Legend of Zelda game design and sales

[Old sorta fan]

I just had a post deleted due to not merging my posts. How do I merge my posts? They had been auto-merging for a while so I let it go. Are they no longer auto merging?

Post automatically merged: Mar 21, 2023

. edit-this one automerged so I guess it's ok now?

None of these games bombed and Majora's Mask isn't just a rom hack just because it reused a bunch of NPC models from OoT. And Wind Waker wasn't a "colossal failure". Ridiculous failure like that doesn't help your point.

Once again, you need to stop making up shit.

You answered none of my questions and did not provide any sort of alternative explaination. I am using actual publicly known facts and providing a reasonable interpretation of those facts.

Rather than cussing at me, why don't you provide your alternative interpretation to these publicly known facts:

1). Mr. Miyamoto liked the sales of OOT but was unhappy with the time and cost it took to make it
2) Majora's Mask was a test to see if Mr. Aonuma could make a 3D Zelda title for the N64 in a year, thus controlling project bloat and conserving resources
3). Mr. Miyamoto tried to figure out how to prevent so many copies of Wind Waker ending up in the used game stores like when players quit OOT at the Water Temple, thus they made Wind Waker easy
4). I already provided the source for Nintendo almost canceling the Zelda series after the Wind Waker.
5). Mr. Aonuma asked western fans what they would like in a 3D Zelda
6). Nintendo was disappointed in Twilight Princess's sales in Japan
7). Nintendo tweaked Skyward Sword to try to appeal to Japanese fans (high school anime elements, Zelda being "cuter" rather than the stoic TP Zelda, Nintendo thought JP customers wanted more linear gameplay) as well as Mr. Miyamoto wanted to prove that you didn't need to spend so much resources designing a massive 3D world and being upset that it failed
8) Finally, Nintendo themselves saying they looked to The Legend of Zelda as well as Skyrim for inspiration to design Breath of the Wild. Mr. Aonuma also said that his team had open world ideas for Twilight Princess but was unable to implement them back in 2006.

 

[fiendcode]

Nah, can't agree. Skyward Sword's combat system was far more advance and interesting since you actually had to pay attention to the enemy and just press one button. Eventide Island can be beating without really engaging in combat. Like I beat it just by using bombs since they give you an unlimited supple. The only thing difficult is that base Link has no defense and dies to a breeze.

SS essentially added basic puzzle solving to basic combat by emphasizing stroke direction and type into it's segmented lock and key puzzle design ethos. It's actually pretty fun, intuitive and engaging with motion controls but becomes tedious fast using buttons/analog imo, it really does fall apart quickly without that tactile movement. But it's still rigidly implemented, even in it's "freest" implementation (the swordfights with Girahim and later Gannondorf) and not at all difficult given the looooong training curve the game forces on you.

I would say BOTW combat is still far superior largely due to the freedom it grants you with combat encounters. Which also goes back to the game's own "open air" design ethos, the Zelda team approached every aspect of BOTW this way and it's engrained into the DNA of environmental design, puzzle design, combat design, item design, etc.

 

[RDragon]

SS essentially added basic puzzle solving to basic combat by emphasizing stroke direction and type into it's segmented lock and key puzzle design ethos. It's actually pretty fun, intuitive and engaging with motion controls but becomes tedious fast using buttons/analog imo, it really does fall apart without that tactile movement. But it's still rigidly implemented, even in it's "freest" implementation, the swordfights with Girahim and later Gannondorf, and not at all difficult given the looooong training curve the game forces on you.

I would say BOTW combat is still far superior largely to the freedom it grants you with combat encounters. Which also goes back to the game's own "open air" design ethos, the Zelda team approached every aspect of BOTW this way and it's engrained into the DNA of environmental design, puzzle design, combat design, item design, etc.

Skyward Sword's combat wasn't locked puzzle base. You can beat enemies several different ways even if it wasn't as flexible as Breath of the Wild, but the AI was far more responsive since they actually reactive to you input, namely where is your sword, and they will actively blocked your arrows. The AI in Breath of the Wild is far dumber in comparison outside of a handful of enemies.

