• Welcome to ZD Forums! You must create an account and log in to see and participate in the Shoutbox chat on this main index page.

Discipline or novelty: Do you prefer item upgrades or honing your skills with the current ones?

Joined
Jan 10, 2017
As a Zelda game develops, the combat developments seem to be either external or internal: new, better upgrades or improving one's skill with what you've got. In other words, more from the game or more from you. I find that Zelda II demands the most from you, the player. All the other Zeldas have far more items and are far less difficult in combat. I know these aren't mutually exclusive categories, but which do you generally lean towards? And why?
 
Last edited:
Joined
Sep 21, 2014
Location
Michigan
I prefer games that require more from me, in terms of both execution and cognitive challenge, but I also want the game to give me more tools and methods to get something done. I feel that the games that were best at this are the "middle aged" Zelda titles like A Link to the Past, Ocarina of Time, and Majora's Mask. Many enemies can be defeated in a basic way, and acquiring new items gave you an alternate means of dispatching them. For the most part hey avoided enemies that necessitated the use of certain items to kill them, and in my mind this is what makes the difference. Letting you figure out methods for yourself vs. forcing you to simply have an item in order to progress or kill a monster. I feel like newer titles don't really demand much of you in combat, which is a shame.
 
Joined
Jan 10, 2017
I prefer games that require more from me, in terms of both execution and cognitive challenge, but I also want the game to give me more tools and methods to get something done. I feel that the games that were best at this are the "middle aged" Zelda titles like A Link to the Past, Ocarina of Time, and Majora's Mask. Many enemies can be defeated in a basic way, and acquiring new items gave you an alternate means of dispatching them. For the most part hey avoided enemies that necessitated the use of certain items to kill them, and in my mind this is what makes the difference. Letting you figure out methods for yourself vs. forcing you to simply have an item in order to progress or kill a monster. I feel like newer titles don't really demand much of you in combat, which is a shame.
Interesting. Perhaps these different types of development could summed up in the analogy of getting through a door: Unlock the door with the relevant key/item, crack the puzzle of the door, or execute a skilful manuever necessary to get through the door. Although these are often combined, they require from the player memory, intelligence, or dexterity. Each Zelda seems to emphasise one or the other, and Zelda II, as we've discussed, stands out for its far heavier emphasis on the latter.
 
Joined
Oct 14, 2013
Location
Australia
I find that Zelda II demands the most from you, the player.
I disagree with you. I feel Zelda demands the least froj the player. Apart from a few spells, of which you need to know when to cast them, the only other moves you have is sword stabbing. No new otens to learn how to use and switch between in combat. Also since sword stabbing is mostly all you do in Zelda 2, you get really good at it through lots of repetition.

For me 100%ing Majora's Mask is much harder. All the diferent mini games and side quests make Link to way different things and require totally different skills from the player.

All the other Zeldas have far more items and are far less difficult in combat.
More items? Correct.
Far less difficult in combat? That's not always true. Everyone will find different games harder or easier. It depends on how much experience you have with them. In my opinion Hyrule Warriors is the hardest Zelda game by far.

As a Zelda game develops, the combat developments seem to be either external or internal: new, better treats or improving one's skill with what you've got.
That's how most games are. I can't think of what the alternative to these two options would be.
In my opinion the best way is to introduce items while reinforcing the skill you have with the items you have. A random examole would be: Forst you learn how to use your sword. Then once you get the bow, you learn how to use that, while mastering the sword. So even though you need the bow to beat the boss, the game also expects you to have masters the sword so you also have to be good with the sword to win.

You get an item, learn how to use it, are tested with it, then you get another item. Learn how to use it, etc etc. KInd of like Maths. Maths level 2 requires you to have mastered maths level one to pass it. You need to ahve mastered everything previous as well as slowly learn the new meaterial that is coming to you. No different with the new Zelda items.
 
