beat all the dungeons, there is item progression. These people are wrong about Zelda 1 not being like A Link To the Past or Ocarina of Time. They are flat out wrong for truth's sake do not give them that ground.
On the subject of playable Zelda, how about something like the Trine system? Haven't played since the first... but basically there are three characters (warrior, archer, wizard) that interact with puzzles and enemies in specific ways. You can swap at will. Or maybe something more like Witcher 3's escort quests. I agree that playable Zelda on its own doesn't add anything and I don't want dev time spent on it wastefully, but it could be a very thematic inclusion to a system like that. Imagine that she follows link around, helping with puzzles and magic and stuff. Even if it's only specific limited dungeons it would be pretty damn unique for the series.
OOT is classic Zelda, because it and games like it established the formula. TLOZ 1 and 2 are two different games, and both different from ALTTP and OOT that followed. When people talk about classic Zelda, I feel it’s just a reference to the formula of gameplay that spanned 7+ games.
I have a reverse example of being a child and thinking something was bad and when I got older it became one of my favorite games, it was prince of Persia sands of time, I hated that game as a kid because I was bad at it, even as far as a guy at a used games store recommended it to me and my 10 year old ass unironically looked him in the eyes and told him that it’s a bad game…. Years later I was finally better and gave it another chance and it’s probably in my top 10 games of all time.
I've been thinking about the BotW and it's comparison to the OG. The original is effectively a 2D open world game, BotW is 3D open world thats very open. BotW in some promotional talked about looking back on the OG. I've come to the conclusion that 3D has an inherent flaw that 2D worlds doesn't have; space. Zelda 1's world was a grid of screens. If a screen doesn't have SOMETHING interesting on it, it would be a bad screen. It would be filler. You can play witj space in 2D (ex. Ppl have mapped out Hollow Knight and there would be overlap but th devs "cheat"). In 3D, you can't "cheat" and that often leads to either lots of empty feeling space (which can be positive depending on the game), too little space between key areas, or lots of copy paste feeling space/dungeons. 2D can still have copy paste issues tho (cough cough Metroid cough). When compared to BotW and TotK especially, I'd rather play the original tbh. I only finished BotW because I was hyped for TotK and excited what the 6+ years of "extra" development would do (I can appreciate Ultra hand for what it is but it doesn't feel like 6 years of development) and was thoroughly disappointed with this REBOOT of a game (again its a reboot game, not a sequel game). And even without those 2 main flaws, the original feels more dense and tightly designed. At this rate I want Zelda to have it's own Dread or Wonder, that can compete with "the classics" like Zelda 1 and Link to the Past.
We don’t have the ability to look into anyone’s mind in any context, but that doesn’t take away our ability to decide and conclude something. If for some reason the person defending an old game is not able to define what they actually like about the game I think it’s fine to mostly chalk it up to nostalgia. Of course you can’t just use it as a way to dismiss their arguments and point of view as you say. That would be silly.
i like both kinds of games, i dunno why they cant just make both kinds like how they make 2d and 3d mario games. arguing which one should be is dumb, they should be making 2d zeldas, classic zeldas, and botw zeldas
I've seen a lot people advocating for dividing the series in 3 branches, and albeit that would be my ideal scenario as well, I'm afraid there is kind of a big problem: Classic 3D Zelda games are EXPENSIVE to develop. It's one of the main reasons why very few developers have even tried to follow that formula. Not to mention that having Classic 3D Zelda games and Open World Zelda games at the same time would be confusing, and thus potentially alienating, for casual players, or even hardcore games who aren't all that familiar with the series. You can easily tell 2D and 3D Zelda apart with a single glance. You wouldn't be able to do so with classic 3D Zelda and Open World Zelda.
I'm one of those that has commented that BotW is classic Zelda in the sense it's like Zelda 1, because it's true and was deeply refreshing to see that style return. With that said I'm not actually an old man, I don't hand out swords and live in a cave. I've also come to see BotW is only superficially like Zelda 1. That said, I think that saying "BotW is like Zelda 1, therefore I'm better than you" is absolutely not an argument, it doesn't even hit on the valid criticisms people have for BotW. All that is doing is playing the game of semantics and doesn't move the conversation anywhere meaningful.
In regards to the guy saying classic Zelda died in 98... He's not even right in regards to that. A Link Between Worlds released in 2013 and shares more in common with Zelda 1 than any of the breath of the wild games.
If classic Zelda "died" due to the loss of the open world format, then it died LOOOOOONG before OOT. As in... literally in 1988 with "The Adventure of Link". And even "A Link to the Past", which although more open ended, it still had more of a structure to it. And then you have "Link's Awakening", which is actually MORE lineal than OOT. No, really. In OOT you can still sequence break in a few points (as in, without glitches), which you can't do in LA. That's why you know that guy was just another "robot".
Worst part is, he pretty much admits he only played one game in the entire franchise and has the audacity to try and say he lost his favorite series for 30 years which makes his disappointment greater than classic fans. For one that is one game in the infancy of the series before it was even a series so there is not much to lament. Secondly this makes him less of an authority on what is "real zelda" if he outright ignored all but one game for 30 years until botw. Truthfully I don't even think he was around for or played the og (since it is a more tightly designed metroidvania game than a modern open world game), he's just regurgitating something he heard elsewhere because he's a fanboy and a bot. All people like this have to do is be honest and say they never liked Zelda and now they do because it is a completely different game, they think it is better now and thus do not want to go back. Which is fair enough, but they know it's no longer an argument at that point which is why they go the "Muh Zelda 1" route
I am quite happy botw and totk introduced lots of new people with the series because core zelda fanbase is really annoying. They are not happy with anything, always divide on trivial stuff. I don't remember a Zelda game which is not divisive since Majora's Mask.