More freedom doesn't equal better combat. In many ways, it made the combat shallow since you didn't even have to engage in it. Best example, my 5 years old nephew beat half of the dungeon and only got stuck on one boss because he literally never had to fight and never learned how to do combat. When he tried playing Skyward Sword, he got butchered because he had to engage the battle system. Same thing happened when he played Link to the Past on Switch Online.

A better example of an open world game with a complex and engaging battle system is Elden Rings. Very open, skippable bosses, but you have to engage the battle system to succeed and given how that game blew-up, Zelda has room for improvement.

 

[Ishaan]

I think we'd do well to remember that every feature you add to a game has a development time and cost associated with it. Adding traditional Zelda dungeons into a BOTW-like structure as optional content takes time and effort away from potentially leaning even harder into existing/new "multiplicative" systems that would push BOTW's innovations even further, for instance.

On the subject of Elden Ring... I enjoy Elden Ring a great deal, but as someone that's put close to 90 hours into the game, Elden Ring's gameplay is almost exclusively about combat. I don't mean that in a negative way—that is literally the goal of Elden Ring. To be an open-world game where you're constantly finding and slaying increasingly strong enemies.

Conversely, BOTW was a game about "going anywhere and doing anything". That means spreading your dev resources across a ton of varied systems, the fruits of which are evident in the final game. Breath of the Wild really is a game where you can go anywhere and enjoy a tremendous amount of interactivity within its world.

Outside of a few surface-level similarties, ER and BOTW are nothing alike. They just both happen to be excellent open world games with their own unique approach.

 

[fiendcode]

Skyward Sword's combat wasn't locked puzzle base. You can beat enemies several different ways even if it wasn't as flexible as Breath of the Wild, but the AI was far more responsive since they actually reactive to you input, namely where is your sword, and they will actively blocked your arrows. The AI in Breath of the Wild is far dumber in comparison outside of a handful of enemies.

More freedom doesn't equal better combat. In many ways, it made the combat shallow since you didn't even have to engage in it. Best example, my 5 years old nephew beat half of the dungeon and only got stuck on one boss because he literally never had to fight and never learned how to do combat. When he tried playing Skyward Sword, he got butchered because he had to engage the battle system. Same thing happened when he played Link to the Past on Switch Online.

A better example of an open world game with a complex and engaging battle system is Elden Rings. Very open, skippable bosses, but you have to engage the battle system to succeed and given how that game blew-up, Zelda has room for improvement.

Uh, no, the AI in BOTW is far more complex including movement/timing/dodging/distancing, herd mentalities, resource location (weapons, fire, etc) and a full stealth subsystem (enemies detect things not only by sight cones but will also investigate peripheral sound... just waiting for TOTK to add smell and make wind direction vital, lol). Skyward Sword AI again really just focuses things on the stroke system, where enemies leave a "correct" opening or counter and you're expected to respond accordingly (this is the lock and key, one correct solution). It's more like Punch-Out in a way, quite literal puzzle solving through pattern recognition, not really complex even if it demands more from the player than just pressing a button.

BOTW has "lock & key" solutions to the more difficult enemies too (Lynels, Guardians) that usually involve strict timing counters and precise headshotting for openings, but I don't think that really takes away from combat versatility in game. Likewise the breadth of weaponry actually has different movesets and functionalities, and the disposable status of weaponry really encourages experimentation. I think you're underselling even direct combat in BOTW here given how meaningful these elements (countering in particular) can be, even without exploiting the game's subsystems (chemistry, stealth, etc). BOTW combat is sort of as complex as you want it to be and I'm not sure the slow forced rigid tutorial curve of SS is really the advantage you think it is either.

And I'm not sure why you keep reframing this around difficulty? None of the 3D Zeldas are difficult in the least and if that's the standard, they all fail. Even Zelda 1-2 are on the easier side by NES standards tbh.

