Well, the last one didn't seem too popular, so I decided to give it one last shot, I chose one of my favorite old series when I was growing up: The Legend of Zelda. Do you prefer the old games with the dungeons and head scratching puzzles without a lot of gimmicks but seems to follow a pattern? Or the new ones, with something different each one that makes it different than the last? Or do you prefer both? Honestly, I played until Majora's Mask, and never really finished a game after that. I only played Majora's Mask once and the mask quests drove me crazy along with the shortness of the game. Even with the mask sidequest, it only took me two weeks to beat the game compared to two months with Ocarina of Time. I tried Windwaker and Twilight Princess, but the water traveling really made it painful for me to play and I really just lost interest in Twilight Princess. I watched a playthrough of Skyward Sword, and that usually makes me more hyped. But I just sat there and didn't feel anything towards the game. I stopped watching at the second dungeon and never really tried again. The old games has such a nostalgia for me. I play Link to the Past constantly, and it competes with Ocarina of Time as my favorite games of the series. Maybe I'm just old fashioned, but these new games don't seem to hold the same appeal.
Old Zelda is so much better than current Zelda Nowadays it just seems like each game is going through the motions, ticking off a check list of Zelda features
Short version : Long version : http://kotaku.com/5885595/zelda-just-keeps-getting-worse-but-it-isnt-beyond-saving Majora' s Mask is the only Zelda I haven' t finished yet, when I figured out that the game was forcing me to do the same boring tasks several times and that Link could somehow keep his items but not his rupees I called bullshit and gave it a day. Windwaker had me hoping for a while, what with that vast sea completely devoid of locks to prevent me from exploring ... Unfortunately, all I ever got for going where I wasn' t suposed to was "obvious lock you don' t have the key for" or "here, have a Deku Stick". Awesome. Not to mention sailing, though fun at first, quickly became tedious, even whith my GBA helping to cut the crap. Aonuma said the next Zelda won' t be linear, I' ll believe it when I see it. If you could make it action packed and hard while you' re at it that' d be great too, m' kay ?
I prefer the older games overall. Especially the overhead view of the gameboy ones. The only newer one I ever really got into was Wind Waker since I really liked the sailing and Toon Link. Other than that Twilight Princess and Skyward Sword never really interested me like the old ones do.
I don't have a preference. Zelda is Zelda to me and will continue to be a series I play, no matter how bad it turns out. A Link to the Past is still my fourth favorite game of all time, and Skyward Sword is like the 10th. All in all, I still love Zelda as Zelda.
Hipsters everywhere. Just kidding. I like the old ones too. This is my downfall here because I never owned a N64 or a Super Nintendo, meaning I never got to play the older Zelda games, but I have seen others play it and man do I wish I could play them. I think the one major thing I dislike about the newer Zelda games are backtracking. My god there is so much in games specifically Wind Waker and Skyward Sword (at least sailing is FUN. FLYING BACK AND FORTH GETS SO IRRITATING). With Twilight Princess, teleport mechanics make it so much easier to get around. The only "old" Zelda game I played was A Link to the Past on my GBA. I very much enjoyed it. In short, I do prefer the newer ones mostly for the combat mechanics. Many of the older ones just make you mash the attack button to attack while the newer ones actually have more skills and attack moves not to mention some openness to their worlds.
Both the old and the new offer different things to the table that I appreciate. The core gameplay of all Zelda games reached its zenith around the SNES/N64 days; the popularity of this tried-and-true formula with games today signifies its lasting influence. The format of Link to the Past especially will be something that may live in my thoughts forever. That being said, the newer-generation Zeldas feel more experimental. The three major "new games" -- Wind Waker, Twilight Princess, and Skyward Sword -- offer distinct, unique contrasts of setting and game environment that stand well enough alone in comparison to the similarities of the "Zelda formula" in the older games. Although the nostalgia does run thick through my blood, I acknowledge that even the newer Zeldas offer a type of endearing charm that may resonate differently, but is charming nonetheless.
I suppose I am the only one here to actually prefer the new to the old? I have played almost every zelda game except for the oracles. Personally I just prefer the 3D puzzles, fighting, and yadayada. Though, I have always been one to have a much different taste from most people. The old Zelda were just... how do I put this... Not as enjoyable. I'm not one of those people that say new is better. I also don't know what you mean by old and new. I guess its gotten to the point where we say the N64 versions are old? If so then I cant say much because I deeply loved Majora's Mask.
I am kind of in a grey area about this one but one, butt I will say this, Skyward Sword gets far too much hate. I know, I played the game, motion controls were buggy, the item selection was bad and the sky, dividing the game up in sections. It may not be the best in the series, but it isn't the worst, and it is still, well, fun, to play, and the cinematic portions of the game really added something, in my opinion, and I feel that the game is going through "Wind Waker syndrome", whenever that game came out, a lot of people automatically rejected it, because of the "cartonny" look, and now people can actually appreciate the game. Mini rant over, the "new" games are very different to the "old" games because they have different perspectives, most of the older games were top-down view, whilst most of the newer ones are third person. They each have a different feel, so that's where the difficulties come in, but I will have to go with old, but don't get me wrong, I have nothing against the newer titles.
