The Zelda Test (or Why no Zelda Clones?)
games.greggman.com
games.greggman.com
1. Op chooses to compare Zelda (and let's be clear, this is modern day zelda) to what amount to first gen games. However, comparing modern Zelda to Doom seems a bit unfair. How about The legend of Zelda, which by my count, has 25 items and pick-ups (including sword and shield upgrades). The original Doom, which is continually referred to throughout the piece, has 26 items.
2. Devil May Cry 3 is not a button masher. Go ahead, beat the game, and then tell me you could randomly tap buttons and progress. Just because you are quickly hitting buttons does not mark a game as a masher.
3. I just don't understand the point that is being made. He claims other genres are all just clones of each other and then defines them so loosely that Twisted Metal is now not worth mentioning because, more or less, it is just Gran Turismo...
I'm finding that this response is growing rather uncontrollably and frighteningly I could probably write an entire blog response to this article. But, I think this article skims a bigger idea: Unique games stand alone in their respective genres because they bring together multiple disciplines/genres and blend them into a cohesive experience. Some games try to do this (Duke Nukem Forever) and most fail. Others like Zelda, Portal,and GTA succeed and become fan favorites that influence future game designs.
You're not alone, I find the Zelda series a handholding, restricted, and shallow experience. Ironically it's the opposite of what is described here. I've played a bunch of The Legend of Zelda and Zelda II (can't even be bothered to look the name up) on NES, and completed A Link to the Past, Link's Awakening and Ocarina of Time (at that point I just stopped caring) when I was bored playing Chrono Trigger for the nth time (I think it was n=8 or so) or some other games in the corresponding era. The whole time I expected something to happen, really, anything, but there was nothing remotely like the magic countless people recommending them to me seemed to experience.
> I'm finding that this response is growing rather uncontrollably and frighteningly I could probably write an entire blog response to this article.
I was myself writing a comment earlier that turned into an article draft.
10 weapons, all of which are really the same weapon with different settings of damage, range, aim, reload, energy so in comparison with Zelda that's really 1 item.
Stimpack, Medkit, Security Armor, Combat Armor, Health Potion, Spiritual Armor, Soul Sphere, Mega Sphere are pretty much all variations of the same thing. At most those would count as 2 items in Zelda. The article didn't include Zelda's hearts, or faeries in it's count.
Blur Artifact Invulnerability Artifact
Ammo (something not counted in the article)
That was part of the point of the article. In Zelda that 26 items actually open new and varied game play. They are not just stats variations of the same basic items.
One entire series that was obviously Zelda-inspired (in both 2d and 3d incarnations) was The Legacy of Kain games. Blood Omen played very much like a 2d Zelda and Soul Reaver 1&2 played very much like a 3d Zelda.
After those games the series kind of switched gears into Devil May Cry territory, but the first 3 games were very Zeldaish, only with a dark emo coat of paint.
Through it all, the primary conditions for being like Zelda seem to be: a) to have been noticed by the author in his game-playing travels, and b) to have passed the author's retroactively applied taste test.
All of this is a shame, not because the author gives short shrift to every Zelda-style game out there, but because he does so to Zelda itself. Given his passion for the series, he could have written a very insightful dissection of what makes it work. Why is Zelda so revered, so timeless, and so enchanting? These are questions the author seems overly equipped to handle, and their answers would make for a very interesting post (or series of posts). I, for one, would love to see him take a deeper dive into the mechanics, psychology, mythology, setting, and style of the series. Relieved of the burden of proving a categorical declaration, he could instead focus his energies on a lively study. Rather than talking about what makes Zelda an exception, he could talk about what makes Zelda exceptional.
For instance, I enjoy how the same region will evolve over time depending on where you are in your main quest. At first, it's just a road to go to the temple. But as the game progress and you get more items, you can explore it in depth and discover awesome quests/items.
I agree with him/her that there's really few games out there that mimics the game mechanics of zelda. Mario 64 comes close but, for instance, miss the in depth strategy and the various items. Zelda really have unique game play and it's not just about the world of Zelda.. you could create a totally different world and still copy the game mechanics.. but lots of really successful game use only a part of zelda's game play which is on what the author argue.
In fact, it can be summarized as Zelda being the intersection between multiple 'genres'. And it's surprising that nobody copies it exactly as we all know how Zelda is a success and is popular.
I guess I take two general issues with that statement. The first is that the author's criterion, or yours, about what constitutes "very few" is vaguely defined. How many would be "more than a few"? I'm really not trying to pick nits here. I very much understand and appreciate your main point. But it seems as if the comment section of this article is brimming over with examples of Zelda-like games (whether or not they are true "clones" is also vague and subjective).
Second, do we really want games to be "mimicking" Zelda? Is that a goal we're generally in favor of? Personally speaking, I'm completely content to let Zelda be Zelda, and let other developers and publishers try to break different ground in different areas. If we're generally in favor of an expansion of the Zelda-type subgenre of Action RPGs, that's fine. But why must games in this subgenre have to "mimick" Zelda in order to meet our needs? By very definition, isn't the attempt at mimicking Zelda going to doom those games to being second-rate Zelda clones?