I just think TOTK has been their least creative one BOTW was good yeah but TOTK feels like it was an update or didn't do that much different. It just doesn't feel right i have played both and think BOTW is better than TOTK is better in every way. Personally I'd love to see another game in the same art style of Wind waker or Twilight princess.
My first zelda was links awakening. After that a link to the past. For me zelda was always linear. I tried the first zelda a lot later. Somewhere around 2005. I don't like the first zelda and haven't finished it. I hate breath and tears. That isn't zelda anymore.
Zelda is on a wonderful trajectory imo. It's a real treasure. It's ok where TOTK and BOTW ended up. If there's one thing you have to say that's amazing about the Legend of Zelda, it's that almost every time they make a new game, they completely re-invent it. Whether that's story, art style, gameplay. It's like an artist or a musician reinventing themselves every album. And why wouldn't they? That's what artists do. And it's ok to deviate from the centre a little, in fact if TOTK and BOTW shifted a little too far into freewheeling territory, I expect Nintendo to correct course with a new mutation, that doesn't just give us more of the same and all the wish lists, but something we completely didn't expect. It's honestly the thing to treasure most about Zelda, and it's an amazing place for Nintendo to find themselves in, with total freedom of creative licence.
I loved BotW, even though I missed dungeons, but TotK left me feeling robbed and hollow despite putting over one hundred hours into it. It wasn't an evolution, it was just a retreading with bells and whistles to distract the easily-entertained from noticing the cynical hyperabundant asset reuse.
@@rclaws3230why do you think the game took 6 years to publish it? If Nintendo really did want to scam you out of 70 bucks, they could’ve released the game in 2020 and make the same amount of money on less time spent perfecting the game.
(Spoilers for Zelda games) I think people want to see playable Zelda is because Princess Peach has recently been more playable and is getting larger spotlight. In addition, BOTW Zelda has been a closer companion than other Zelda iterations. However, I believe she shouldn't be playable for two reasons. 1. She is usually an active character in the stories. Princess Peach isn't really been active in most Mario games. She is usually kidnapped and needs to be saved. Since modern Mario games don't have Bowser kidnap her anymore, she is free to whatever. I'd argue that she is a princess in name only. Princess Zelda, on the other hand, is usually tied into the story and has her own stuff to deal with (minus Zelda 1 and 2). She's a sage in hiding in A Link to the Past. She's a princess as a child and Link's guide as an adult in OoT. She's Tetra in WW. She's a political hostage (and sacrifices herself to save Midna later) in TP. She's Link's childhood friend and the reincarnation of the Goddess (or vessel... I forget). Unless they are going to make Zelda a more normal person moving on, she can't really go on quests like Link can. 2. Zelda gameplay is more grounded, and Link is already versatile. What makes "Link" Link in terms of gameplay? I believe it is his items. He is a sword user who uses a variety of items to solve problems and traverse the world. Even when he gets magic, he's not really using it on himself. He is using it on his items. What moveset could Zelda have that Link doesn't already do with his wide array of items and magic? What would be the point of playing as Zelda if she can't do anything unique that Link can't already do?
I’m one of the old men. Almost 45 and to me “classic Zelda” should refer to anything before Ocarina of Time which should then be considered “modern Zelda” with BoTW and ToTK “new Zelda” or “current Zelda”. My least favorite games are “everyone’s favorites” Ocarina of Time, Majora’s Mask, and Twilight Princess. My favorites are ToTK, Skyward Sword and BoTW. You know why? Recency bias.
I love OoT but nostalgia can indeed be blinding - when I revisited the game I couldn't get back into it. The controls were horrible. I feel like the absolute joy of controlling Link in the Wild era has spoiled me in older titles.
I think what makes Ocarina clunky to control is the 20fps frame rate. Thankfully, the PC port doesn't have this issue. I also think the game is overrated, but mainly because I think it's too easy. I think games like Majora and Wind Waker are just better overall.
@Patrick-bn5rp I guess I just never liked how classic Zelda controlled all that much. Lack of camera control, free jump, climbing, gliding, etc - I just really love the way it all feels and dislike how Link feels less nimble and more heavy in the old games.
@@cato3277 If it means anything, you get full camera control with the PC port. As for climbing... You can actually do it, but there's limitations. You can't climb up onto a ledge that's too high up and you can't climb up walls unless there's a vine or a ladder or something.
@Patrick-bn5rp all true. I respect the limitations it brings too, but I'm too attached to how smooth the new games are. I'll have to try the PC port out soon
I don’t know that hardly anyone argues that things like controls, UI, graphics, or sound are better in the older games than the new… but in many respects, the story, puzzles/dungeons, atmosphere are arguably better, at least by some preferences. in fact, I’d say the N64 _Zelda_ games have by far the best atmosphere and sense of place… wouldn’t say the newest games are the worst (I’d give that distinction to _Skyward Sword),_ but the older games definitely did much more with much less 👍
I find it weird how some ppl think that being able to get to ganon right off the bat or you can go anywhere at anytime is a good thing. It's not terrible but at the same time being able to climb anything gives the game zero structure. Zelda games need to have boundaries.