 

[Spikeylord]

This is a worthless list.

Ease up on the condescension there buddy.

A flagship first party game like a AAA Legend of Zelda is supposed to drive sales of the console. A big reason the Cube failed is because Wind Waker was so poorly received. The attach rate means nothing if the intended killer app failed to grow the install base. Wind Waker was such a failure that Nintendo considered discontinuing the Zelda series (source: http://www.gamedesigngazette.com/2018/05/that-time-legend-of-zelda-franchise.html?m=1)

Look at this awfully received title:

Like yes, it was a bit more divisive in North America cause people got hung up on it looking too kiddy - in the midst of the dudebro 2000's where everything had to become grittier and more "realistic" (read: brown) to be seen as worth people's time.

Good first party software and killer apps can only go so far in carrying a console - the N64 (Super Mario 64, Ocarina of Time, Goldeneye), Gamecube (Wind Waker, Super Smash Bros. Melee, Metroid Prime) and Wii U (3D World, Mario Kart 8, Splatoon) all had libraries full of excellent, well-received first party titles (Wii U did have agonisingly long waits between those titles to be fair). These consoles failed mostly because of two reasons - they were inherently not appealing enough to audiences compared to their competition (cartridges for N64, mini-discs and a handle making GCN look kiddy, the Wii U Gamepad) and they had abysmal third party support (Gamecube almost got a chance to escape this second trap, if Resident Evil 4 had actually stayed exclusive long enough to make the impact it should've done).

The Legend of Zelda was a killer app. It wasn't a launch game and we don't have week by week sales data from 1986 so the data does not exist to prove what I said. I just remember that it was everywhere as a kid in the United States. It was pretty much a straight line of Mario then Zelda then Mario 2 then Zelda 2 just being everywhere for kids in the second half of the 1980's. Cartoons, merch, clothes, guidebooks, kids comparing maps at school. Remember that this was also a time before adults would have bought video games for themselves. Video games were for kids and only a tiny fraction of the nerdiest adult males who were viewed to have no chance of dating played some PC games.

A couple of points here: the reason later Zelda titles didn't get cartoons is because Nintendo (outside of Pokémon) became a lot more restrictive on multimedia in general from the mid-1990s all the way up until the last couple of years. In the three decades after the end of Captain N and the release of the 1993 Mario movie, there have been only 4 TV shows based on Nintendo properties besides Pokémon: Donkey Kong Country, the Fire Emblem OVAs, Kirby: Right Back at Ya! and F-Zero: GP Legend - and one movie, the JP-only Gekijōban Dōbutsu no Mori.

This slowing down of adaptations (6 in the 80's/early 90's and then only 5 in the three decades since then) and Nintendo licencing out their IP has generally been attributed to a combination of Super Mario Bros. (1993) flopping and the 4 awful licenced out CD-i titles. So, that's one factor as to why Zelda wasn't as everywhere as in the late 80's - I can't comment on merch/clothes as records of how much of that stuff was made in each decade seems rather difficult to measure and doesn't seem to have really been recorded properly.

Also, you are overgeneralising adults who played video games in the 80's - my Dad played arcade games in the 70s and 80s (as an adult) and used the Game Boy about as much as my older brother did. Robin Williams (who was in his 30s in the 1980s) famously was a huge Zelda fan in particular, naming his second child Zelda after the Princess. There were also plenty of people who had aged into adults who had played video games in the heyday of the arcades from the late 70s through to the mid 80s - many of them continued to play games after becoming adults, despite the stigma against it. And, let's not forget that a lot of the people who made video games also played video games, and they were almost all adults. Yes, there were neckbeards playing niche RPGs on home computers in the 80s and 90s, but to claim that was the entirety of the older video game playing market then is ridiculous.

The games were released in different contexts, with different budgets, with different business purposes. Some were supposed to be launch window killer apps and some were meant to be smaller budget titles that filled out the software release lineup.