Only a Nintendo fanboy could ever rationalize something so ridiculous.
There's a ton of games out there with large worlds and in-game isometric/3d action.
Sure, nothing follows the exact formula, but that's because there is no need to directly copy. The genre is alive and well and no fanboys are going to convince anyone that Zelda is a unique butterfly.
That said, just role-playing is not enough to make an RPG (otherwise, all games would be RPG's!). To say Zelda is anything other than an RPG is narrow-mindedness at best, and intentionally misleading at worst.
RPG has pretty much come to mean a very specific thing: quest-type game with turn-based combat. I would never think of Zelda as an RPG.
(As an aside, remember Super Mario RPG? They mashed standard Mario with the kind of RPG format I describe above... funny that they explicitly acknowledge the format in the title of the game.)
I would personally define RPG as a game that features most the following:
- a story that isn't just background for the gameplay (like in many FPS, where the story is just an excuse for you to shoot stuff). This will most likely includes character development and other sorts of progression in the game world. (Zelda? Check.)
- some sort of combat system, whether turn-based, action-oriented or with strategic elements doesn't matter (Zelda? Check.)
- generally non-linear gameplay including sidequests. There's usually a red thread along which the main game progresses, but you can "pause" at almost any time and just do what the fuck you want - go explore, do sidequests, grind levels or equipment etc. (Zelda? Check.)
- character progression, through acquiring new items, abilities, levels, skills etc. (Zelda? Check.)
I kept this intentionally fuzzy because there are many fringe cases, such as Monster Hunter, which basically lacks the story (it's really just an excuse to tell you "go hunt monsters"), but is otherwise considered an RPG too.
Zelda definitely IS an RPG. I think it's partially due to being so special that many people don't like to classify it as such - they might feel like it takes away from the magic a bit.
Is there some hidden story mode for Zelda? Last I checked a princess got kidnapped and you go rescue her. That is the total extent of the plot. It is as paper thin as you can get. There is no character development. Outside of Link's ability to use a sword he has zero character. Gannon is an equally shallow evil wizard dude.
I do have to admit I'm a bit biased on this since I've read a lot of supplementary materials which flesh out the games a lot (there are mangas for Ocarina of Time, Majora's Mask and quite a few other Zeldas), and especially the newer Zeldas (arguably starting with Majora's Mask[1]) do have a decent plot and story, even though it isn't as "epic" as the likes of Final Fantasy.
[1] Majora's Mask deserves a special mention because it's - perhaps infamously - a very non-standard Zelda. Most of its charme lies in the incredible amount of (mostly optional) character driven side-quests which range from funny and interesting to soul-crushingly depressing. I consider it my favorite game in the franchise for this reason.
If anything RPG has come to mean quest style game with XP.
But indeed there are very few games that meet all those requirements which is a bit of a pity...
Also, after thinking about it, Batman: Arkham (Asylum|City) incorporate many elements from Zelda, especially the gadget and backtracking-mechanics.
Separately though, I agree Zelda holds a unique charm that's very difficult to evoke or copy (kind of like Pixar movies).
There are plenty of Zelda clones:
The Legacy of Kain Series
The Darksiders Series
Secret of Mana
Zenonia
Sacred Odyssey
... and plenty more for iOS and Android.
The whole games makes an impression as a whole. We are only talking about game mechanics but there are few games that have this atmosphere. The music, the lightning and the themes are simply art. You can't break that down in a list.
There is only one Shigeru Miyamoto.
Graal Online (or just Graal for short) is/was an MMORPG resembling Zelda: A Link To The Past in almost every way. In fact, it was originally called "Zelda Online" until they were served notice by Nintendo (the resulting changes were profoundly minor.) The game went through phases of being first a Java applet, then a Windows executable, and—most recently, it appears—a Facebook and iOS app.
It's basically what you'd expect from a Zelda game: a sword with damage levels and a shield that can deflect projectiles, bombs and arrows, rupees in bushes, Metroidvania-style "dungeon key-item unlocks more overworld" gameplay, etc. On the other hand, it's actually very programmable: it comes with (or, at least, used to come with) a built-in game editor, which can be used to construct one's own 64x64-tile maps, and Actor-modeled "Graalscript" sprite objects. (For example, you can drop any arbitrary image onto the map, and then add hooks for "was obtained," "was selected in menu," and "was fired," and you'll now have a new carryable item.) This content can then be pushed to the server where (after moderation) any group of players can wander in and interact with it. In fact, "outdoor" maps may actually get stitched right into the main overworld. (This is still my gold-standard for the concept of "player housing" in an MMO.) I would compare the usage-experience as similar to a 2D, Zelda-motif'ed Second Life, or a sprite-based MOO.