@@fulltimeslackerii8229 You can't even enter Leyndell without killing two of the three available shardbros though? ER is way less "open" than people seem to think, either than or "open" means much less than everyone thinks it does. ER is a wonderful, very long walk, but let's not pretend most of us didn't walk more or less to the same places and in more or less the same sequence. "most popular soulsbourne game for most people" this also doesn't make much sense. ER is, by far, the most popular Souls game. Period.
@@fulltimeslackerii8229 There are still certain areas that are gated off, I think Elden ring did it very well. The mountaintops of the giants or even Lyndell capital cant be reached until you get a few "items" first. However you can still explore the earlier sections to your hearts content. Not only that but have you played the dungeons in that game? They are truly what Zelda should have been doing since botw. May not be puzzle oriented but they were still a marvel of exploration.
@sule001 modern zelda didn't invent the concept of an open world, and for a duology of games that "embrace player freedom" theres shockingly little you can actually do with said freedom.
I have said it once and I will say it again as many times as the point is raised. When it comes to game development you cannot have unlimited freedom and perfect linearity at the same time. The more freedom you place in the game the less linearity it can have and viceversa, TotK gave stupid high amounts of freedom with the tools in the game, not just Ultrahand, Fuse, Rewind and Ascent are all completely busted when it comes to breaking a game. There is no way to make a linear dungeon in TotK without taking out the abilities in question, with one exception, which is making a series of disconnected rooms with a single puzzle in each room to open a passage into the next room. Now my last example may seem familiar if you played the game, since it was the way the quests for reaching the dungeons worked, you know, the part that most people received somewhat negatively? Aonuma is right, he gave a series of linear quests that would have fit perfectly in Zelda games on the N64 and most people didn't like the linear elements of them, Zelda "fans" are funny on that aspect, they say they want something, they get it and then say they hate it and the game doesn't have what they asked for, it's crazy watching how they have such a strong cognitive dissonnance.
@@OceanicManiac Not really, I quite liked them, but even if we are talking objectively they aren't much different than the linear parts in older games. But sure let's consider that point, how do the linear parts in TotK differ from those of older games according to you? I mean if you think they sucked in particular then what was the particularity? or is it just a bias?
@@OceanicManiac Yep and like I said, if the linear segments in TotK sucked, then being so similar to the linear style of older Zeldas means that older Zeldas also sucked, or there is significant differences with the linear style of TotK and older games, significant differences that I can't really see. Which is exactly what I already said in the comment before.
i don’t think its any one thing. I believe the argument is multifaceted. I think its equally stupid and grossly disingenuous on your part to excuse away the part that nostalgia plays in how people describe or bring up this discussion. you cannot say, in all honesty that there is 0% of it going around. That when people say “I remember” “was it cool when” that its not nostalgia, well Maybe for you because your a bit strange. “Well, I do think we as people have a tendency to want the thing that we don’t currently have, and there’s a bit of a grass is greener mentality.” This is very well said and describes a big part of the argument. Its is very human in nature. Like when people talk about the ex, or that party that they got wasted. They remember everything good but never seem to remember the bad that came along with it. Watch in another decade the “i want linear zelda” will disappear after they had their fill of it. They will be racing for open world again. I believe oot stands the test of time not simply or just because of dungeons. Its the whole package of story, characters, music, and much more fantasy. I think if TOTK has incorporated a much tighter experience, it wouldn’t have made people desire something better or linear.
Saying "The new Zelda is like the original" is dumb since no one liked the original. You can tell since the second Zelda game was an entirely different Genre. It also didn't make much money, since Nintendo spent 3 times as much money developing it as an average game. It was only a "top seller" because it's competitors were pong and centipede. 1 screen games The series didn't take off and become popular until Link's Awakening, which is as far from Tears of the Kingdom as you can get.
I also don't agree that the Breath of the Wild games are closer to the original. They don't have proper lengthy dungeons. If we're going to talk about actual entries that are closer to Zelda 1 while improving heavily on it, it's actually Link Between Worlds. Mostly non linear because you can tackle the dungeons in whatever order, but you have an actual good story and the dungeons in question are awesome.
I think when they showed off their BOTW chemistry system tech demo in Zelda 1 style, people took this and just ran with the comparison that it was Zelda 1 incarnate.
ok, so saying that “the series didn’t take off until ocarina” is completely untrue. that’s like saying “mario didn’t take off until Mario 64.” Zelda has ALWAYS been one of Nintendo’s biggest sellers. A Link to The Past was a HUUUUGE deal when it came out, as were the episodes of the Super Mario Bros. Hour every friday where instead of a mario cartoon, you had a zelda one. (this is where “excuuuuuse me princess”) but the idea that “no one liked the original” is patently false. if that was the case, why were so many fans disappointed in in Zelda 2’s side scrolling elements? people at the time loved the first game, maybe you’re just confusing everything with Zelda 2?
