Nintendo's Philosophy on Zelda

[The Missing Link]

This is part personal and part philosophical; forgive me for mixing the two of them together.

I've recently had a few conversations about Skyward Sword with a few people I know. Many of them have agreed with me on a lot of matters, but a few folk have expressed rather significant dissent over things. To summarize the swath of discussion, my situation is essentially that I love the concept of Hyrule and the Legend of Zelda, but more and more I find myself displeased with the actual games that come out. By no means am I saying that they're not fun. But after I finish each game in turn, I'm left wanting. Zelda games don't satiate my hunger for them.

And for a long while, the only thing that I could really pinpoint as the cause for my change of thoughts on the Zelda games was the fact that I'd become a part of the gaming industry and as a result had just become more cynical.

But I don't think that's actually it though. Over the past few days, I've actually been thinking about the games that I've really truly enjoyed over the past years. Tales of Symphonia is my #2 game of all time, and Tales of Vesperia was just as awesome. I loved the 2008 Prince of Persia game (and love the concept for The Sands of Time trilogy). Assassin's Creed II and Brotherhood blew my mind. And to go just a little bit further back in time, who can forget Shadow of the Colossus and Ōkami? For me, all of these games have a common thread. They tell a very solid story filled with characters that have very significant personalities and real problems that face them all (outside of just saving the world).

Maybe it's the fact that I'm a writer or something, but I crave story. I've been desiring three-dimensional characters that matter. And Hyrule... is this world that I just CANNOT leave. It's been with me since I was 11, and I've dreamt about it for years. Still to this day, there's some sort of (tri)force that always beckons me back.

Well, lo and behold, Aonuma managed to shed some light as to why I feel this way:

[F]rom the very beginning, Zelda games have been developed with the top priority of focusing on the game mechanics rather than the story. For example, in Ocarina of Time, the first installment of the series I was involved in, the main theme was how to create a game with pleasant controls in a 3D world. Or in the DS game, Phantom Hourglass, the focus was having comfortable stylus controls. Finally, in the most recent game, Skyward Sword, we focused on an easy way to swing the sword using the Wii Motion Plus. (Hyrule Historia p. 238)

And then it clicked. I'm a fan of the wrong series. Or to be perfectly honest, I used to be in the right place. Back in the early days of gaming -- we're talking NES, SNES, and N64 era -- Zelda games had as much story as pretty much every other game out there. A Link to the Past had an epic plot to save the world; so didn't Chrono Trigger. The only difference was the fact that the two were in different genres; otherwise, the games are actually very comparable to one another in terms of depth and style. And I've always joked that Ocarina of Time was the Final Fantasy Sevenization of Zelda. In terms of dramatic capability, the two games are pretty evenly matched.

But it's the more recent eras of gaming -- starting roughly around the PS2/GCN era moving forward -- that there's been greater disparity in the narrative depth of Zelda and its would-be peers in the AAA gaming realm. And Aonuma nails it right on the head; Nintendo is focused on coming up with clever mechanics and integrating them sensibly into a game with very thin layer of story surrounding it. On the flip side, other top-tier games are doing that... but then going the extra distance to be more of a visual or narrative art masterpiece on the side.

Take Assassin's Creed. That is a game that builds upon a clever mechanic (the ability to free-climb up buildings), but it also builds a very rich story around it. The second game takes place in Florence (Firenze), and I actually recognized one of the buildings in there because I'd been to Florence before. The game has historical figures that I recognize in an alternate history that's swimming with drama, intrigue, backstabbing, and emotion. But a game like Skyward Sword doesn't have that depth or variety of emotion. The best it pulls is some coarse-grained emotional nudge. Yes, you want to save Zelda as she's being chased by every bad guy under the sun, but Link's personality doesn't really waver from that single point the entire game. Hell, Crono had more depth as a character, and you didn't even get to choose what dialogue he got to "speak."

Instead, Nintendo's Zelda team has effectively stagnated in terms of the limits of their ability. Sure, each Zelda game in line is "new" in some respects -- it has a different "story," it has a different "setting," and there's some new mechanic that we all invariably have to learn -- but the Zelda Formula is still alive and well in the series. It's always three dungeons until you get to the first plot point. It's always temples. Zelda is always some special/holy/royal/wise maiden. The evil is always some great evil/demon/beast/god that's merely hell-bent on laying waste to things. It's fairy tale simplicity without any real depth. Zelda is no longer making any attempts to be the shining city on the hill in the arena of being an artistic masterpiece.

