Mikey the Moblin
if I had a nickel for every time I ran out of spac
They improved the contrast as well and while it's still not as clean as something like wind waker or ocarina of time it's a marked improvement from the wii version
Zelda What-Ifs
- Thread starter Uwu_Oocoo2
- Start date
Mikey the Moblin
if I had a nickel for every time I ran out of spac
alright a few things I'm seeing that I want to clarify
yall are conflating two completely different things when it comes to the master sword and it comes across as a bad-faith argument
chevy never said anything about the purpose of the master sword, which is static- the master sword is the sword of evil's bane and thus its purpose is ALWAYS to kill the bearer of the hate curse, which is usually ganondorf.
What chevy was talking about was the catalyst for acquiring the master sword, which is highly dynamic in the zelda series, as chevy already pointed out. So falchion coming in and saying, "well yeah but in the end the master sword has the same purpose" is arguing in bad faith and is like saying "well yeah but in the end you always eat a cookie, it doesn't matter where you got it from"
secondly, "if it ain't broke don't fix it" is an adage that applies to lots of things. In zelda's case, it can still apply to lots of things, but designers still have a responsibility to explore new ideas and gameplay. The thing is, these two ideas aren't mutually exclusive. Zelda historically has showcased lots of experimentation, and a lot of it has gone badly. Now, you can argue this is due to hardware flops and that's true. But it still shows the devs are willing to experiment and push the envelope of zelda. What hasn't changed is the "Zelda formula", a paradigm that establishes general gameplay patterns, worldbuilding, and approach to storytelling. At least, it hadn't changed until breath of the wild, which radically challenges the paradigm of zelda and for my tastes goes too far. But zelda fans come in all varieties, and so it's no surprise that some of you appreciate the apparent disregard for establishment that botw has. That doesn't make it intrinsically better, because it still isn't experimenting- it's rewriting the rules, rules that didn't need to be broken, and didn't need to be fixed.
And yes, I like every single zelda story except for twilight princess and botw
and I always will
I mean, you can complain about "it's the same thing over and over again!" but that's literally what superhero movies are and those are great
so sorry that your palate is more refined, I prefer fun
yall are conflating two completely different things when it comes to the master sword and it comes across as a bad-faith argument
chevy never said anything about the purpose of the master sword, which is static- the master sword is the sword of evil's bane and thus its purpose is ALWAYS to kill the bearer of the hate curse, which is usually ganondorf.
What chevy was talking about was the catalyst for acquiring the master sword, which is highly dynamic in the zelda series, as chevy already pointed out. So falchion coming in and saying, "well yeah but in the end the master sword has the same purpose" is arguing in bad faith and is like saying "well yeah but in the end you always eat a cookie, it doesn't matter where you got it from"
secondly, "if it ain't broke don't fix it" is an adage that applies to lots of things. In zelda's case, it can still apply to lots of things, but designers still have a responsibility to explore new ideas and gameplay. The thing is, these two ideas aren't mutually exclusive. Zelda historically has showcased lots of experimentation, and a lot of it has gone badly. Now, you can argue this is due to hardware flops and that's true. But it still shows the devs are willing to experiment and push the envelope of zelda. What hasn't changed is the "Zelda formula", a paradigm that establishes general gameplay patterns, worldbuilding, and approach to storytelling. At least, it hadn't changed until breath of the wild, which radically challenges the paradigm of zelda and for my tastes goes too far. But zelda fans come in all varieties, and so it's no surprise that some of you appreciate the apparent disregard for establishment that botw has. That doesn't make it intrinsically better, because it still isn't experimenting- it's rewriting the rules, rules that didn't need to be broken, and didn't need to be fixed.
And yes, I like every single zelda story except for twilight princess and botw
and I always will
I mean, you can complain about "it's the same thing over and over again!" but that's literally what superhero movies are and those are great
so sorry that your palate is more refined, I prefer fun
My issue with the Master Sword isn't its role, but that its usage within stories is totally unchanging. Even though Twilight Princess purports to use it differently, it still becomes drawing the sword to kill Zant/Ganon with.
The very notion of a game series' storyline having a formula is not conducive to having a good narrative. If something in a video game series has been going on long enough that it is considered "traditional" or part of a Zelda "formula", then it should be changed. It isn't interesting anymore. If the story beats of each Zelda game are so formulaic that they can be comfortably speculated on without knowing anything about the plot of the game, then they are in desperate need of changing.