@@mkv2718 They're just a blind hater. I mean, they literally say the game "didn't make much money" and that it was "a top seller" in pretty much the same breath. Those two statements are mutually exclusive, even if the "took 3 times as much money to develop" (which is just a lie as well, but even if it was true it wouldn't make a difference regarding the previous statement) Now, I'm definitely on the camp of traditional 3D Zelda, but that doesn't warrant defending that position by spreading lies about the open world format.
Get out of your feelings he is not just a dev anymore he is a executive besides that he isnt looking for the purest Zelda forums he sees 30 mil and 19 millions. "Hey people obviously like this formula where the hell did this angry minority come from?"
I am so glad you are talking about the “nostalgia” thing (and by extension ‘recency bias’). For years, probably a decade, ‘gamer nostalgia’ discourse has always driven me crazy. It’s so often deployed to avoid having an actual argument or even a basic coherent opinion. It drives me fucking nuts. Thank you!
It honestly drives me crazy when I see people imply that classic wow only got popular because of nostalgia, how people are so willing to hate anything blizzard related that they will just straight up lie about a game.
@sule001 not at all a verifiable argument and does not address points people make regarding their arguments. It's annoying to hear because it's a time wasting, dismissive non sequitur
The man literally said he was hurt by what Aounuma said. That is nostalgia...
It's been more than a decade.
It's just another way that people like to dismiss others opinions. It was happening in the 90s when people were talking about music from the 70s they said oh it's not actually better it's just nostalgia which may be true maybe not but it was always a stupid argument because as rata points out you cannot really argue against it or give any evidence to support it.
I wanna address that classic Zelda comment. After thinking about it, I really DON'T think that BotW harkens back to specifically Zelda 1. In Zelda 1, you in fact CANNOT go straight to Gannon. And although some sequence breaking is possible, you generally are strongly guided to do the dungeons in order, and sometimes outright prevented from going out of order.
If you think about it, the structure of Zelda 1 isn't really all that different from LttP. It's very misleading to characterize LttP as a "depature" from classic Zelda, it's much more of a refinement of the formula. They are fairly similar games, with the main difference being polish. What I think is actually going on here is Zelda 1 had a feeling of openness (I remember feeling like this as well) which felt novel at the time, and BotW is re-capturing that feeling. But it's not necessarily particularly more like Zelda 1 than any other Zelda.
Anyone think theres some concerning trend where some older game devs seem almost "ashamed" of their previous works and projects and are possessed of a need to be distinct from or correct their old works despite how well beloved they are?
That could be true, most creators often cringe at their old works, I would hear them talk about how they hate their old animations but the on the other hand, their friends would disagree and say it was their favourite. The same goes for me as well since I can't stand looking at a majority of my old stuff and there always a slight impulse to delete it off the internet every time I took a glance at it.
I don't think it's concerning in and of itself: improving/changing over time and discarding the old ways is normal, and looking back on old works with that critical eye is to be expected. The point of contention is what is being discarded and why: we want them to get to that point of rexamining what works and doesn't in each game, rather than dismissing the old ways as nostalgia.
I could understand Majora’s Mask reminding Aonuma of his nightmares, but the 3DS remake did that game dirty.
This is pretty common among anyone who makes stuff.
All output is the result of your past experiences. If you made Ocarina of Time, going forward, it is now your past experience. It's not necessarily something you want to return to because you've already done that, you've already overcome the barriers to making something like that and at the very least revisiting the same ideas again can frankly be pretty boring or uninspiring. This is certainly not how a person grows and develops their craft.
Also recall that these are multi-year projects. A lot of stuff can happen in a year and sometimes you really don't want to sit down to a project that is going to serve as a constant reminder of the past. Like, as an example, Iwata died during the production of BotW. There were almost certainly some difficult periods during TotK's production as a result of memories of that period being dredged up due to familiarity.
For you, the game is about fun and new experiences. Some things about your life might get wrapped up in your experience of the game. But your perception will always be fundamentally different from that of the person who made it.
That just comes from being creative, you often look at earlier work as lesser as you try to hone your craft, its a very common behavior.
In reference to one part of that...*interesting* comment at the end. You cannot go to Ganon at the beginning of the original Zelda. You need to beat 8 *full dungeons* first. And you get *unique items* in those dungeons. The dungeons also lock parts of themselves off behind locked doors, which require *keys* to get through.
Yeah but you can do them out of order and IIRC you only need to actually complete like 5 or 6 of them. This is the open endedness I would prefer in newer Zelda, not give you all the tools at the start then have you solve easily cheeseable puzzles
@@2changJRPGmusic You do need to do all of them; the game won't let you enter Level 9 without all 8 triforce pieces. I would definitely be down for what you're describing though!
Bro zoomers just say whatever shit they think will win them a debate even if it’s a blatant lie. Zelda 1 lays the foundation for “classic” Zelda and has almost nothing to fucking do with what the series has sadly morphed into.
You’ll never get that old feeling back because it isn’t profitable.
For me the thing that I miss the most about older zeldas is the new tools. Each dungeon you used to get a new tool and that could even unlock things in the world. now you get all tools at the beginning.. whats fun about new tools is that you have new puzzles that you can solve with the new tool, sure nintendo is very good at using a couple mechanics in inovative ways but with new tools you get brand new puzzles, you got one more thing to think about.