That list was just there as a convenient set of data points comparing the relative popularities of Zelda games on their consoles, and I decided to include every Zelda game (except the Tingle spinoffs, Famicom/NES Classics titles and digital only stuff) just for completeness' sake (especially as both Link's Crossbow Training and Age of Calamity outsold main series Zeldas on their home platforms).

The high profile games that were supposed to drive sales of systems were:

The Legend of Zelda
Zelda 2
Link to the Past
OOT
Wind Waker
Twilight Princess (for Wii, for Cube it was a gift to long suffering fans like BOTW on WiiU)
Skyward Sword
Breath of the Wild

The NES titles succeeded as did LttP. OOT did too, despite not being able to fully turn around the software droughts on the N64 that drove customers away. Problem was that the game sold on presentation and people got bored of the linear gameplay. The Wind Waker was a colossal failure. Twilight Princess was a success in the west as it scratched that OOT with a mature art style itch. It didn't have any legs because again, people got bored of the linear gameplay. Skyward Sword was a failure that led to a complete rethinking of everything that led to Breath of the Wild.

A few more notes here: in regards to the underlined... What? Ocarina of Time wasn't just flashy visuals and presentation as you seem to think - people loved the gameplay as well, it might've been linear sure - but a lot of popular games of that era (Crash, Final Fantasy, Metal Gear Solid) were linear, hell a lot of super popular games nowadays are as linear gameplay wise as Ocarina (The Last of Us, Uncharted, God of War, older Soulsbourne titles).

Also your list of "system sellers" conveniently ignores Nintendo's handheld line - you cannot tell me Link's Awakening or Phantom Hourglass were not made to be system sellers for their respective consoles. Sure, neither game would be able to push the envelope as much as their home console equivalents - but to claim they were not high profile or not intended to be system sellers is disingenuous at best.

With regard to Skyward Sword, it was still the second best selling late Wii (2011 onwards) title behind only Just Dance 3 - and released 5 months after the Wii's successor was revealed. Given the situation it released in (awful late Wii software ecosystem, the Wii being primarily a "casual-focused" console where core focused titles didn't do as well, being after the announcement of the successor console), I think Skyward Sword did fine - it reviewed fairly well and was still decently popular, although yes some mechanics fatigue had slipped in to the Zelda franchise at this point.

 

[RDragon]

Uh, no, the AI in BOTW is far more complex including movement/timing/dodging/distancing, herd mentalities, resource location (weapons, fire, etc) and a full stealth subsystem (enemies detect things not only by sight cones but will also investigate peripheral sound... just waiting for TOTK to add smell and make wind direction vital, lol). Skyward Sword AI again really just focuses things on the stroke system, where enemies leave a "correct" opening or counter and you're expected to respond accordingly (this is the lock and key, one correct solution). It's more like Punch-Out in a way, quite literal puzzle solving through pattern recognition, not really complex even if it demands more from the player than just pressing a button.

BOTW has "lock & key" solutions to the more difficult enemies too (Lynels, Guardians) that usually involve strict timing counters and precise headshotting for openings, but I don't think that really takes away from combat versatility in game. Likewise the breadth of weaponry actually has different movesets and functionalities, and the disposable status of weaponry really encourages experimentation. I think you're underselling even direct combat in BOTW here given how meaningful these elements (countering in particular) can be, even without exploiting the game's subsystems (chemistry, stealth, etc). BOTW combat is sort of as complex as you want it to be and I'm not sure the slow forced rigid tutorial curve of SS is really the advantage you think it is either.

And I'm not sure why you keep reframing this around difficulty? None of the 3D Zeldas are difficult in the least and if that's the standard, they all fail. Even Zelda 1-2 are on the easier side by NES standards tbh.

I am not referencing difficulty. I am referencing that Breath of the Wild's battle system for the most part can be completely ignored outside of bosses and even the combat itself can be done with literally one button. Which means it isn't complex, just very flexible. Breath of the Wild's AI are smart about some things, but in actual combat they're pretty dumb. Also, Skyward Sword is Wii Sport Resort swordplay except more advance. Which is far more complex than Punch-Out because in Punch-Out you are always fighting just one opponent while Skyward Sword can throw a horde at you.

