MattV1
Smash Apprentice
I've made my way around this big 'ol place we call the "internet" several times in my life. I've been a part of many Zelda forums, from GameFAQs to Zelda Universe, from your little backwater proboard site to SmashBoards. One thing I've noticed is that Zelda fans love pitching their own ideas for ways to improve the series.
Some ideas are better than others - this is to be expected. Some people put forth some very neat and unique ideas, such as introducing multiple weapons into the series and creating monsters and bosses that can only be defeated by a specific weapon, while some ideas are plain silly, such as turning Zelda into a Massive Multiplayer Online RPG. One idea I see from time to time - in different forms - is the introduction of stats into Zelda.
We all know what stats are; they are very typical of RPGs, especially those our friends in Japan make (Final Fantasy is the archetype of this concept). Now, Zelda has always had some form of stats, but they were always very minimal. Generally it is limited to two things: Link's health and weapon strength. Link's health is clearly shown in the form of hearts, with upgrades provided throughout the game, and while it is often times unnecessary to max out one's health, it makes the game much easier. The strength of Link's weapons is never clearly displayed, however simple observation can make it obvious as to which weapons are stronger than others. A few titles have even had defense stats, although this is often a rare occurrence.
This leads me to Zelda II, in which Link had three distinct stats. LIFE did not affect how much health Link had; this could only be improved via Heart Containers. However, LIFE did make Link loss less health which each level-up. This time it was not a weapon that determined attack strength, but rather Link's ATTACK stat. Lastly there was the MAGIC stat, and while only Magic Containers could increase his magic pool, the MAGIC stat made it so one required less magic to cast each spell (for the most part).
However, Zelda II had a major drawback: the game required high stats. In many RPGs you are simply encouraged to level up, and (at least it should be), that the game's curve moves along with how much EXP you should be earning from fights, thus making the need to grind nonexistent. Zelda II not only encouraged grinding, but pretty much required it in order to complete the game. Trying to beat Zelda II without perfect stats was nigh impossible.
This takes me into the point of this topic.
People ask for stats, armors and weapons that alter Link's attack, defense, all those sorts of things. But I ask, do we really need to make such a simple game complex?
Why add more variables to game that isn't based on combat alone? Why take more skill away from the game in favor of odds and luck? Zelda is supposed to be about the game and the player, you versus it. From time to time you'll get an easy way out of a situation, but this is unavoidable in any game. Why add in elements to make the game easier, yet make it needless more complex?
What situation would you rather face?
a) Oh wow, a Dark Nut! I need to be careful and learn it's pattern so I can kill it!
or
b) Oh wow, a Dark Nut! I need to equip *item* and make sure my *stat* is high enough so I'll take minimal damage. So long as I'm doing more to him than he is to me, I'll be okay!
Where's the skill? Why turn Zelda - a game where the battling is supposed to be action-based - into something else entirely? It just wouldn't be Zelda anymore!
Don't ride me off as some anti-RPG freak. I love RPGs, I love Final Fantasy, and Tales of Symphonia is one of my most favorite games ever. This problem doesn't just lie in RPGs. Many popular hack and slash games are introducing stats, such as God of War. Strength upgrades, attack upgrades, you name it. The skill slowly disappears from the game in favor or ripped abilities that are simply game-breaking.
If I wanted these things I'd play these games.
I make this topic because I fear for what Zelda could ultimately become. I am scared that the series would be ruined the same manner as say... Castlevania?
Not so long ago Castlevania games were action-packed with some of the most intense combinations of platforming and fighting that video games ever saw. You had health, ammo for special sub-weapons, and a varying degree of attack power based on the weapon you had (Vampire Whip vs. upgraded versions). Beyond that it was you versus the game, your reflexes and skills versus a series of platforms, gaps, and an army of monsters.
Then years passed.
We got Symphony of the Night. An interesting experiment that mixed the classic Castlevania environment with a Metroid-style gameplay and RPG elements. What we got didn't feel much like Castlevania, because there were a dozen of different variables at play at any given time. It was no longer about you versus the game, all kinds of luck. Tasks that would have only taken raw skill and trial and error to pass were removed. Anything you couldn't fight through could be taken care of my growing a few more levels. Any jumps you had a problem making could be fixed by some special power.
The challenge was gone, replaced by a grind-fest.
What's worse was Castlevania never recovered. Konami undoubtedly knew that much of their original fanbase was not pleased with the changes, but they didn't care, and made attempt after attempt to branch out into new audiences. I'm not mad at Konami for trying something different, and overall I'd say SotN was a successful experiment, but it should have remained as that: an experiment. Konami would eventually release a classic-styled Castlevania, about ten years later... for the Wii Virtual Console...
I'm not saying don't try new things, but I am saying is keep true to the roots. Don't make massive changes to Zelda or any series, because after a while, it won't even feel the same anymore. I still play Castlevania, but it doesn't feel like I'm even playing the same series I loved on the SNES and the Genesis.
I encourage Nintendo to try new things. If they ever get the urge to experiment with some exploration, puzzle-based action game with RPG elements, then go for it. But don't call it Zelda, don't make it Zelda. Don't slap a label on there just to make it sell, make a game and see if it can stand on it's own two legs.
Zelda is amazing just the way it is, and we should never try to make it be something it isn't.
Some ideas are better than others - this is to be expected. Some people put forth some very neat and unique ideas, such as introducing multiple weapons into the series and creating monsters and bosses that can only be defeated by a specific weapon, while some ideas are plain silly, such as turning Zelda into a Massive Multiplayer Online RPG. One idea I see from time to time - in different forms - is the introduction of stats into Zelda.
We all know what stats are; they are very typical of RPGs, especially those our friends in Japan make (Final Fantasy is the archetype of this concept). Now, Zelda has always had some form of stats, but they were always very minimal. Generally it is limited to two things: Link's health and weapon strength. Link's health is clearly shown in the form of hearts, with upgrades provided throughout the game, and while it is often times unnecessary to max out one's health, it makes the game much easier. The strength of Link's weapons is never clearly displayed, however simple observation can make it obvious as to which weapons are stronger than others. A few titles have even had defense stats, although this is often a rare occurrence.
This leads me to Zelda II, in which Link had three distinct stats. LIFE did not affect how much health Link had; this could only be improved via Heart Containers. However, LIFE did make Link loss less health which each level-up. This time it was not a weapon that determined attack strength, but rather Link's ATTACK stat. Lastly there was the MAGIC stat, and while only Magic Containers could increase his magic pool, the MAGIC stat made it so one required less magic to cast each spell (for the most part).
However, Zelda II had a major drawback: the game required high stats. In many RPGs you are simply encouraged to level up, and (at least it should be), that the game's curve moves along with how much EXP you should be earning from fights, thus making the need to grind nonexistent. Zelda II not only encouraged grinding, but pretty much required it in order to complete the game. Trying to beat Zelda II without perfect stats was nigh impossible.
This takes me into the point of this topic.
People ask for stats, armors and weapons that alter Link's attack, defense, all those sorts of things. But I ask, do we really need to make such a simple game complex?
Why add more variables to game that isn't based on combat alone? Why take more skill away from the game in favor of odds and luck? Zelda is supposed to be about the game and the player, you versus it. From time to time you'll get an easy way out of a situation, but this is unavoidable in any game. Why add in elements to make the game easier, yet make it needless more complex?
What situation would you rather face?
a) Oh wow, a Dark Nut! I need to be careful and learn it's pattern so I can kill it!
or
b) Oh wow, a Dark Nut! I need to equip *item* and make sure my *stat* is high enough so I'll take minimal damage. So long as I'm doing more to him than he is to me, I'll be okay!
Where's the skill? Why turn Zelda - a game where the battling is supposed to be action-based - into something else entirely? It just wouldn't be Zelda anymore!
Don't ride me off as some anti-RPG freak. I love RPGs, I love Final Fantasy, and Tales of Symphonia is one of my most favorite games ever. This problem doesn't just lie in RPGs. Many popular hack and slash games are introducing stats, such as God of War. Strength upgrades, attack upgrades, you name it. The skill slowly disappears from the game in favor or ripped abilities that are simply game-breaking.
If I wanted these things I'd play these games.
I make this topic because I fear for what Zelda could ultimately become. I am scared that the series would be ruined the same manner as say... Castlevania?
Not so long ago Castlevania games were action-packed with some of the most intense combinations of platforming and fighting that video games ever saw. You had health, ammo for special sub-weapons, and a varying degree of attack power based on the weapon you had (Vampire Whip vs. upgraded versions). Beyond that it was you versus the game, your reflexes and skills versus a series of platforms, gaps, and an army of monsters.
Then years passed.
We got Symphony of the Night. An interesting experiment that mixed the classic Castlevania environment with a Metroid-style gameplay and RPG elements. What we got didn't feel much like Castlevania, because there were a dozen of different variables at play at any given time. It was no longer about you versus the game, all kinds of luck. Tasks that would have only taken raw skill and trial and error to pass were removed. Anything you couldn't fight through could be taken care of my growing a few more levels. Any jumps you had a problem making could be fixed by some special power.
The challenge was gone, replaced by a grind-fest.
What's worse was Castlevania never recovered. Konami undoubtedly knew that much of their original fanbase was not pleased with the changes, but they didn't care, and made attempt after attempt to branch out into new audiences. I'm not mad at Konami for trying something different, and overall I'd say SotN was a successful experiment, but it should have remained as that: an experiment. Konami would eventually release a classic-styled Castlevania, about ten years later... for the Wii Virtual Console...
I'm not saying don't try new things, but I am saying is keep true to the roots. Don't make massive changes to Zelda or any series, because after a while, it won't even feel the same anymore. I still play Castlevania, but it doesn't feel like I'm even playing the same series I loved on the SNES and the Genesis.
I encourage Nintendo to try new things. If they ever get the urge to experiment with some exploration, puzzle-based action game with RPG elements, then go for it. But don't call it Zelda, don't make it Zelda. Don't slap a label on there just to make it sell, make a game and see if it can stand on it's own two legs.
Zelda is amazing just the way it is, and we should never try to make it be something it isn't.
