Analysis of the Development of Zelda
By: Spire
By: Spire
Written in response to this post: http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=9446609&postcount=33
Firstly, Zelda has been created in 5 (6) different ways:
I. Classic: LoZ/ALttP/LA/OoS/OoA/TMC
II. Side Scroller: AoL
III. 3D: OoT/MM/WW/TP
IV. Level-based: FS/FSA
V. Vehicular-Classic (DS): PH/ST
VI. Zelda Wii
I
I understand that the "how" you [Luigitoilet] were looking for is based on how the story unfolds, but keep in mind that unlike MGS which IS highly story-based, Zelda is not. Zelda is based on gameplay. The world, the characters, the items, the bosses, and yes, the story are all based on the gameplay engine. LoZ's engine was very simple, not allowing much text, because it was built simply to do what it did: dump you (Link) in this unknown world and let you explore it on your own, backtracking and fighting countless enemies to uncover dungeons and the items within them to defeat the Bosses in each. Eventually, you face Ganon and save Zelda.
_________________________________
II
With the Adventure of Link, Ninty experimented with side-scrolling which proved odd and out-of-place in the series (a sign that they wanted to see if Zelda dressed as Mario would work). The story was based on Link traversing the enormous land of Hyrule going from town to temple to town to temple, etc, but really in no linear order. It was huge and allowed for plenty of exploration. The story began, let Link loose, then concluded after Link bests the final dungeon and boss. A fair example of how story is based on engine. This game engine was very much different than the one that LoZ introduced, feeling much more RPGish with the overworld simply being a place to travel from location to location rather than an interactive hub. Again, the story was rather weak, relying almost entirely on the game manual to explain what was going on. Why? Because in-development, Nintendo didn't care about the story all that much. It was about working with new mechanics.
_________________________________
III
Ocarina of Time's engine allowed for horseback riding (which was a huge draw for fans at the time), so naturally the world was crafted rather large, transforming the prospect of Hyrule as an interwoven land (as seen in ALttP) to a sectioned world, separating Hyrule Field from Hyrule Castle, Death Mountain, Lake Hylia, Kakariko, the Lost Woods, etc. far more than before. Because of this visual separation, the story was built around HOW you traversed this version of Hyrule. For instance, the engine allowed you to at first be trapped in the Kokiri Forest/Lost Woods area because it was an entirely seperate zone than the rest of the world (which is not how Hyrule was built in ALttP), so the story was able to be told in a chapter-like progression. The world was not seamless, and as such, when playing it, you felt that the story was taking place in all these different instances of Hyrule that you 'warped to'. You knew the game could not load it all at once; you understood why it was separated. It was simply the game's engine. So you followed its point a to point b story all the way to point z where you finally faced Ganon and saved Zelda, just as you did in LoZ. Sure there was much, much, much more background information and plotline elements that made their way into the game and that is because of none other than: the game's engine.
Now let's move on to Majora's Mask. It's engine was a modified version of OoT's with the added element of the constant "time trial". Aonuma was approached by Miyamoto to create a sequel to OoT within a year and to further elaborate on the element of time, so how to go about this? Well rather than give us some half-***** time-based story, why don't you develop a constant game mechanic that's based entirely on time, much more than OoT presented us with. Well that's what they did. Naturally, the story trailed that. So what gets priority? The game engine; the gameplay.
These approaches carry on into WW and TP where the latter failed to introduce an innovative game mechanic, focusing almost solely on story and the makeup of the game rather than its foundations. WW was created from scratch, based on OoT and MM of course, but instead of really following much in their trail, cosmetically changed the world by flooding Hyrule, deforming the look with cel-shading, and instilling a much more light-hearted feel, all the while establishing itself as an obvious sequel to OoT with Ganondorf's reappearance and references to the Hero of Time. It was not an INCREDIBLE game, because it didn't change the gameplay all that much from OoT/MM aside from sailing (which was really just an adapted Epona). Back to TP now. It brought practically nothing to the table save miniscule, superficial changes. It played incredibly like WW, which played incredibly like OoT/MM, so TP really was just a rehash of OoT in many ways. Gameplaywise, it simply made everything bigger. The first playthrough of the game felt amazing because of being able to see Hyrule rendered so beautifully and getting to explore as-of-then unknown areas such as Snowpeak and the City in the Sky. It was cool... until you realize that when it came to gameplay, you'd pretty much done EVERYTHING in that game. The story was mysterious and for the first time, actually impacted the game more than gameplay did. The Twilight Clouds created barriers; there weren't barriers set up prehand in development, then later filled in as "Twilight". Twilight Princess would pretty much be better off as a book of sorts than a video game. This is where Nintendo failed with it, and this is where they've acknowledged that failure.
