2
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 21 Jul 2023
2 points (75.0% liked)
The Legend of Zelda
3671 readers
1 users here now
A community for everything related to The Legend of Zelda franchise!
Rules:
-
- Be a decent human being.
-
- Fanart must be credited.
-
- No untagged spoilers of new games.
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
When people say ‘traditional’, it’s very possible you’re only referring to a style of Zelda game that only started with N64’s Ocarina of Time. It was back then a change of pace for adventures that were sometimes too cryptic to decipher, or too difficult, for younger players.
Nintendo definitely spent a lot of the GameCube/Wii era trying to repeat the main appeal of that game; but most people I know still just enjoyed Ocarina more than the others. Even Majora’s Mask tried to take side roads with their time limit system to set itself apart.
So it does feel a bit like people constantly demand a “new Zelda just like the old ones” when the purpose of the old ones was to fulfill some new fantasy people hadn’t experienced. The ones that established themselves as “Ocarina of Time 2 / 3” just didn’t feel as notable. That practice of committing to new concepts does, by necessity, mean leaving some people with a poor taste in their mouths. I didn’t even feel that excited about Wind Waker back when it came out and popularized cel shaded art styles.
Idk about that. OoT was a 3D adaptation of the 2D Zelda formula. The fundamental Zelda formula has changed very little since A Link to the Past.
My idea of the “Zelda Formula” is a structured metroidvania where each “dungeon” is basically a mini metroidvania centered around one item, and the path between dungeons is usually more story driven. Occasionally there are items and puzzles between dungeons as well.
IMO the only Zelda games that don’t really follow the formula are: