Zelda Dungeon Talks: Can The Series Continue To Rely On Gimmicks?
Posted on August 25 2015 by Josh Tasaico
Hello and welcome everyone, to this week’s edition of Zelda Dungeon Talks! In most games in the Zelda franchise, there is some sort of gimmick to set the game apart for the rest. The touch screen from Phantom Hourglass and Spirit Tracks or the time travel in Ocarina of Time and Majoras Mask are both examples of gimmicks that have differentiated the games from others in the series. The question is however, can Nintendo continue to rely on gimmicks? Personally I believe they don’t rely on gimmicks at all but everyone has their own opinion.
In this week’s edition of Zelda Dungeon Talks, various staff members will share with us their opinion on whether or not Nintendo relies on gimmicks in the Zelda franchise and if they do, can it continue.
Jon Lett – View Profile
I have never really thought that the games are RELYING on gimmicks. In fact, in some games’ cases, what I think of the game itself directly opposes how I feel about its respective “gimmick”. Take Phantom Hourglass, it’s gimmick is basically the touch screen controls. All the items are based on the touch screen, and really, it worked quite well, and yet, it is my least favorite title, considering all its other issues. Now, how about my favorite, The Wind Waker? Sailing, and the wind itself, are its main gimmicks. The sailing wasn’t perfect, even if I kind of like it, and controlling the wind, while creatively used, is tedious at times. Even with these flaws, I am more focussed on the loads of great points in the game. To put it simply, gimmicks are certainly not something to rely on, but in my eyes, the series is not hugely dependant on them. Really, I would hope that minor gimmicks are continually used in new games, but Nintendo, keep doing things the way you are now: making fun new gimmicks a minor point, and using them to direct players to the broader, more interesting parts of a game.
Alexis Anderson – View Profile
If the mechanics are as cool as fusing into walls as a painting, then sure! Actually though, as interesting as that gimmick was, it didn’t make the game any more exciting. At first the gimmicks did make a difference; time mechanics were amazing, even the boat in Wind Waker was cool. But now I’m numb to it. The game’s story used to revolve around the gimmick, but in recent titles they’ve been loosely or just unimpressively tied to the game’s story. So, no. The gimmicks have become old hat, a number of unique gaming mechanics need to appear, not just one big one for us to ogle at.
Kevin O’Rourke – View Profile
Taking a leaf from Jon’s book I’m hesitant on calling time travel and methods of transport as ‘gimmicks.’ Needless to say I find that The Legend of Zelda series does a good job of incorporating minor aspects of gameplay into the story. For example, Navi and Tatl are your fairie helpers but they are also a gameplay mechanic in the vein of providing advice for you as you fight enemies, or get lost in the quest. On top of that, they act as the lock-on system that make combat and puzzle solving much more intuitive and fun in Ocarina of Time and Majora’s Mask. The targeting system has since become a staple in the Zelda series. On the subject of companions, do they simply follow tradition and become a gimmick? I think that Midna, Fi, and the King of Red Lions offer more to the story that exempt them from becoming a gimmick in the game. From a core gameplay experience I never found an inclusion like a companion, method of transport, using masks, or transforming into a wolf a gimmick. The Legend of Zelda has always found a way to make those aspects of the game fit into the gameplay as well as the story with a good balance for me as a player to never contemplate the possibility of it being labeled as a gimmick. Motion controls on the other hand; that’s an entirely different story.
James Djinn – View Profile
I don’t think I have ever really given much thought to “gimmicks” appearing in the series until fairly recently. Before I considered the strange control schemes to be fairly unnecessary additions but with A Link Between Worlds, centering everything around the 2D wall trick, it became pretty apparent that yes there was some new ability in each game that never really appears twice. Honestly I think the addition of things like this do take away from all the other abilities you gain by collecting items in the games. This does seem to force you to rely on a single trick instead of having a variety of ways to get through a puzzle or dangerous location. So in that sense I do think that Nintendo could take a step back some with having a primary ability in a game and let the player have fun with the items again.
Alasyn Eletha – View Profile
I think that the Zelda franchise has a lot of old school fans who have grown up with the one-trick-pony Link in each game. Whether you’re time traveling, turning into a wolf, or molding into walls, there’s always a “thing” or “element in each game and nothing else beyond that. So changing it and giving the player choices in many different elements or “gimmicks”, I worry some might not like that change. Not for a Zelda game, at least. I personally think that something like that in this upcoming “open world” Zelda we’re supposed to be getting Goddesses knows when would be rather interesting, but I’m convinced that the Zelda series can continue to rely on that one “element” per game as they have been. I could be wrong, but like I said, not a lot of people like change.