I'm not sure the slow forced rigid tutorial curve of SS is really the advantage you think it is either.

It's not about 'advantage'. Skyward Sword overall had a more complex battle system that you can't ignore unlike Breath of the Wild. Breath of the Wild's combat conversely is more flexible. And even Skyward Sword's battle system isn't that stiff since you can beat many enemies without using your sword. You can kill enemies pretty constantly with the Beatle for example and abusing bombs (you just have a limited supple unlike Breath of the Wild). The biggest different is that you can't really MGS in Skyward Sword while you can do close to a passive run in Breath of the Wild.

 

[fiendcode]

I am not referencing difficulty. I am referencing that Breath of the Wild's battle system for the most part can be completely ignored outside of bosses and even the combat itself can be done with literally one button. Which means it isn't complex, just very flexible. Breath of the Wild's AI are smart about some things, but in actual combat they're pretty dumb. Also, Skyward Sword is Wii Sport Resort swordplay except more advance. Which is far more complex than Punch-Out because in Punch-Out you are always fighting just one opponent while Skyward Sword can throw a horde at you.

I'm not sure the slow forced rigid tutorial curve of SS is really the advantage you think it is either.

It's not about 'advantage'. Skyward Sword overall had a more complex battle system that you can't ignore unlike Breath of the Wild. Breath of the Wild's combat conversely is more flexible. And even Skyward Sword's battle system isn't that stiff since you can beat many enemies without using your sword. You can kill enemies pretty constantly with the Beatle for example and abusing bombs (you just have a limited supple unlike Breath of the Wild). The biggest different is that you can't really MGS in Skyward Sword while you can do close to a passive run in Breath of the Wild.

Uh, have you played BOTW? You're not going to get that far against anything but small enemies by "just pressing B", and even at the outset or reset points that can be a losing strategy. Sure you can try to avoid combat but that in itself doesn't negate the depth of combat and still usually involves engaging with the game's stealth system and enemy AI (sight/sound, discovery/distraction). Again, that freedom of choice is central to every aspect of the game's design but I'll be honest, you won't get all that far either if you purposely avoid all combat. That'd actually make the game much more difficult in the long run and people do play passive runs for the challenge.

It's also weird to me you try to delineate flexibility and complexity, the two are fundamentally entwined and are exactly what make BOTW combat engaging. It's not just the mechanics of direct combat (which again, are more complex than you're giving credit) but the integration of BOTW's subsystems and how that impacts player approach. It's fun coming up on an encampment, group of enemies or even a singular large/tough enemy and planning how best to engage and exploit everything in your toolbox to your advantage. Do you crawl up in the brush and snipe the scouts first? Do you secure the highground and rain down some bombs? Do you wait until they start sleeping and creep in close for some silent assassinations? Are there any explosive barrels, metal crates, boulders or even just bits of metal, high grass or stagnant water for you cause instant mayhem? Or do you even just rush in, weapons swinging and prepared to pull millisecond shield and dodge counters because you're just that good? There's incredible depth to BOTW's combat design, that works holistically with the game's core design, to really deliver combat that sets itself apart from the older titles. It's more flexible, more strategic and yes, more complex than anything before. The Master Quest DLC was a perfect "forced" implementation of this and made running it repeatedly (for the arrow reset exploit before that got patched out) incredibly rewarding and fun.

As far as SS's complexity, naw. It really is mainly 1 on 1 timing and pattern recog, and the AI is simple with obvious telegraphing. And that doesn't make it bad, again I think the puzzley combat is fun and super engaging with motion controls (as was the general puzzle solving with motion controls tbh). Even when multiple enemies come in they behave like OOT enemies and move in one at a time, taking turns (this doesn't happen in BOTW either, enemies will mob you outside certain setpiece encounters, both melee and distance simultaneously). If anything, the simple AI makes actual SS combat a bit less tense and flexible than WSR too, though that makes sense under a difficulty lens.