Joined
Jan 10, 2017
I feel Zelda demands the least froj the player.
In one way I agree. With Zelda's exploration element aside, the basic demands of each game are puzzle-solving intelligence and performance dexterity. I'll amend my statement about it demanding most from the player of all Zelda games. In terms of puzzle solving, I agree, it's not nearly as demanding as others, but I maintain that it demands the most in terms of performance dexterity, which we can discuss further.
More items? Correct.
Far less difficult in combat? That's not always true. Everyone will find different games harder or easier. It depends on how much experience you have with them. In my opinion Hyrule Warriors is the hardest Zelda game by far.
I haven't played HW, but from I hear it's not really included in series? Perhaps that is indeed harder, I haven't played it.
That's how most games are. I can't think of what the alternative to these two options would be.
In my opinion the best way is to introduce items while reinforcing the skill you have with the items you have. A random examole would be: Forst you learn how to use your sword. Then once you get the bow, you learn how to use that, while mastering the sword. So even though you need the bow to beat the boss, the game also expects you to have masters the sword so you also have to be good with the sword to win.
I think you've put your finger on a crucial question: what tradeoff do you choose between honing current skills and learning new ones? Because every time you're improving your bow skills you could be FURTHER improving your sword skills, even in minor ways. However, I do think yours is a good suggestion, to continue honing old skills at the same general time as acquiring new ones, and perhaps it's the most potent combination for Zelda games. Z64, for example, I think could've had more enemies in hyrule field for honing sword skills instead of merely running through mostly empty territory. I always thought that was one glaring waste of opportunity.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Sep 21, 2014
Location
Michigan
I think that perhaps, a better way to phrase it might be that of all the games, Zelda II has the heaviest emphasis on execution challenge. Enemy monsters become stronger and have more health throughout the game roughly in correlation to your own health and damage, so you're not really beating them with your math (unless you grind). You are forced to become more adept with your sword attacks. Though there is a low level of complexity in the controls and attacks that you can execute, the game demands a very high degree of skill with them, especially later on against some bosses like Gooma and Barba, and enemies like Daira, Parutuma, and the dreaded Fokka.

It should be mentioned that just because a game introduces more controls or abilities or items, it does not mean that game becomes harder or demands a higher degree of mastery. Take Twilight Princess as an example. That game introduces loads of Sword Skills, but beyond the Shield Bash and Finishing Blow, the game never really demands that you get better at them and they are mostly just there to add some variety to gameplay (the onus of which is placed on the player, oddly enough). For instance, there are no enemies that can only be dealt with using a perfectly timed sequence of these attacks, nor are there any bosses with a high degree of difficulty that can be dealt with using the Mortal Draw.
 
Joined
Jan 10, 2017
I think that perhaps, a better way to phrase it might be that of all the games, Zelda II has the heaviest emphasis on execution challenge. Enemy monsters become stronger and have more health throughout the game roughly in correlation to your own health and damage, so you're not really beating them with your math (unless you grind). You are forced to become more adept with your sword attacks. Though there is a low level of complexity in the controls and attacks that you can execute, the game demands a very high degree of skill with them, especially later on against some bosses like Gooma and Barba, and enemies like Daira, Parutuma, and the dreaded Fokka.

It should be mentioned that just because a game introduces more controls or abilities or items, it does not mean that game becomes harder or demands a higher degree of mastery. Take Twilight Princess as an example. That game introduces loads of Sword Skills, but beyond the Shield Bash and Finishing Blow, the game never really demands that you get better at them and they are mostly just there to add some variety to gameplay (the onus of which is placed on the player, oddly enough). For instance, there are no enemies that can only be dealt with using a perfectly timed sequence of these attacks, nor are there any bosses with a high degree of difficulty that can be dealt with using the Mortal Draw.
Well I'll accept that! Until a better definition comes along, 'execution challenge' it is. Good point about correlated enemy health and strength. Can you clarify what you mean by "the onus of which is placed on the player, oddly enough"? And I'm not that familiar with Twilight Princess, but I'm guessing that your 'perfectly timed sequence of these attacks' point is something about how closely your specific skills match an enemy's vulnerabilities?
 