Sure, it's fun, and maybe that's good enough for some. But it's no epic tale like Homer's Odyssey. And in direct consequence, Zelda really isn't the optimal fandom that I'm supposed to be in.

What are your thoughts? Is a game being "fun" enough for you? Or am I just the only one weird kinda-not-Zelda guy stalking a Zelda forum here?

Appendix:

As a random other thought to add to the conversation, I'd like to give a hat tip to the Extra Credits guys who publish some EXCELLENT academic and clinical videos that dissect video games and push for the creation of more awesome games. A few months back, they did one entitled "Art is Not the Opposite of Fun." Feel free to watch or not, but I really recommend listening to all their stuff if you've never seen 'em.

“Art” Is Not the Opposite of “Fun” | Extra Credits

In Search of the 'Skyward Sword' Audience < PopMatters

[Cosmonautical]

As we talked about this, I can't help but agree. My first experience with The Elder Scrolls series was actually very revealing in the same way: I could see that creating a world with indepth and well-founded lore was not only possible outside of our history, but it could fit seamlessly together with an open-format game. It was what I'd been imagining for the Zelda worlds, ever since Zelda II, and I could swear for certain that we would have an amazing deep world with games and games worth of lore built up to draw from.

That did not happen, and it's still bizarre to me. That Zelda could be surrounded by such deep thought, and the developers are unwilling to acknowledge it, is very amazing.

Their mechanics are often good, but many times they are also singular - and even the most dedicated fans have noticed when an item becomes useless outside of the 3 rooms it was designed for. The biggest flaw with their approach, I think, is their unwillingness to create mechanics which are engaging enough and layered enough to continue to engage the player for the entire game. Instead, they introduce new mechanics as frequently as possible, but do not invest heavily in their implementation.

[Bomby]

The concept of a "story" is found across nearly all of the most popular entertainment media. What makes each narrative medium unique from one another is way in which the user interacts with it. In the case of video games, this is by manipulating the objects on screen by pressing buttons (or waving one's arms around, in the case of Nintendo Wii).

To put it simply, when I play a video game, my foremost concern is that I get enjoyment from the action of playing the game itself. A good story adds to the enjoyment, but if the game play isn't there, there's no point at all in making it a video game. If the "story" is good, I could have likely enjoyed it more as a novel or a film. Of course, this is assuming that the stylistic execution of the novel or film is superior to that of the video game, but you get what I'm saying.

The Legend of Zelda series has the most satisfying game play I've ever encountered in the world of video games. That's more than enough for me.

[CuccoLady]

I'm honestly surprised Aonuma said that about SS because I found it to be almost JRPG-esque in its focus on story and characters.

Personally, I found the stories of Skyward Sword and Majora's Mask to be more important to me than the gameplay, which was apparently the OPPOSITE of what the devs intended. Whatever. I've never actually played Zelda for the gameplay-- I've ALWAYS played it for the story and the excitement.

We share our second favorite game as Tales of Symphonia, and for the precise same reasons. I am a sucker for story and character-rich games, even if the gameplay is rather lacking when compared to other games in the series. I will agree that OoT, although I love it, is nothing compared to that [especially when I partially remove my nostalgia goggles], and had a pretty linear and unsurprising story without any real twists or turns.

Where I branch off from you is that I was of the opinion that Nintendo really switched this around with SS-- I loved the characters [I gave a crap about saving Zelda], and although they weren't really mind-blowing there were some awesome twists and the story kept me WANTING to progress from dungeon to dungeon in order to see where it went next. To me, this was an improvement over the earlier ones in which the story was INTERESTING, but not really a fantastic, moving, deep, or impressive narrative.

I actually thought they were going for more story than gameplay focus in SS, but apparently that wasn't their top priority. I feel like it might have even been that much better if they had the right priorities-- as it is, it's now my favorite Zelda because of the effort they actually put into storytelling this time.

tl;dr: I agree that story is more important than gameplay, at least for me, although gameplay is certainly helpful in making a game enjoyable. And though I thought the story in SS was wonderful, if Nintendo would kindly switch their priorities, the series could be THAT much better.

le shrug. now ill be right back as i go play persona for the next month

[Marilink]

I'm kind of of the same mind as Bomby. The gameplay of the games is the chief reason that the Zelda series is far and away my favorite series of all time.