After a while, Cyberjoueurs (the creators) came to the money-making strategy of allowing people to run the server software on their own (centralized) game servers, charging a fee but allowing people to make money off those "Player Worlds" in turn. This then introduced waves of heavy customization, where little of the original Zelda mechanics remain in many player-worlds (the UI may be overridden at a low level in Graalscript to draw your own GUI, perform your own sprite animations in reaction to arbitrary key-presses, etc.) Because of this, most of the communal world-building aspect was abandoned, which is a shame. It does still seem to play a lot like Zelda, though :)
What's surprising is the fact that the "fanboyism" would only be augmented by this conclusion, in that imitation is the greatest form of flattery. I'd say the message would be even more powerful if he could articulate this genealogy.
On the other hand I realize the Zelda series is absolutely unique, but that this is due its minimalism, its art, and its' developers' refusal to sacrifice artistic continuity for the sake of graphic realism. The directing through the history of the series is the element impossible to replicate.
Granted, some of those are weaker examples than others, but in the terms that he talked about, I'd say that the Metroid connection is probably one of the strongest.
The rules that he cites as the minimum rules basically describes the "metroidvania" subgenre. Essentially, games in this genre have an open world, in which you explore to find powerups in order to reach more places to explore. While the genre doesn't demand level puzzles, that's how the games are typically designed.
And precision combat? The Metroid Prime series is probably the most difficult thing Nintendo's put out in the past 20 years. While they're not the most difficult games ever, they require you to think and analyze the enemy and your surroundings, then finding the perfect way to attack it. With Zelda, you're given the weapons you need to use right before fighting any boss and it's just a matter of hitting the action button and rolling out of the way. They're notoriously easy games (the first two games aside).
I love Zelda, but I'd say Metroid fits the bill better than Zelda does.
Neither Metroid (which I love to death and have played through several times) nor Castlevanina have precision combat as just one feature missing. In other words Metroid and Castlevania have #7 (action combat) but not #8 (precision combat + unique enemies)
Metroid should probably be marked for #3 (unique items) though I did mark it for #6 (unique weapons)
Castlevania seems to be missnig #6 (unique weapons). At least that's my recollection. Sure, the weapons are different but you can use any weapon against any creature if I remember correctly so each weapon does not really have a unique use. Maybe I'm remembering wrong.
Several (all?) of the 2D Castlevanias have elemental damage types and certain monsters that have archetypal strengths and weaknesses (ice vs fire, etc.), though the gameplay is also about optimizing cost/benefit of a weapon's magic/speed/attack versus the zones of damage it inflicts. Basically it'll suck if you use your awesome danger with wimpy range on certain foes/bosses, while your really slow hitting claymore swings at an arc that protects you from projectiles and what not at the expense of requiring a tad it of timing.
Ahh good times... makes me want to replay SotN again now. :)
Excellent game.
(1) the combat was unsophisticated, for the most part you kind of button mashed;
(2) the magic spells mostly all did the same thing;
(3) the world didn't have a lot of topography, and mostly you used the cannons to jump from one area to another;
(4) there were not a lot of puzzles in the dungeons, and those that existed were not as sophisticated as in Zelda.
I admired SOM for its lush visuals, dazzling soundtrack, expansive world, and compelling story. But to me it did not have the feeling of getting the small details right. Zelda, in contrast, was pitch-perfect on the small scale (IMHO).
(I'm actually surprised the article didn't mention FF at all.)
FFVII had (from memory; it's been a few years) a time based system - like turn based, but each character has a timer run down after their turn until their next one. You had only that much time to decide on your next attack, and with 3 of your characters in the same battle things could get frantic on occasion
Then again, I stopped bothering with the series after Majora's Mask which I didn't even like.
The 'unique abilities' point he makes (whether you agree or not) fails here: I love Skyrim (lvl 38 right now), but magic is not needed so far (I don't know anything special), nor any skills. Combat is the same, whatever weapon you use, from the process point of view (sure, some weapons look cooler. You can do sneak attacks. Still - you do the very same thing, all the time).
You are correct, a couple of times (4?) I encountered a situation where I needed a shout. Three categories:
1) Do the shout that everyone knows (no spoiler here: You get one 'for free' at the start of the game), to prove that you can. I consider this pointless. It's more like "Link, can you swing your sword". A press of a button, not 'changing the game' or 'necessary to advance' in a real sense. It's not that I bomb my way into a previously hidden cave, I have to shout someone in the face because the story requires it..
2) "I taught you this shout that you might never use again (for me, at least. I tend to use just the first/basic one and even that's rare), show me that you understand its use" (twice?). Again, this is not used to overcome anything, it's just part of the narrative, to show your character's understanding, part of the 'being taught' play. Doesn't qualify.
3) "This impassable area can only be accessed with a specific shout that you get right at the entrance and that is useless everywhere else" (again, from my experience so far). This is - a key. Not a tool. A key that you only get after a couple of quests and that requires you to press Z (or whatever button on the console of your choice) a couple times to pass the 'door' area. Once, so far for me. Maybe I need to return in the future and use it again. Still a key in my book.