Joined
Oct 14, 2013
Location
Australia
I think that perhaps, a better way to phrase it might be that of all the games, Zelda II has the heaviest emphasis on execution challenge. Enemy monsters become stronger and have more health throughout the game roughly in correlation to your own health and damage, so you're not really beating them with your math (unless you grind). You are forced to become more adept with your sword attacks. Though there is a low level of complexity in the controls and attacks that you can execute, the game demands a very high degree of skill with them, especially later on against some bosses like Gooma and Barba, and enemies like Daira, Parutuma, and the dreaded Fokka.
Me getting the hammer in Zelda 2 before the candle.

 
Joined
Sep 21, 2014
Location
Michigan
Well I'll accept that! Until a better definition comes along, 'execution challenge' it is. Good point about correlated enemy health and strength. Can you clarify what you mean by "the onus of which is placed on the player, oddly enough"? And I'm not that familiar with Twilight Princess, but I'm guessing that your 'perfectly timed sequence of these attacks' point is something about how closely your specific skills match an enemy's vulnerabilities?
vOnoz3w.png


By this I meant to say that the game does not demand mastery or even use of most of the abilities that the player will acquire (Sword Skills in this case) and thus the game places all of the responsibility of getting any mileage out of those skills on the player. Demand for their correct execution and mastery is never incorporated into the game progression itself, so it can be argued that these skills add complexity without adding more than a minor degree of depth or interest. They are hollow additions that do very little to actually enhance the play experience. Often times in a Zelda game, there are certain items or tactics that you can use against an enemy that make it either easier to defeat, or have some special effect. For instance, in Wind Waker, if you hit an enemy with the grappling hook, you can steal multiple items from them: first is whatever item drop is specific to that enemy (bokoblins yield Joy Pendants, Darknuts yield a Knights Crest, Moblins give up their Necklace, and so on). After that you can get bombs, arrows, hearts, ruppees, all sorts of goodies. Majora's Wrath can be electrocuted and stunned by use of the Zora Mask. The moment he grabs you to hurl you across the arena, electricity will automatically course up his tentacle and shock him into submission for a few seconds. Again in Wind Waker, detonating a bomb or striking the ground with the Skull Hammer will stun ChuChus in a wide radius. All of these are examples of gameplay additions that make playing the game easier, but they also require and reward exploration because the game never spells them out for you. You must look at an enemy and think "hmm. I wonder...... what happens if I do this?"

By contrast, not only do the hidden Sword Skills in Twilight Princess fail to be used in an interesting way, but oftentimes their usage against enemies is actually less effective and rewarding than simply attacking them with basic sword attacks, or more egregiously, by simply holding down B as Wolf Link and letting Midna do it all for you. Though it may seem like I'm railing against TP pointlessly, I simply mean to demonstrate that adding multiple tools and methods of attack does not always correlate to making combat more intricate, rewarding, or interesting. Sometimes, it's just tacked on nonsense. Especially when you realize that the hidden skills are more meant to pad out the play time as you must track them all down in the overworld (whether that's good or bad game design isn't the point, FYI, but we're talking about combat here and not just overall game design).

Another comparison I can think of is Twilight Princess and Ocarina of Time/Majora's Mask. In TP, you get two skills in particular that you actually do use regularly: the Shield Bash and the Backslice (the first is a stunning attack, the second functions identically to the Parry attack in WW but you do it yourself, not when the A icon flashes). While these techniques are used throughout the game to defeat enemies, they never really evolve past just stunlocking and then hitting the guy. Compare that to fighting 'swordsman' style enemies in the N64 Zelda games, a process which Arin Hanson of Game Grumps fame erroneously referred to as nothing but waiting. When I first played that game, I got sick of enemies like Stalfos or Gerudo having impregnable guards, so I started to probe them with attacks to see if I could get through. Sure enough, I eventually discovered that each guard does indeed have a weakness. In Ocarina, if you use a thrust attack on a guarding Stalfos from just the right angle and distance, it will strike just below the shield, damaging him and breaking his guard. Against the Gerudo Pirates in Majora's Mask, if you are Zora Link and stand just far enough away while executing a combo attack, your high kick will strike inbetween her crossed swords and damage her. The Wolfos is a bit different. His guard is unbreakable, but if your timing is good enough to strike him with a Jump Attack while his back is turned, it will kill him regardless of his actual remaining health.