 

[Old sorta fan]

Ease up on the condescension there buddy.

That wasn't meant to be condescending. That was meant to be in an even tone of voice. Like when one states facts.

Look at this awfully received title:

This is a sales forum, not a criticism forum. Critics also loved Okami and it has bombed on platform after platform. The user scores are from a small pool of self-selecting people.

Like yes, it was a bit more divisive in North America cause people got hung up on it looking too kiddy - in the midst of the dudebro 2000's where everything had to become grittier and more "realistic" (read: brown) to be seen as worth people's time.

I actually hated that green and brown art style too. It's a big part of why I stopped buying Playstation hardware and almost quit video games after the PS2/GameCube. I also personally had fun with the Wind Waker. I strongly disliked that the market at large rejected the art style as I found it to be a breath of fresh air.

Doesn't change what the western market reaction was as a whole. Doesn't change that Nintendo considered canceling the Zelda series after the Wind Waker's poor sales.

Good first party software and killer apps can only go so far in carrying a console - the N64 (Super Mario 64, Ocarina of Time, Goldeneye), Gamecube (Wind Waker, Super Smash Bros. Melee, Metroid Prime) and Wii U (3D World, Mario Kart 8, Splatoon) all had libraries full of excellent, well-received first party titles (Wii U did have agonisingly long waits between those titles to be fair).

You are correct here. They failed due to a lack of compelling software. Droughts are one aspect of that. One killer app and a drought is still a drought. You need to keep a customer base warm with a steady stream of compelling software for all tastes and demographics to follow up on the killer app. The N64 and WiiU had too many droughts. Hence the disappointing sales.

These consoles failed mostly because of two reasons - they were inherently not appealing enough to audiences compared to their competition (cartridges for N64, mini-discs and a handle making GCN look kiddy, the Wii U Gamepad) and they had abysmal third party support (Gamecube almost got a chance to escape this second trap, if Resident Evil 4 had actually stayed exclusive long enough to make the impact it should've done).

You yourself are correct that those consoles failed because of a lack of compelling software. That's it. Most video game customers don't care and barely notice if a system uses carts or discs. Any talk about media or hardware being a selling/not selling factor is just video game forum talk. They are just something you put in a slot to get to Mario or Metal Gear or Zelda or Elden Ring etc. The PS1 and PS2 had a better software selection because all the third parties in Japan had flocked to those systems and Nintendo had not yet figured out how to do well without them.

A couple of points here: the reason later Zelda titles didn't get cartoons is because Nintendo (outside of Pokémon) became a lot more restrictive on multimedia in general from the mid-1990s all the way up until the last couple of years. In the three decades after the end of Captain N and the release of the 1993 Mario movie, there have been only 4 TV shows based on Nintendo properties besides Pokémon: Donkey Kong Country, the Fire Emblem OVAs, Kirby: Right Back at Ya! and F-Zero: GP Legend - and one movie, the JP-only Gekijōban Dōbutsu no Mori.

This slowing down of adaptations (6 in the 80's/early 90's and then only 5 in the three decades since then) and Nintendo licencing out their IP has generally been attributed to a combination of Super Mario Bros. (1993) flopping and the 4 awful licenced out CD-i titles. So, that's one factor as to why Zelda wasn't as everywhere as in the late 80's - I can't comment on merch/clothes as records of how much of that stuff was made in each decade seems rather difficult to measure and doesn't seem to have really been recorded properly.

Excellent point and I learned something there. Thank you.