That said, of my top 5 favorite games of all time, a Zelda game is not one. (granted, it's #6, but still).

The sheer enjoyment I get out of the world of Hyrule is incomparable for me. I think of one of those reasons is because, now and even when I was a kid, I put myself into the world more than any other game. There are other silent heroes, like Crono and Ness, but no other character makes me feel as much a part of them as Link does for me. When I play Zelda, I feel like Link.

Now, I know the stories of the Zelda games aren't terribly strong, but that's okay with me. Honestly, my highest criterion for my Zelda game enjoyment is dungeon design. I'm not even sure that the story is one of the things I'd say I especially enjoy about the game--not that I don't like it, but many other things about these games are much higher on my list.

Why is Chrono Trigger my favorite game of all time? I think it's because of its brilliant story and extremely fun battle system, and I love each and every character I have. Why is Zelda my favorite series of all time? Because I feel like I am a part of Hyrule.

[CuccoLady]

Let me rephrase. It's not really the story itself usually, but the SENSE of story-- history, etc-- present in the environments in the game; the hints at past events and the sense of what events have been and are going on. Not plot twists and stuff, but things like Stone Tower Temple, character interaction, and things like that. Not in the same sense as other series I really do play straight-up for storytelling.

That said, SS had the best storytelling and that's why I was surprised at this quote, and think it may have even been better if they'd put more focus in there. But I really couldn't care less since I absolutely loved it as it was.

[Cosmonautical]

Originally Posted by CuccoLady

tl;dr: I agree that story is more important than gameplay, at least for me, although gameplay is certainly helpful in making a game enjoyable. And though I thought the story in SS was wonderful, if Nintendo would kindly switch their priorities, the series could be THAT much better.

le shrug. now ill be right back as i go play persona for the next month

TML wasn't intimating that the story is more important than the gameplay, simply that the story is important. If they go about building the game by putting together new gameplay mechanics and then using story as an afterthought to hold the pieces together, it's no surprise that a lot of writerly folks are going to find the depth of the game lacking. I think the gameplay elements are extremely important, although I also find Nintendo to of late be rather uncreative in this aspect - sure, they set up an interesting new system, but they then lay it all down in the same rigid structure that we've all come to expect.

This wasn't always an issue, especially with the earlier 2D works that emphasized incorporated learning without text.

Story is a huge stumbling block in Skyward Sword. Minor details do not exist:

. Zelda herself lives in the Knights' Academy - and should be at least an amateur swordsman capable of defending herself.

Her father has no home - does he sleep on his desk?

Where do these supplies come from, that these people have vegetation when they live in an empty piece of sky?

How do they keep the soil enriched enough to continue growing plants?

Where do they mine their metals, when they have no land?

Who crafts their weapons?

Why do they have weapons, when they have no enemies?

What do they eat for protein?

How do they breathe in the thin atmosphere?

Why bury bodies in a graveyard, when there is virtually no real estate?

Who is Link the child of? Who are any of these children, beside Pipit and Zelda, the offspring of?

What is the point of a currency economy among - what - 4 traders?

Why does Link not react to his first encounter with other races?

What are the rules of the timeshift stones, and why do they not create some impossible quantum loop of a thing in the past being moved so Link does not need to move them?

If the story to Ocarina of Time creates a new splintered reality every time Link time travels, does Skyward sword create a new timeline in every instance where Link alters a past reality?

When do they get their birds?

How does the bird attunement happen?

Where do these birds nest, when they're not in use?

Is there really only one toilet on the whole island, and what does that mean people do in their homes?

What are their clothes made of, if they have no crops and no livestock?

These aren't things that would normally be difficult to answer, but they put the whole game on a nonsensical sky island and left no room for explanations.

[Robotazy]

Yeah, I'm going to go into debate mode now. I can't hold it in anymore.

You think too much about an exaggerated landscape, A.I. I mean maybe it helps with the storytelling, but there is a distinct difference between making a place more human and making it so full of useless info that it's not worth dealing with at all. Why should I care about where these people get food or clothes? Unless it ties into something, it's nice to know, but it's still a waste of pixels. Legend of Zelda isn't a 60-hour game filled with sidequests, regardless of the similarities to those games.

Plus, many of those questions can probably be answered in a simple way that maybe you don't want to accept. There's always a little bit of Suspension of Disbelief that we need to accept, and as long as the game doesn't try to rely too much on it, it's not something that's needed to pad out the story.

But if you really want these answers, I must ask why many video games have little/no toilets when NPCs live relatively civilized otherwise? The answer is design decisions. I could make a toilet, a kitchen, and a bedroom for every person in the game, but if there's no purpose in the story or for the characters to go into these rooms, it's a waste of development time to some developers.

I can probably answer all of these questions in a half-assed manner though if you want.

Personally, I prefer gameplay to story. If the gameplay is good, than a story sweetens the pot. If the story is bad, well it lowers the quality of the game, but it doesn't necessarily make the game bad as a whole.

On the subject of the article, this doesn't surprise me. Nintendo has always been about making a game fun first and making a story that motivates the player second. Sure, that means that some games will end up weaker than others due to less strength in these areas, but a simple story can allow for designers to leave more assumptions to the player and make it more memorable. For good or ill.

[Valigarmander]

Originally Posted by the Octopus

Zelda herself lives in the Knights' Academy - and should be at least an amateur swordsman capable of defending herself.

She's a gifted swordswoman. She just never happens upon a sword after being kidnapped.

Originally Posted by the Octopus

Her father has no home - does he sleep on his desk?

The desk folds out into a bed.

Originally Posted by the Octopus

Where do these supplies come from, that these people have vegetation when they live in an empty piece of sky?

The necessary foliage was present when Hylia first lifted Skyloft into the air.

Originally Posted by the Octopus

How do they keep the soil enriched enough to continue growing plants?

Bird feces. Human feces. Gratitude Crystals.

Originally Posted by the Octopus

Where do they mine their metals, when they have no land?

The various unremarkable floating rocks near Skyloft.

Originally Posted by the Octopus

Who crafts their weapons?

Gondo, Eagus or Peater.

Originally Posted by the Octopus

Why do they have weapons, when they have no enemies?

To kill the baddies that appear at night as a result of Batreaux's presence.

Originally Posted by the Octopus

What do they eat for protein?

Insects.

Originally Posted by the Octopus

How do they breathe in the thin atmosphere?

They've evolved super-efficient lungs.

Originally Posted by the Octopus

Why bury bodies in a graveyard, when there is virtually no real estate?

Out of tradition. When someone dies they exhume the oldest corpse and use it for fertilizer and/or protein, and bury the new corpse in that plot.

Originally Posted by the Octopus

Who is Link the child of? Who are any of these children, beside Pipit and Zelda, the offspring of?

Orphans. Commonplace in video games.

Originally Posted by the Octopus

What is the point of a currency economy among - what - 4 traders?

What are you, some kind of dirty communist?

Originally Posted by the Octopus

Why does Link not react to his first encounter with other races?

Because he judges people not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their heart.

Originally Posted by the Octopus

What are the rules of the timeshift stones, and why do they not create some impossible quantum loop of a thing in the past being moved so Link does not need to move them?

Originally Posted by the Octopus

If the story to Ocarina of Time creates a new splintered reality every time Link time travels, does Skyward sword create a new timeline in every instance where Link alters a past reality?

Every time Link uses a timeshift stone, it creates an another timeline. All the problems they cause belong to the Links of Timelines #4-600.

Originally Posted by the Octopus

When do they get their birds?

Various unremarkable floating rocks.

Originally Posted by the Octopus

How does the bird attunement happen?

One of them asks the other out on a date. They go out for dinner, and maybe a movie, and hopefully they click.

Originally Posted by the Octopus

Where do these birds nest, when they're not in use?

Various unremarkable floating rocks.

Originally Posted by the Octopus

Is there really only one toilet on the whole island, and what does that mean people do in their homes?

Most people just aim their asses over the edge of Skyloft and let Hyrule worry about it.

Originally Posted by the Octopus

What are their clothes made of, if they have no crops and no livestock?

Grass, wood, insects, rocks, and Gratitude Crystals.

[Cosmonautical]

Originally Posted by Robotazy

Yeah, I'm going to go into debate mode now. I can't hold it in anymore.

You think too much about an exaggerated landscape, A.I. I mean maybe it helps with the storytelling, but there is a distinct difference between making a place more human and making it so full of useless info that it's not worth dealing with at all. Why should I care about where these people get food or clothes? Unless it ties into something, it's nice to know, but it's still a waste of pixels. Legend of Zelda isn't a 60-hour game filled with sidequests, regardless of the similarities to those games.

Plus, many of those questions can probably be answered in a simple way that maybe you don't want to accept. There's always a little bit of Suspension of Disbelief that we need to accept, and as long as the game doesn't try to rely too much on it, it's not something that's needed to pad out the story.

But if you really want these answers, I must ask why many video games have little/no toilets when NPCs live relatively civilized otherwise? The answer is design decisions. I could make a toilet, a kitchen, and a bedroom for every person in the game, but if there's no purpose in the story or for the characters to go into these rooms, it's a waste of development time to some developers.

I can probably answer all of these questions in a half-assed manner though if you want.

Personally, I prefer gameplay to story. If the gameplay is good, than a story sweetens the pot. If the story is bad, well it lowers the quality of the game, but it doesn't necessarily make the game bad as a whole.

On the subject of the article, this doesn't surprise me. Nintendo has always been about making a game fun first and making a story that motivates the player second. Sure, that means that some games will end up weaker than others due to less strength in these areas, but a simple story can allow for designers to leave more assumptions to the player and make it more memorable. For good or ill.

Assuming that the game alludes to a larger civilization works when it's not restricted to a floating rock with no resources. Similarily, suspension of disbelief works best for populations when the population is not comprised entirely of specific characters. This does not work for this game, and the game world suffers horrendously for things like "only include one toilet in the city" - including that one draws attention to it. Nintendo's already created stock models for wardrobes, tables and house interiors and it would not harm the game to flesh it out. The scale you're talking about here is not an issue - it's been around 15 years since Ocarina of Time was released, and developers have grown to a level of inclusiveness that Nintendo fails to support.

And I am not fixating on these things, the point is that the game is like a hollywood set. It all looks very nice from perfectly cropped camera angles, but if you like it enough to glance back at it you can see that it's a shallow facade. If the gameplay is the primary focus, why lean so heavily on boring and incomplete NPC interaction? Why even include NPCs at all, if you're so intent on simply suggesting things? Why then give them houses, when they clearly have nothing of value or interest in them?

Your attempts at criticizing my interest in a hypothetical game world are telling - at what point do you even admit you have no interest in the world? When there are no NPCs at all, and the game still plays just as well, it's only proof of how poorly they are implemented.

Val's answers are silly enough (yes, intentionally so) that I think they speak for themselves.

BTW, Val, I said "when" not "where" in regards to acquiring the birds as mounts.

[Cosmonautical]

Originally Posted by Valigarmander

Grass, wood, insects, rocks, and Gratitude Crystals.

[The Missing Link]

So in response to AI in particular, I'm going to backtrack a little from your position about questioning EVERYTHING and take a middle ground here.

A friend and I recently had a conversation about science fiction. Little did I know that there were actually two different types of science fiction. There were names for them as he told it, but I cannot remember them now, so I'll just have to describe them as best I can.

1. Sci-Fi like Star Trek. In other words, these sci-fi stories take a single law of physics or reality and bend it just enough to make it purely fictional. In Star Trek, it was faster-than-light travel and all of the associated things thereafter. Sci-fi like this seeks to provide detailed, nerdy explanations for how things work (dilithium crystals and all that) and feel the need to flesh out everything possible.

2. Sci-Fi like Star Wars. In other words, more fantasy-like sci-fi. These are worlds that are much more ill-defined and don't seek to bend every last concept to something that's naturally realistic (the Force and space wizards). This genre of sci-fi is much more focused on just telling the story and doesn't seeks to sell viewers and fans on the story and the universe rather than the "pseudo-accuracy" of the fiction.

The reason that you can tell one from the other is that Star Wars effed up when making the prequel trilogy. After the original trilogy, people had already bought into the concept of Jedi and Sith and didn't need any more help in wanting to believe that reality. Instead, George Lucas insisted on adding midichlorians as an explanation for the Force. This generally pissed people off because, ultimately, Star Wars isn't Star Trek-like.

Similarly, I would argue that Skyward Sword isn't Skyrim-like. They have two very different levels of detail, and that's totally acceptable. Nintendo's Zelda games, when it comes to describing villages and whatnot, ultimately boils down to a hefty level of abstraction. Literally speaking, the only town that has ever felt "big enough" to be a legitimate town was Twilight Princess' Castle Town, and that's because it felt like it had critical mass, reinforced by the fact that you couldn't speak to everyone. But even that isn't Assassin's Creed 2's Firenze... but it's also not really trying to be. That level of abstraction is acceptable for a Zelda game... so long as it doesn't try to go too Uncanny Valley. (The bathroom admittedly is one of those things, but honestly that's more the game's time-to-awkward-Japanese-moment than anything else.)

---

I think it's interesting to see so many people simply all but toss the story out of the window and just play the game for the fun of it. Not that that's a wrong idea by any reason; it just doesn't compute to me, and part of me wishes that that was simply enough.

CL, regarding story in Skyward Sword
Spoiler Below

I do agree that Skyward Sword has a decent amount of story jammed into it. I'm not sure if I can agree that it's the best attempt at story, however, but I'm also approaching that from a literary perspective as well. I think SS has an incredibly strong opening segment, and that's credit in its favor. However, I think the story for the game lags significantly in the middle third of the game. Between Dungeon 1 and "The Big Reveal" after Dungeon 6... not much really happens. Sure you have the Turn midway into that after Dungeon 3, and that's a footnote in the story, sure. However, the main directive for Link doesn't evolve past, "Oh hell still need to go find Zelda somewhere." All of the backstory for the game is presented as a wall of text after Dungeon 6 completely without visuals.

While I won't say that Twilight Princess was perfect in the story department, I actually feel like, in many ways, it had a better story than SS did. Many of the missteps I feel SS took, TP did better. My 2¢ of course.

That said, AI is correct; by no means am I saying that story is more important than gameplay. I earnestly do believe that a game with great gameplay but bad story is almost always going to be better than a game with great story but bad gameplay. I do believe that's the premise of the Dynasty Warriors series; no one gives a care for the story pretty much, but dang isn't one man against a thousand epic and fun!

What I will say is that Zelda's story -- especially of late -- has felt like Disney World. Surely, Disney puts on a really good show for the kids and the adults, but ultimately it's portraying a sense of falseness. All of the sets and characters are façades when you boil down to it. Think of Ocarina of Time's Lost Woods. Where were the trees there? Okay, so there were... logs that led you from square room to square room, but all of the trees were crappy textures on a vertical polygon as faux background ten feet above you. Faron Woods in Skyward Sword is a little bit better -- there are actual trees here -- but I really struggle with calling that area "woods." I'm going off on a tangent here a little bit, but Zelda's story is very akin to that.

If you really look at the story in terms of big blocks rather than specific details, Skyward Sword's story is pretty much identical to Ocarina of Time. Spoiler Below

Goddesses tried to protect the world; an evil force threatens to destroy the land; boy wakes up from sleep; ordinary boy meets very special girl; boy and girl go off on separate paths; boy and girl get caught up in destiny to eradicate evil; evil almost captures girl, but she escapes; one goes off to another time period; Link must gather strength in order to properly wield his magic sword; girl appears to boy after she thinks she's safe; girl gets kidnapped because of her specialness; and Link rushes straight to save her in an epic showdown...

SS is still the same old façade. Just painted with more pastels and with a more fine brush.

Zelda has been, ritualistically, an adventure pitting one human against a horde of monsters. Monsters are easy targets; we're meant not to sympathize with them. But never has Link really gone up against a human army. Never has Link gone to "war" facing foes just like himself, warriors caught in the middle of something. There's no need to express emotion when surveying the aftermath of a bloody battle where you're laying the enemy dead to rest. Link never needs to lament for things that went wrong. In fact, generally speaking, the only mistakes Link is ever allowed to commit are ones that he was too naïve enough to be truly responsible for (i.e., opening the Temple of Time in OoT). That severely limits the emotional breadth of what a story can be. Link has never had to face a situation between "Give me the Triforce or I'll kill the girl." Link has never had to make those tough calls.

And I can't help but think, even if they didn't change too much else, having to experience that one moment of setback in Link's eyes -- especially if the player could choose that path or a different one -- would magnify the story tenfold.

[Bomby]

Zelda a game where there's a woman who turns into a sword, where there's magic dust that you can sprinkle on enemies that makes them burst into flames, where you can communicate to a sage in the spiritual realm via a musical instrument, where you can play a song on your flute and a little birdie will pick you up off the ground and deposit you in one of eight locations of your choosing, where you can obtain rods that shoot out fire or turn your enemies into ice cubes, where there are elves who will die if they attempt to leave the forest, where a mask can cause the moon to crash in the earth and a young boy can repeat a three day cycle until he's able to accomplish numerous tasks that will get a bunch of ugly giants to hold that bastard up in the sky where it belongs. The physical properties of an island int he sky are the least of my concerns.

And hey, at least Skyloft actually has a toilet to begin with.

I do like TML's idea of having a video game where you would face more difficult moral dilemmas, and it could work within the Zelda series, but I'm not going to gripe that it isn't already there. The problem is that Zelda is not, and has never been, a series aimed squarely at adults, and despite containing a story, has never actually been about story. It's about having a sense of adventure. For all I care, Zelda could be about an arduous task to go to a far off grocery store in the midst of summer heat, buy a gallon of milk, get it back to the house before it goes bad, make macaroni and cheese with it, and deliver the dish to a giant drunken half-ostrich half-walrus gambling addict to prevent him from eating the last slice of pizza instead, so long as it retains that sense of adventure.

(Actually, that could be a fun game.)

Ditto what ML said about dungeon design.

[Cosmonautical]

Originally Posted by The Missing Link

Similarly, I would argue that Skyward Sword isn't Skyrim-like. They have two very different levels of detail, and that's totally acceptable. Nintendo's Zelda games, when it comes to describing villages and whatnot, ultimately boils down to a hefty level of abstraction. Literally speaking, the only town that has ever felt "big enough" to be a legitimate town was Twilight Princess' Castle Town, and that's because it felt like it had critical mass, reinforced by the fact that you couldn't speak to everyone. But even that isn't Assassin's Creed 2's Firenze... but it's also not really trying to be. That level of abstraction is acceptable for a Zelda game... so long as it doesn't try to go too Uncanny Valley. (The bathroom admittedly is one of those things, but honestly that's more the game's time-to-awkward-Japanese-moment than anything else.)

I would say that the level of detail does not match Skyrim is not the point. The sort of things that we demand explanations for are normally only when a story draws our attention to it. If there were no agriculture in Ocarina of Time, we could assume that it was merely not depicted. Fact is, that sort of thing wasn't a problem for OoT because it was all right there - cattle, fishing, chickens. We're getting less, and I care about that.

Making a leap of faith and assuming that the entire culture of Skyloft just keeps on going despite no trade and no land is a bit more to ask for.

But that's still missing my point - the whole game is a series of barely-propped-up illusions. When I find the control mechanisms so mundane - and I do - what else is there? I am at what TML seems to consider the hump - the sixth dungeon is behind me and I find the game to have utterly stagnated. It started off strong - amazing even, but there's no material here to support that beginning, though, and that's all I'm asking for.

[The Missing Link]

Originally Posted by Bomby

The problem is that Zelda is not, and has never been, a series aimed squarely at adults

This is an interesting quote that I think merits some more conversation.

Up until Twilight Princess, every Zelda game since the dawn of time was E-rated. Now, our console releases have been T-rated and E10+-rated in the US respectively. Now while Wind Waker couldn't have been E10+ rated because it came before the rating's introduction in 2004, what's clear is that there's a minimum audience level that these games are tailored for -- pre-teens and teens.

So let me pose the question: Are they just looking for a good time, as say Bomby and CL, or are they going to appreciate a much deeper storyline than say AI or myself?

[ZeldaGirl]

^I think that question depends on the gamer. I've always - always - preferred story-driven games. My brother (just a year younger than me) has always preferred gameplay-driven games. YMMV.

[Cosmonautical]

I would honestly challenge anyone to find a child 12 or under that Zelda 1 and 2 were meant for. Maybe Fred Savage's brother in the Wizard?

But those games weren't even attempts in the same genre as SS, really.

[The Missing Link]

I'm going to add this to the appendix in my first post, but I think this is an interesting perspective on the audience of Skyward Sword:

In Search of the 'Skyward Sword' Audience < PopMatters

[Bomby]

Originally Posted by the Octopus

I would honestly challenge anyone to find a child 12 or under that Zelda 1 and 2 were meant for.

I'd be willing to bet that quite a few of them existed in 1986.

[Antisocial]

Wind Waker certainly isn't for kids, as Ganon TAKES A SWORD TO THE FOREHEAD GODDAMN