The example I usually pose is this:
Imagine if all nine mainline Star Wars films were about Luke, Darth Vader, and Harrison Ford. I don't mean allusions to them or people filling similar roles, but all three repeatedly returning for each film. And in each of these nine hypothetical films, the characters act as if they haven't met. They go through the same beats, hit the same story milestones, and eventually confront each other in the exact same way.
That would make for an incredibly dull film franchise. Why is this uninteresting storytelling structure okay in Zelda?
Last edited:
Doesn't SS have something about being caught in a generational loop? We also need to remember that the series is "The Legend of Zelda" and so there's the argument they're all retelling the same legend.
Mikey the Moblin
if I had a nickel for every time I ran out of spac
why not stick with my superhero movie example?
you have to consider that the structure of zelda games is more nuanced than that
if you had to draw a parallel from star wars, think of it like an episodic star wars kids show where every day luke and the A team fly off to a planet, solve a local problem on the planet, learn a lesson, and confront darth vader with the power of teamwork, sending him flying off in a TIE fighter. It's formulaic, but that doesn't preclude engaging story. Like, your problem here is that you're tired of luke and the A team flying off to a planet where they solve a local problem and learn a lesson that inevitably helps them defeat darth vader, while I'm sitting here enjoying the actual show. The formula provides structure, and as my favorite game designer says, "restrictions breed creativity." Having the Zelda formula exist as a structure to play with can lead to exciting ideas and gameplay that may not have been found if the devs just said, "let's start this over from a different angle."
Skyward Sword endeavors to maybe establish the origin of that cycle, but doesn't do anything with it. While the "legend" thing might be their rationale for telling the same story over and over, it doesn't make the story good or different.
Having similar story structures among different stories in the same genre isn't bad, it's the natural overlap of different stories. Your parallel to Star Wars doesn't quite work, since your example assumes a single ongoing narrative. Zelda spends most of its time in each game reestablishing the status quo (that is always the same as the previous status) and little of its time telling a compelling narrative. While restrictions breed creativity, the restrictions Zelda has opted to place on itself do notbreed creativity. At the moment, it has produced the opposite: literally retelling the same story over and over with no world building, meaningful relationships, or character development.why not stick with my superhero movie example?
you have to consider that the structure of zelda games is more nuanced than that
if you had to draw a parallel from star wars, think of it like an episodic star wars kids show where every day luke and the A team fly off to a planet, solve a local problem on the planet, learn a lesson, and confront darth vader with the power of teamwork, sending him flying off in a TIE fighter. It's formulaic, but that doesn't preclude engaging story. Like, your problem here is that you're tired of luke and the A team flying off to a planet where they solve a local problem and learn a lesson that inevitably helps them defeat darth vader, while I'm sitting here enjoying the actual show. The formula provides structure, and as my favorite game designer says, "restrictions breed creativity." Having the Zelda formula exist as a structure to play with can lead to exciting ideas and gameplay that may not have been found if the devs just said, "let's start this over from a different angle."
Last edited:
Mikey the Moblin
if I had a nickel for every time I ran out of spac
you're trying to shoehorn zelda into character-focused narrative when it isn't
it doesn't matter if the characters know each other or not; the episodic example was meant to illustrate that the characters and characterization are static. What changes is the environment and situation they're in
does that make the parallel clearer
Good stories are always about characters. If your story isn't character focused, it probably isn't good.
Last edited:
Mikey the Moblin
if I had a nickel for every time I ran out of spac
this is so horribly wrong holy crap
Good stories are character focused, because stories are about characters. They aren't about big events, they're about people in those events. If you try and focus on the events, you probably aren't telling the story well.
Last edited:
Not at all. Even the most mediocre of plots can be carried beautifully by a well-written cast of characters.
Mikey the Moblin
if I had a nickel for every time I ran out of spac
like bruh
are you telling me that the story I told around the campfire about that time I went to boundary waters wasn't a good story
come on I get that you're trying to defend your viewpoint but you're kinda just spewing nonsense rn rofl
Mikey the Moblin
if I had a nickel for every time I ran out of spac
THAT'S NOT REMOTELY RELEVANT WHAT
I mean, it was. That story you told was about you and your reactions to stuff while cruising in the boundary waters. It was, as a matter of fact, character focused. Additionally, the standard is different when it's a story told between friends versus when it's a story in a published form that you're charging people money for
Last edited:
It isn’t? You said that “Good stories are always about characters. If your story isn't character focused, it probably isn't good.” is an inaccurate statement. What I said supports that. A story’s quality largely hinges on the characters involved.