One of the big flaws of old zeldas though is that because of that new tool thing pretty much every puzzle in a dungeon is gonna be linked to the new tool so very often it's pretty easy to find the solutions. Like if you obtain a fire wand that throws fireball you'll know what to do if you see a block of ice blocking the path or torches that need to be lit or a chest hanging by a rope, just throw fire at it.. the tool often is just like a key instead of a piece of a puzzle. In botw and totk the tools need to be used together and they find new ways to have you use them together in innovative ways. I think the best of both worlds would be a zelda that is semi-linear where you have the freedom of doing 3 dungeons in any order and then it unlocks 3 more and in those next 3 you need to use all the tools you obtained so far together + the new tool in this dungeon, and then again 3 more dungeons after that etc.
I'm also not a big fan of the open-ended puzzles of botw and totk, I often find a way to cheese and then wonder what the real solution was supposed to be and sometimes I can't even tell if I cheesed it or not. In botw and even more in totk, you have so much freedom that you can use the same solution and apply it to many puzzles which makes it repetitive and once you are like 1/4 of the way though the game the puzzles aren't really difficult because you know how to you use tools in pretty much all the ways they can be used already.
Play Zelda 1, you will see that it is only like BotW on a very superficial level. ALttP is the true successor to the original LoZ.
Um. No? Tf?
@@d-swagg9683 Have you played the original LoZ?
Resident Evil 4 is a perfect example for the nostalgia argument. Last week I played through the original, which I played as a kid, and yesterday I bought and started the remake from last year. Both are absolutely excellent games. I introduced my girlfriend to both games because she's always enjoyed Ada as a character, she had never played either game though (just the re2 remake). She prefers the original. It's clunkier, it's a bit janky at points, but she absolutely adored it and thought the remake was just okay. The pacing is different, the design is different, the characters are even a little different, and the old one hit her tastes more. For me, on the other hand, as somebody who loved the old game back in the day and loved it just as much recently, so far I think the remake is pretty much a universal improvement. If nostalgia was such a universal and unavoidable factor, I would prefer the original and she would prefer the remake, right?
Usually people like what they like for legitimate reasons and they're usually honest when they bother to talk about why. There's no reason to doubt a goddamn opinion, people.
The thing with the nostalgia argument is that it completely misses the point of what's being argued in the first place. The argument isn't "nostalgia doesn't exist," it's "nostalgia is not the only reason people could prefer older games." That's essentially what was stated in Aonuma's interview and that's what's being debated. Nostalgia is a dumb argument because it isn't provable, but even if it wasn't, it still isn't even what's being debated in the first place! What's being debated is Aonuma suggesting that nostalgia is the only possible reason people could prefer the old over the new, which is objectively false.
@sule001 I love breath of the wild. It didn't "feel like a bad change," it felt like a breath of fresh air because the style had gotten stale at that point. You are making up a person to be mad at. Are people not allowed to personally prefer the older style?
If only Bluepoint had the same level of humility as Miyazaki.
Hey I really enjoy you posting these clips! You don't put much out anymore, and I just want to hear you rant about things more. I vote keep doing them please. lol love your stuff
Here’s my pitch for a packaged retort to the, “classic Zelda is the first few 2D games” line.
Ocarina is the beginning of the Classical Zelda period. The original through Link’s Awakening represents the Baroque period.
Despite being 2D, Link to the Past absolutely resembles "classic" Zelda games like OoT more than it does its predecessors.
LttP set the standard for Zelda until BotW.
Zelda 1&2: The Baroque Age
A Link to the Past to The Minish Cap: The Golden Age
Twilight Princess to Triforce Heroes: The Experimental Era
Breath of the Wild: The Redemption
Tears of the Kingdom: I blame COVID
@@Level_Eleven I would blame covid if Elden ring didn't exist which was made in the same time period and same country with the same restrictions as Tears of the Kingdom was.
Ratatoskr, you do need to play Zelda 1 or at least research it so you can argue these "classic Zelda" people. They are wrong about Zelda 1. It is not as open as they claim. You need to beat all the dungeons, there is item progression. These people are wrong about Zelda 1 not being like A Link To the Past or Ocarina of Time. They are flat out wrong for truth's sake do not give them that ground.
BotW and TotK are not like Zelda 1. Sick of people saying that.
On the subject of playable Zelda, how about something like the Trine system? Haven't played since the first... but basically there are three characters (warrior, archer, wizard) that interact with puzzles and enemies in specific ways. You can swap at will. Or maybe something more like Witcher 3's escort quests.
I agree that playable Zelda on its own doesn't add anything and I don't want dev time spent on it wastefully, but it could be a very thematic inclusion to a system like that. Imagine that she follows link around, helping with puzzles and magic and stuff. Even if it's only specific limited dungeons it would be pretty damn unique for the series.
Spirit Tracks already did that
OOT is classic Zelda, because it and games like it established the formula. TLOZ 1 and 2 are two different games, and both different from ALTTP and OOT that followed. When people talk about classic Zelda, I feel it’s just a reference to the formula of gameplay that spanned 7+ games.
I have a reverse example of being a child and thinking something was bad and when I got older it became one of my favorite games, it was prince of Persia sands of time, I hated that game as a kid because I was bad at it, even as far as a guy at a used games store recommended it to me and my 10 year old ass unironically looked him in the eyes and told him that it’s a bad game…. Years later I was finally better and gave it another chance and it’s probably in my top 10 games of all time.