I've been a Zelda fan for as long as I can remember, and I have to say, I enjoy both. The newer Zelda games aren't as challenging in my opinion, but they are extremely fun and provide nostalgia with new twists. I really liked Phantom Hourglass and TP. I think my top two favorite Zelda games are A Link to the Past and OoT. I have both cartridges and I treat them like they are my children. That's how much I love them. While the older games are great throwback material, the newer games also have advantages and I like seeing the series evolve over time. Forever a Hylian hero!
I don't have any preference to which is which. As long it's a Zelda game, I'll play it. I like it how challenging the old ones are and how the gameplay is awesome in the new ones, at least for my opinion. My personal favorite is Ocarina of Time to be honest.
My first were Oracle of Ages and Seasons, and my most recent was Skyward Sword. I've never really disliked any of them. The Zelda series at its worst is many other series at their best; it's just a fun formula that works, and if you ask me it's pretty hard to get it wrong. People take for granted the things that make the series great, but those things have never changed: The puzzles are inventive and fun to solve, the setting is gorgeous, the mythos is deep and intriguing, the characters and enemies are vibrant and full of life... It has the feel of a hero's journey, while subtly tweaking the formula to become its own thing. Instead of overcoming physical trials, the hero's wit is tested as often as his fitness. Instead of slaying a dragon at journey's end, one battles a wicked sorcerer... Ok, maybe that's trading trope for trope, but not many evil wizards turn into giant pig-beasts, you gotta give him that one. All in all, I'm just never not having fun with a Zelda game. When the puzzles and combat grow tedious, the catchy soundtrack and vivid set pieces keep me entertained; when the characters are simple and the setting uninspired (admittedly rare), the fighting is tense, the collectibles abound, and the puzzles keep my mind sharp. There's never a dull moment in Hyrule. The number of people whining about linearity in video games is TOO DAMN HIGH Linearity is structure. Linearity is focus. Linearity is efficiently designed levels with many layers of challenge that can be tackled in a variety of ways, in an environment that wastes no space and serves its purpose. An open world is a clumsy world, an empty world, a boring world. Unless the open world has a distinct purpose, and unless the developer has the know-how and the resources to really and truly fill that world with interesting things to do, it becomes wholly inferior to the game with a tight, expertly-crafted lay-out. The only thing Zelda would profit from is providing a wider array of solutions to a single problem. Doing away with the format altogether would just make it Skyrim with puzzles, and that sentiment can jack right off to oblivion (no pun intended). As for action-packed and hard... There are other games. Let Zelda be Zelda, for chrissakes. It's not supposed to be an action game, it's supposed to be an adventure game. And the challenges that are there aren't supposed to be punishingly difficult; just stimulating. If you don't like it, admit you don't like it, but don't try to change it because you don't like it. A lot of other people do.
^ I get what you' re saying about Skyrim, I only played Oblivion and, though it looked fun at first, it quickly got boring : yay, I found a fifth grotto. With vampires. More vampires. And that' s it. Now what to do. I could ... err ... steal their plates. And sell them. Can' t wait for the next grotto *yawn*, why am I here again ? Yet between this extreme and the other I think there' s a balance to be found. Xenoblade Chronicles is every bit as linear as FF X or XIII if you look at its general organization, but its cells are convoluted and big enough to make us forget we' re in jail. I' d say it' s bigger than FF XII, but with much more stuff to do and find than FF XII (I did like FF XII but a lot of people complained it was gratuitously huge). I just feel Zelda has now reached the other extreme. A single look at the environment and you already know the one thing you' re supposed to do. Using the same objects and cues over and over probably doesn' t help. I don' t know if you read that big-ass long article that I linked, but although it paints its picture with a big wide brush to try and get its point across (just as I did) it often describes things exactly as I see them, or rather feel them. Zelda is supposed to be an action-adventure game, it pretty much defined the genre, but whatever. As you said, there again there' s a balance to be found. Problem is that balance isn' t the same for everyone. I wouldn' t call the first two Zeldas punishing. Ten years old me knew the first Zelda game well enough to wipe it out in four hours. Now Castelvania was punishing, broken even, but not Zelda. I don' t think myself to be a particularly gifted player, but I can tell when I' m being babied through the motions. Yes, yes, I know, there are still a few exciting moments here and there in the latest Zeldas, I' m still holding that big brush. I don' t think pushing a complete lack of challenge on everyone is any fairer than pushing a masochistic challenge on everyone. I wish they had a way to ask us what kind of difficulty we want when we start a new game. Oh wait, they do ! In that regard the Skyward Sword no-heart-refill new game plus mode was a stride in the right direction, I take it as a proof that Nintendo themselves noticed there' s a problem to address here.
