What the fuck are you doing, Nintendo? LEAVE ZELDA ALONE

[Ⓐaron]

Zelda isn't a random hack-and-slash, the puzzles and gameplay have always been a cut above most series. I don't see any reason to expect any of these to be subpar in this game just because of a single video we've been shown. Not to mention there pretty much was no payoff in the NES era, all you got was a badly translated ending screen saying "You are the hero of Hyrule" or something, and people still regard the first game as a classic. Seriously, saying a Zelda game is going to be subpar because its concept is similar to the concept of a previous instalment in the series is, to me at least, kind of missing the point.

 

[Makoeyes987]

Zelda's great but its hardly perfect, dude. There are a lot of good ones but there have been several mediocre Zelda titles as of late.

And of course there was no pay off back in the 80's. That's cause it was an NES game. You think the same standards of expectance and quality from the 80's would be applicable now? Hell no. If they made a game like that, it'd be a laughing stock. It's appreciated now because it is a classic from the past and its Zelda. If it weren't good for its time and Zelda, no one would care.

If you keep rehashing the same stale formula without some form of change or ingenuity, people will get bored. I don't care how strong a franchise is. What you're essentially saying is, is that they can just keep doing the same thing over and over again and because its Zelda, it'll be great because that's what Zelda is, so why change it? That's lazy. I understand the maxim "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" but they can't keep self plagiarizing. It's why people diss Nintendo in the first place.

 

[Ⓐaron]

Dragon Quest has featured almost exactly the same gameplay mechanics for the entirety of its existence and people still love it. Mega Man 9 deliberately threw away a lot of the additions to the initial formula made in later series entries and people still loved it. Just because a game doesn't provide anything groundbreaking doesn't mean it won't be a blast to play. Indeed a strong case could be made that mediocre attempts at "innovation" actually cause as even more harm to games than sticking with the same formula that has made a series successful throughout its existence.

 

[Max Payne]

Dragon Quest has featured almost exactly the same gameplay mechanics for the entirety of its existence and people still love it.

No it has not.

 

[Ⓐaron]

Uh yeah it has, I've played Dragon Warrior 1 and Dragon Quest VIII within a few months of each other and the menu system is still almost exactly the same. They've added stuff to it but it's still the same exact interface.

 

[Makoeyes987]

Yeah, Dragonquest has changed over the years, dude. It's not the exact same gameplay. They evolved it and added changes to it, just like FF did with their battle systems and gameplay.

And yeah, new changes could potentially suck. That's the risk of innovation and change. But the payoff usually makes the risk worth it. That's where the skill in gameplay design and creativity comes in

 

[Ⓐaron]

My point is they haven't bothered changing the systems of attack and stuff since the beginning, while Final Fantasy evolved from a Dragon Quest like system to the ATB to the system of FFX to the system of FFXII, all of which are completely different. Saying it's the "exact same" was an exaggeration, but seriously, they've deliberately avoided tweaking it much due to fear of a backlash from the fans. Remember how Dragon Quest IX was originally intended to have action elements and how quickly the backlash caused them to retract those plans?

And I don't see anything to indicate that there won't be skill in gameplay design and creativity just because the plot concept is similar to a previous series entry. Seriously, that does not even make sense.

 

[Max Payne]

You said the series has remained largely the same. It has not.

The games each added something new with each iteration with the except of a few titles. They kept the same battle system, but the evolved the systems within it.

Hell there's been DQ games about monster breeding, on rails wii games, and tv games ffs. The series has tried new things which worked out fine.

They did not remain the same at all.

 

[Makoeyes987]

Yeah, Dragon Quest V introduced monsters joining your party and stuff. The bones are the same but they added new innovations and features to it that made each one unique and better than before.

 

[Ⓐaron]

Honestly the monsters joining is the only major difference between DQV and DQVIII that I've been able to ascertain (though maybe the DS version of DQV has moar). And yeah sure they've refined that system some as well, and hell, DQVI also had its own take on the Job system. But still, DQ games aren't anywhere near as radically different in terms of game mechanics as each Final Fantasy game is - magic still works the same from DQ game to DQ game, whereas each FF title has a different method of learning it, and such. That's my main point - compared to a lot of other RPG series, DQ games aren't really that different from another. Which doesn't make them any less awesome, but they're still pretty similar.

 

[Max Payne]

They still changed nigger.

 

[Ⓐaron]

I never said it didn't change at all, just that the fundamentals between each game were almost identical. Which is true.

 

[Max Payne]

no they aren't.

stfu and keep DQ out of it jew.

 

[Channy]

Aaron, you say you played DQ I and DQ VIII within a few months of eachother, but what about the six in between? Just because two are similar doesn't mean they're all the same. FF's X-2 and III have similar job systems, but the games in between didn't rly.

 

[Max Payne]

DQVIII is very different from DQ1, saying that they're fundamentally the same is bullshit. Exploration is much more expansive, the world map ginormous, the battle system more developed, no long constricted to first person view, the game has actual voice acting, the story is longer, and the characters a little more developed.

 

[Ⓐaron]

The gameplay elements are almost exactly the same. Yes everything is much shinier and the world is much more expansive and there's much more to do, but they've still taken the same basic format and expanded on it rather than reinventing the fundamentals of gameplay like Square does with every new FF game.

 

[Max Payne]

The gameplay elements are almost exactly the same. Yes everything is much shinier and the world is much more expansive and there's much more to do, but they've still taken the same basic format and expanded on it rather than reinventing the fundamentals of gameplay like Square does with every new FF game.

the battle system is still turn based.

That's it. They still changed even that and added more features. They even changed the perspective from being restricted to first person.

How you can say it's exactly the same I don't know man. But ok.

 

[Ⓐaron]

I didn't say it was exactly the same, I said it was almost exactly the same. Obviously there are subtle differences from game to game but the methods of learning spells and levelling up and setting up characters and shit never change from game to game.

 

[Max Payne]

It's not exactly the same, but clearly I am not going to convince you.

So I disagree, and leave it at that.

 

[Ⓐaron]

And I never said it was exactly the same, so I'm not sure what you're trying to convince me of

 

[Max Payne]

almost exactly the same is just as bad fgt

 

[Ⓐaron]

Stop nit-picking, they're pretty damn similar at the very least

 

[Max Payne]

stop being a douche

 

[Ⓐaron]

no u

 

[Max Payne]

Spam! gonna warn u nag!