_________________________________
IV
Now let's look at Four Swords and Four Swords Adventures. They bring back the classic gameplay that LoZ introduced, ALttP rehashed, and LA, OoS/OoA brought to handheld. They took this gameplay and structured it into a level-by-level type of game, similar to Mario. The gameplay remained the same as the classic Zeldas for the most part, but the progression of the game was 100% linear, a characteristic that Zelda is not known for.
_________________________________
V
So let's get on to Phantom Hourglass and Spirit Tracks. These games took the classic engine and merged it with a mechanic based on the boat sailing in WW, which was based on horseback riding in OoT/MM. So let's recap:
Horse > Sailboat > Steam Engine/Train
Yes? Yes. These two games are heavily based on both this and the stylus. In every interview with Aonuma on both PH and ST, he refers to them as the "DS versions of Legend of Zelda" where development was always focused on the easy-to-use stylus due to the DS being such a wide-audience based product. And the stories of these games? Very basic, cartoonish, and with no real risk-taking. For the DS, they made a game engine based in 3D, played in Zelda 2.5D, and then slapped on a couple of 'okay' stories. How do they draw audiences? They make Zelda playable; they let you take full control of the DS down to blowing in the mic to play an instrument; they let you play very simple Wi-Fi matches with friends and trade items, etc, etc. How do they draw money? They do all of that. How do they keep the general public coming back for more? They give you a not-too-complex story to follow so you don't end up feeling outcasted by the complexity that Zelda deserves. But.. with a complex story should come complex gameplay, yes? Well, with the rather 'unimaginable' puzzles that Zelda has suffered from as of late, so to come unimaginable stories.
_________________________________
VI
We know Zelda Wii will be controlled via Wii MotionPlus, so let's get that out of the way. We also know that Hyrule is going to be enormous and that the classic formula will be broken, allowing us to explore much more. This will be in 3D, but won't be a 3D Zelda, rather a Wii Zelda. Nintendo's concept of "Wii" is rendered in 3D, but played by the human, not the hands. So far, not many games have really fleshed out this idea, and I believe Nintendo is still trying to find a method (and game) to have this concept fully demonstrated in. Zelda Wii may very well be that game. Now, the fact that Nintendo has released NO information regarding story, rather only gameplay, mechanics, and how this game will differentiate from all those in the past in that department, shows that they really do create Zelda games for gameplay. Story follows.
What I think should happen development-wise with Zelda Wii: Nintendo needs to first focus 95% on gameplay and puzzle complexity, while simultaneously working the other 5% on story and lore, then further into development, can ease towards a 50/50% focus on gameplay/story as the gameplay becomes much more refined (borderline perfected), then move on to the point where they're working a 25/75% ratio of gameplay/story, which would be in the absolute last stages of development, always keeping at least a quarter of all development on perfecting the mechanics. Story can always be whipped up easily, so I'd say over the entire course of development, the gameplay should be worked on 80% of the time. We need a story to keep us interested in how our adventure may unfold, but we also need a reason to replay/keep playing the game, which constitutes:
a) an interesting story
b) a fluctuating story correlated with how we want to adventure
Again, I don't want to simply act out a book. I want to practically fill in variable chapters with whatever I like until the conclusion is revealed. The story of Zelda has been simple all these years; the experience of Zelda has been evolving, and that is what Zelda Wii is about.