These are all instances that demonstrate what I feel is a superior combat system, because it gives you options and exploration to hone your skills and mastery without loading you down with a bunch of extra nonsense. It simply offers you tools and then creates a design space where you can use and experiment with them, and then rewards you for doing so. As with Ocarina, Adventure of Link is similar in that it gives you a few tools, then relies on your gained experience with them to get the most out of them.
 
Joined
Sep 21, 2014
Location
Michigan
Me getting the hammer in Zelda 2 before the candle.
I don't fully understand the point you're trying to make with this clip. I mean I think I know what you are trying to convey, but I'd rather hear it from you before replying.

I feel like the best compromise and what BotW should try is an upgrade system where Link has to accrue skill or exp with the current weapon before he can upgrade or build a better version of it
This is a system I greatly dislike, as it forces you to repeatedly use items that you may not find fun or enjoyable, and slides gameplay further from 'enthralling' towards 'compelling' gameplay.
 
Joined
Jan 10, 2017
These are all instances that demonstrate what I feel is a superior combat system, because it gives you options and exploration to hone your skills and mastery without loading you down with a bunch of extra nonsense. It simply offers you tools and then creates a design space where you can use and experiment with them, and then rewards you for doing so. As with Ocarina, Adventure of Link is similar in that it gives you a few tools, then relies on your gained experience with them to get the most out of them.
Gotcha. Comprehensive explanation! Purpose or padding. I'm all for mastering the basics but I don't know what the perfect balance for me would be between novelty of upgrade and discipline of skill. I feel that no Zelda has yet achieved the optimal result.
 

CrimsonCavalier

Fuzzy Pickles
Joined
Mar 27, 2015
Location
United States
Gender
XY
Very interesting topic!

I don't think there is any game that exclusively demands that you get better with your skills with any weapon. There are some games that demand that you excel at combat mechanics, but none that actually demand you, the player, to become a master of a weapon.

Games like the Souls series and the Monster Hunter series demand that you become good at one or two (maybe three) weapon styles, but they always give you upgrades to those weapons. You don't always fight with a simple iron sword. You move on to steel, electric, ebony, whatever the case may be. The moves may be the same, but the power of the sword itself has increased, making early enemies easy (along with your upgraded stats, in certain games) and future enemies manageable.

Traditional JRPGs give you progress through upgraded weapons AND upgraded stats, fairly evenly, throughout the entire game. Your equipment gets better and so do your stats; your skills do not. In fact, the only things that you have to get good at in those games is managing your spells. Oh don't get me wrong, there can be a lot of strategy that goes into those games, but it isn't skill based on the weapon you're using.

Zelda doesn't really do either. There are some weapon upgrades (Kokiri Sword --> Master Sword), but progression comes from your getting better at the mechanics. However, most of the player progression comes from you picking up heart containers, making you be able to take damage from more powerful enemies without dying. There are no stats, so you don't actually get stronger, and there are few weapon upgrades. So what's the deal?

Now here's where things can get interesting. Some people can do Three-Heart Runs in Zelda games. What that tells me is that there is actually a point where the player can become so skilled as to have mastered the weapon. It isn't just becoming less squishy as a character, but true mastery of the combat. And by combat I don't only mean attacks, but defending and avoidance tactics. It's quite impressive.
 

Djinn

and Tonic
Joined
Nov 29, 2010
Location
The Flying Mobile Opression fortress
I'm not fond of gaining different types of skills with the same items because that in turn limits the number of items you would get through the course of the game. And Zelda has always worked on the system of just replacing an item with a stronger version at least three times.

I prefer items having a specific ability and you gain other physical skills though the game that allow you to do more fun things. Skills along the lines of jumping, double jumping, wall climbing etc. Things that really open up what you can do in a room or space. But I would not want to have three or so weapons that you have to constantly upgrade because I like the idea of an item for an occasion.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom