Hacker News Reader

Comment by RobAtticus | Hacker News Reader

"Always change something in a sequel. This was one of his strongest points, if you look at Nintendo, all they do is sequels of their existing IPs, but unlike - say Assassins Creed cough - they always make sure it's never just more of the same."

While I love the games and the series, I think there is a decent case for Zelda games being "more of the same" (at least in regards to the 3D versions, not including the latest which I haven't played yet). Aside from Wind Waker, the 3D Zelda games were fairly similar. I guess Majora's Mask had the timer, but by slowing down time it was essentially a non-factor. I mean there were definitely differences, but the game was basically complete several temples while choosing between various forms (each with pros and cons) and using the same basic subset of weapons (arrows, sword, hookshot), building up to a final series of trials at the end where you have to use all the skills you learned to complete it.

View on HN

I haven't played all of the new Zelda games (specifically, any after wind waker) but Majora's Mask definitely seems to be the most different. If you just play it straight through the standard zelda part (that is, just go dungeon to dungeon), its easy to miss how it was unique. However, when interacting with people, the ability to rewind time made some really interesting and totally different (from other zelda games) puzzles. The thing to focus on wasn't the form changes, or the "slow down time" ability but the "rewind to the beginning of the game and start over, but with knowledge of what you did last time". That game was unique in zelda games because one of the currencies the game used was player knowledge about what events happen when in the 3-day time frame of the game.

Zelda is a series that is established on certain traditions - you go from dungeon to dungeon, and in each one get a new piece of gear that lets you explore the world more. Looking just at that part of the game, every zelda game looks the same. But I think as a series it's generally good at varying a little bit from the formula.

The clock in Majora's Mask wasn't there to provide time pressure during the regular Zelda dungeoneering. That's the part of the formula that rarely gets tinkered with, and MM had relatively little of it.

The clock was there to provide a Groundhog Day-like structure and a more genuine "approaching apocalypse" atmosphere. If you don't act, the world really does end. And by the end of the game, you've not just saved the world, but got to know everybody in the game world and made a difference in their lives. It was much more emotional game than other Zeldas, especially in comparison with its predecessor, Ocarina Of Time, which is what it had to measure up to.

Zelda's first sequel (Link, in the late 1987) was radically different from the first and, at the time, not very well received. It was a good game in its own right, but very different from the original Zelda (with an experience-points system, a magic system, and most notably, all combat in side-scrolling levels) so a lot of people were disappointed by it.

This was "the lesson" with regard to sequels that differ too much from the original game. People (in the aggregate) want expansion of something they already like, not radical revision.

Examples of successful sequeling would be the Dragon Warrior series. Dragon Warrior II (the worst of the series; enemies tended to gang up on one character and that made it nearly unplayable, esp. with the princess being ungodly weak and dying constantly) is an example of that. It was an expansion on top of Dragon Warrior I, and that expansion was roughly implemented and painful, but the core game concepts of DW 1 remained and it paved the way for DW 3 and 4 (which were among the best NES games) to be made.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com