I've been thinking about the BotW and it's comparison to the OG. The original is effectively a 2D open world game, BotW is 3D open world thats very open. BotW in some promotional talked about looking back on the OG. I've come to the conclusion that 3D has an inherent flaw that 2D worlds doesn't have; space. Zelda 1's world was a grid of screens. If a screen doesn't have SOMETHING interesting on it, it would be a bad screen. It would be filler. You can play witj space in 2D (ex. Ppl have mapped out Hollow Knight and there would be overlap but th devs "cheat"). In 3D, you can't "cheat" and that often leads to either lots of empty feeling space (which can be positive depending on the game), too little space between key areas, or lots of copy paste feeling space/dungeons. 2D can still have copy paste issues tho (cough cough Metroid cough). When compared to BotW and TotK especially, I'd rather play the original tbh. I only finished BotW because I was hyped for TotK and excited what the 6+ years of "extra" development would do (I can appreciate Ultra hand for what it is but it doesn't feel like 6 years of development) and was thoroughly disappointed with this REBOOT of a game (again its a reboot game, not a sequel game). And even without those 2 main flaws, the original feels more dense and tightly designed.
At this rate I want Zelda to have it's own Dread or Wonder, that can compete with "the classics" like Zelda 1 and Link to the Past.
14:00 have you reacted on any Matthewmatosis videos or plan to do so in the future?
We don’t have the ability to look into anyone’s mind in any context, but that doesn’t take away our ability to decide and conclude something.
If for some reason the person defending an old game is not able to define what they actually like about the game I think it’s fine to mostly chalk it up to nostalgia. Of course you can’t just use it as a way to dismiss their arguments and point of view as you say. That would be silly.
i like both kinds of games, i dunno why they cant just make both kinds like how they make 2d and 3d mario games.
arguing which one should be is dumb, they should be making 2d zeldas, classic zeldas, and botw zeldas
I've seen a lot people advocating for dividing the series in 3 branches, and albeit that would be my ideal scenario as well, I'm afraid there is kind of a big problem: Classic 3D Zelda games are EXPENSIVE to develop. It's one of the main reasons why very few developers have even tried to follow that formula.
Not to mention that having Classic 3D Zelda games and Open World Zelda games at the same time would be confusing, and thus potentially alienating, for casual players, or even hardcore games who aren't all that familiar with the series. You can easily tell 2D and 3D Zelda apart with a single glance. You wouldn't be able to do so with classic 3D Zelda and Open World Zelda.
I'm one of those that has commented that BotW is classic Zelda in the sense it's like Zelda 1, because it's true and was deeply refreshing to see that style return. With that said I'm not actually an old man, I don't hand out swords and live in a cave. I've also come to see BotW is only superficially like Zelda 1.
That said, I think that saying "BotW is like Zelda 1, therefore I'm better than you" is absolutely not an argument, it doesn't even hit on the valid criticisms people have for BotW. All that is doing is playing the game of semantics and doesn't move the conversation anywhere meaningful.
In regards to the guy saying classic Zelda died in 98... He's not even right in regards to that. A Link Between Worlds released in 2013 and shares more in common with Zelda 1 than any of the breath of the wild games.
If classic Zelda "died" due to the loss of the open world format, then it died LOOOOOONG before OOT. As in... literally in 1988 with "The Adventure of Link". And even "A Link to the Past", which although more open ended, it still had more of a structure to it. And then you have "Link's Awakening", which is actually MORE lineal than OOT. No, really. In OOT you can still sequence break in a few points (as in, without glitches), which you can't do in LA.
That's why you know that guy was just another "robot".
Worst part is, he pretty much admits he only played one game in the entire franchise and has the audacity to try and say he lost his favorite series for 30 years which makes his disappointment greater than classic fans. For one that is one game in the infancy of the series before it was even a series so there is not much to lament. Secondly this makes him less of an authority on what is "real zelda" if he outright ignored all but one game for 30 years until botw. Truthfully I don't even think he was around for or played the og (since it is a more tightly designed metroidvania game than a modern open world game), he's just regurgitating something he heard elsewhere because he's a fanboy and a bot. All people like this have to do is be honest and say they never liked Zelda and now they do because it is a completely different game, they think it is better now and thus do not want to go back. Which is fair enough, but they know it's no longer an argument at that point which is why they go the "Muh Zelda 1" route
I am quite happy botw and totk introduced lots of new people with the series because core zelda fanbase is really annoying. They are not happy with anything, always divide on trivial stuff. I don't remember a Zelda game which is not divisive since Majora's Mask.
I just think TOTK has been their least creative one BOTW was good yeah but TOTK feels like it was an update or didn't do that much different. It just doesn't feel right i have played both and think BOTW is better than TOTK is better in every way. Personally I'd love to see another game in the same art style of Wind waker or Twilight princess.
I would love a semi realistic look like tp again.
My first zelda was links awakening. After that a link to the past. For me zelda was always linear. I tried the first zelda a lot later. Somewhere around 2005. I don't like the first zelda and haven't finished it.
I hate breath and tears. That isn't zelda anymore.
How do u think demon souls is his best work when bloodbourne is way better and so is Elden ring.
Zelda is on a wonderful trajectory imo. It's a real treasure. It's ok where TOTK and BOTW ended up. If there's one thing you have to say that's amazing about the Legend of Zelda, it's that almost every time they make a new game, they completely re-invent it. Whether that's story, art style, gameplay. It's like an artist or a musician reinventing themselves every album. And why wouldn't they? That's what artists do. And it's ok to deviate from the centre a little, in fact if TOTK and BOTW shifted a little too far into freewheeling territory, I expect Nintendo to correct course with a new mutation, that doesn't just give us more of the same and all the wish lists, but something we completely didn't expect. It's honestly the thing to treasure most about Zelda, and it's an amazing place for Nintendo to find themselves in, with total freedom of creative licence.
I loved BotW, even though I missed dungeons, but TotK left me feeling robbed and hollow despite putting over one hundred hours into it. It wasn't an evolution, it was just a retreading with bells and whistles to distract the easily-entertained from noticing the cynical hyperabundant asset reuse.
@@rclaws3230why do you think the game took 6 years to publish it? If Nintendo really did want to scam you out of 70 bucks, they could’ve released the game in 2020 and make the same amount of money on less time spent perfecting the game.
(Spoilers for Zelda games) I think people want to see playable Zelda is because Princess Peach has recently been more playable and is getting larger spotlight. In addition, BOTW Zelda has been a closer companion than other Zelda iterations. However, I believe she shouldn't be playable for two reasons.
1. She is usually an active character in the stories. Princess Peach isn't really been active in most Mario games. She is usually kidnapped and needs to be saved. Since modern Mario games don't have Bowser kidnap her anymore, she is free to whatever. I'd argue that she is a princess in name only. Princess Zelda, on the other hand, is usually tied into the story and has her own stuff to deal with (minus Zelda 1 and 2). She's a sage in hiding in A Link to the Past. She's a princess as a child and Link's guide as an adult in OoT. She's Tetra in WW. She's a political hostage (and sacrifices herself to save Midna later) in TP. She's Link's childhood friend and the reincarnation of the Goddess (or vessel... I forget). Unless they are going to make Zelda a more normal person moving on, she can't really go on quests like Link can.
2. Zelda gameplay is more grounded, and Link is already versatile. What makes "Link" Link in terms of gameplay? I believe it is his items. He is a sword user who uses a variety of items to solve problems and traverse the world. Even when he gets magic, he's not really using it on himself. He is using it on his items. What moveset could Zelda have that Link doesn't already do with his wide array of items and magic? What would be the point of playing as Zelda if she can't do anything unique that Link can't already do?
I’m one of the old men. Almost 45 and to me “classic Zelda” should refer to anything before Ocarina of Time which should then be considered “modern Zelda” with BoTW and ToTK “new Zelda” or “current Zelda”.
My least favorite games are “everyone’s favorites” Ocarina of Time, Majora’s Mask, and Twilight Princess.
My favorites are ToTK, Skyward Sword and BoTW. You know why?
Recency bias.
I love OoT but nostalgia can indeed be blinding - when I revisited the game I couldn't get back into it. The controls were horrible. I feel like the absolute joy of controlling Link in the Wild era has spoiled me in older titles.
I think what makes Ocarina clunky to control is the 20fps frame rate. Thankfully, the PC port doesn't have this issue.
I also think the game is overrated, but mainly because I think it's too easy. I think games like Majora and Wind Waker are just better overall.
@Patrick-bn5rp I guess I just never liked how classic Zelda controlled all that much. Lack of camera control, free jump, climbing, gliding, etc - I just really love the way it all feels and dislike how Link feels less nimble and more heavy in the old games.
@@cato3277 If it means anything, you get full camera control with the PC port. As for climbing... You can actually do it, but there's limitations. You can't climb up onto a ledge that's too high up and you can't climb up walls unless there's a vine or a ladder or something.
@Patrick-bn5rp all true. I respect the limitations it brings too, but I'm too attached to how smooth the new games are. I'll have to try the PC port out soon
I don’t know that hardly anyone argues that things like controls, UI, graphics, or sound are better in the older games than the new… but in many respects, the story, puzzles/dungeons, atmosphere are arguably better, at least by some preferences.
in fact, I’d say the N64 _Zelda_ games have by far the best atmosphere and sense of place… wouldn’t say the newest games are the worst (I’d give that distinction to _Skyward Sword),_ but the older games definitely did much more with much less 👍
I find it weird how some ppl think that being able to get to ganon right off the bat or you can go anywhere at anytime is a good thing.
It's not terrible but at the same time being able to climb anything gives the game zero structure.
Zelda games need to have boundaries.
Isnt elden ring the same way and it was the most popular soulsbourne game for most people?
@@fulltimeslackerii8229 You can't even enter Leyndell without killing two of the three available shardbros though? ER is way less "open" than people seem to think, either than or "open" means much less than everyone thinks it does. ER is a wonderful, very long walk, but let's not pretend most of us didn't walk more or less to the same places and in more or less the same sequence.
"most popular soulsbourne game for most people" this also doesn't make much sense. ER is, by far, the most popular Souls game. Period.
@@fulltimeslackerii8229 There are still certain areas that are gated off, I think Elden ring did it very well. The mountaintops of the giants or even Lyndell capital cant be reached until you get a few "items" first. However you can still explore the earlier sections to your hearts content. Not only that but have you played the dungeons in that game? They are truly what Zelda should have been doing since botw.
May not be puzzle oriented but they were still a marvel of exploration.
@@kimlee6643 Agreed 100%. You pretty much made the same comment as i did but with more indepth.
@sule001 modern zelda didn't invent the concept of an open world, and for a duology of games that "embrace player freedom" theres shockingly little you can actually do with said freedom.
I have said it once and I will say it again as many times as the point is raised.
When it comes to game development you cannot have unlimited freedom and perfect linearity at the same time. The more freedom you place in the game the less linearity it can have and viceversa, TotK gave stupid high amounts of freedom with the tools in the game, not just Ultrahand, Fuse, Rewind and Ascent are all completely busted when it comes to breaking a game. There is no way to make a linear dungeon in TotK without taking out the abilities in question, with one exception, which is making a series of disconnected rooms with a single puzzle in each room to open a passage into the next room.
Now my last example may seem familiar if you played the game, since it was the way the quests for reaching the dungeons worked, you know, the part that most people received somewhat negatively? Aonuma is right, he gave a series of linear quests that would have fit perfectly in Zelda games on the N64 and most people didn't like the linear elements of them, Zelda "fans" are funny on that aspect, they say they want something, they get it and then say they hate it and the game doesn't have what they asked for, it's crazy watching how they have such a strong cognitive dissonnance.
Did you ever consider the linear parts of totk just sucked in particular?
@@OceanicManiac Not really, I quite liked them, but even if we are talking objectively they aren't much different than the linear parts in older games.
But sure let's consider that point, how do the linear parts in TotK differ from those of older games according to you?
I mean if you think they sucked in particular then what was the particularity? or is it just a bias?
@@imatiu I never said I thought they sucked in particular, I just asked if you considered it
@@OceanicManiac Yep and like I said, if the linear segments in TotK sucked, then being so similar to the linear style of older Zeldas means that older Zeldas also sucked, or there is significant differences with the linear style of TotK and older games, significant differences that I can't really see.
Which is exactly what I already said in the comment before.
@@imatiu Actually, haven't most of the responses to the dungeon lead ups been positive, with only the actual dungeons themselves being called bad?
i don’t think its any one thing. I believe the argument is multifaceted. I think its equally stupid and grossly disingenuous on your part to excuse away the part that nostalgia plays in how people describe or bring up this discussion. you cannot say, in all honesty that there is 0% of it going around. That when people say “I remember” “was it cool when” that its not nostalgia, well Maybe for you because your a bit strange.
“Well, I do think we as people have a tendency to want the thing that we don’t currently have, and there’s a bit of a grass is greener mentality.”
This is very well said and describes a big part of the argument. Its is very human in nature. Like when people talk about the ex, or that party that they got wasted. They remember everything good but never seem to remember the bad that came along with it.
Watch in another decade the “i want linear zelda” will disappear after they had their fill of it. They will be racing for open world again.
I believe oot stands the test of time not simply or just because of dungeons. Its the whole package of story, characters, music, and much more fantasy. I think if TOTK has incorporated a much tighter experience, it wouldn’t have made people desire something better or linear.
I love all zelda games.
Comparing all the games to each other is ridiculous and clearly you have too much time on your hands
Saying "The new Zelda is like the original" is dumb since no one liked the original. You can tell since the second Zelda game was an entirely different Genre. It also didn't make much money, since Nintendo spent 3 times as much money developing it as an average game. It was only a "top seller" because it's competitors were pong and centipede. 1 screen games
The series didn't take off and become popular until Link's Awakening, which is as far from Tears of the Kingdom as you can get.
I also don't agree that the Breath of the Wild games are closer to the original. They don't have proper lengthy dungeons. If we're going to talk about actual entries that are closer to Zelda 1 while improving heavily on it, it's actually Link Between Worlds. Mostly non linear because you can tackle the dungeons in whatever order, but you have an actual good story and the dungeons in question are awesome.
I think when they showed off their BOTW chemistry system tech demo in Zelda 1 style, people took this and just ran with the comparison that it was Zelda 1 incarnate.
ok, so saying that “the series didn’t take off until ocarina” is completely untrue. that’s like saying “mario didn’t take off until Mario 64.” Zelda has ALWAYS been one of Nintendo’s biggest sellers. A Link to The Past was a HUUUUGE deal when it came out, as were the episodes of the Super Mario Bros. Hour every friday where instead of a mario cartoon, you had a zelda one. (this is where “excuuuuuse me princess”)
but the idea that “no one liked the original” is patently false. if that was the case, why were so many fans disappointed in in Zelda 2’s side scrolling elements? people at the time loved the first game, maybe you’re just confusing everything with Zelda 2?
@@mkv2718 They're just a blind hater. I mean, they literally say the game "didn't make much money" and that it was "a top seller" in pretty much the same breath. Those two statements are mutually exclusive, even if the "took 3 times as much money to develop" (which is just a lie as well, but even if it was true it wouldn't make a difference regarding the previous statement)
Now, I'm definitely on the camp of traditional 3D Zelda, but that doesn't warrant defending that position by spreading lies about the open world format.
@@mkv2718 No one mentioned Ocarina but you
Get out of your feelings he is not just a dev anymore he is a executive besides that he isnt looking for the purest Zelda forums he sees 30 mil and 19 millions. "Hey people obviously like this formula where the hell did this angry minority come from?"
First