I also add that the mid to late 1990's was when Nintendo was beginning to be seen as uncool. There was less opportunities for merchandising for a product that was cold. Nintendo IP's are now seen as cool again because of the cultural phenomenons of Mario Kart, Breath of the Wild, Mario 2D and 3D, Animal Crossing, Smash Bros., Kirby, and a few more I'm forgetting. It is like how it was in the late 1980's. I don't think it's coincidental that there is more merch when the core product is hot,

Also, you are overgeneralising adults who played video games in the 80's - my Dad played arcade games in the 70s and 80s (as an adult) and used the Game Boy about as much as my older brother did. Robin Williams (who was in his 30s in the 1980s) famously was a huge Zelda fan in particular, naming his second child Zelda after the Princess. There were also plenty of people who had aged into adults who had played video games in the heyday of the arcades from the late 70s through to the mid 80s - many of them continued to play games after becoming adults, despite the stigma against it. And, let's not forget that a lot of the people who made video games also played video games, and they were almost all adults. Yes, there were neckbeards playing niche RPGs on home computers in the 80s and 90s, but to claim that was the entirety of the older video game playing market then is ridiculous.

Yes, there were adults who played the NES. It was far from a mainstream thing, mostly specific curious individuals who wanted to know what their kids were so excited about. Most boomer parents in the 1980's viewed video games as a kid thing that their kids would grow out of, just as they grew out of playing arcade games.

That list was just there as a convenient set of data points comparing the relative popularities of Zelda games on their consoles, and I decided to include every Zelda game (except the Tingle spinoffs, Famicom/NES Classics titles and digital only stuff) just for completeness' sake (especially as both Link's Crossbow Training and Age of Calamity outsold main series Zeldas on their home platforms).


A few more notes here: in regards to the underlined... What? Ocarina of Time wasn't just flashy visuals and presentation as you seem to think - people loved the gameplay as well, it might've been linear sure - but a lot of popular games of that era (Crash, Final Fantasy, Metal Gear Solid) were linear, hell a lot of super popular games nowadays are as linear gameplay wise as Ocarina (The Last of Us, Uncharted, God of War, older Soulsbourne titles).

If the gameplay was so beloved, why did so few people play through to the end? Why was Mr. Miyamoto unhappy with the volume of OOT copies he saw in Japanese used game stores? That fact says that people bought it and got bored of it.

Also your list of "system sellers" conveniently ignores Nintendo's handheld line - you cannot tell me Link's Awakening or Phantom Hourglass were not made to be system sellers for their respective consoles. Sure, neither game would be able to push the envelope as much as their home console equivalents - but to claim they were not high profile or not intended to be system sellers is disingenuous at best.

You make a good point about the handheld games. I didn't talk about them because I don't have sales data for if Link's Awakening moved GameBoys. Maybe someone does. It was viewed as a cool spin-off to ALttP that was and is very fun.

The Oracle games and the Minish Cap were meant to fill in the catalog for an established healthy software ecosystem. They were meant to sell themselves, not to sell systems so I didn't include them.

I know that Phantom Hourglass did well, especially in Japan. (I wish Spirit Tracks did better so I could find a used copy for less than $90!). I argue that it was like the Oracle and Minish Cap games in that it was meant to sell itself to an established healthy software ecosystem but don't know for sure off the top of my head.

With regard to Skyward Sword, it was still the second best selling late Wii (2011 onwards) title behind only Just Dance 3 - and released 5 months after the Wii's successor was revealed. Given the situation it released in (awful late Wii software ecosystem, the Wii being primarily a "casual-focused" console where core focused titles didn't do as well, being after the announcement of the successor console), I think Skyward Sword did fine - it reviewed fairly well and was still decently popular, although yes some mechanics fatigue had slipped in to the Zelda franchise at this point.

This is a fair point, except for the Wii being a "casual-focused" console. That is forum speak, especially from PS3 fans who were upset their preferred console had no killer apps until much later and was a legendary business failure. It had an attach rate over 9, which is in line with other successful home consoles. It also sold a lot of "core" games like Mario Kart, NSMBWii, Twilight Princess, the FIFA games, etc. Its software releases tailed off at the end due to Nintendo learning in real time they could not simultaneously support the Wii and DS's twilight and the 3DS and WiiU launches.

Either way, Nintendo was very disappointed with Skyward Sword's sales so much that they went about making the anti-Skyward Sword. Its sales certainly had its headwinds but it was still as disappointment even with the other factors.

 

[RDragon]

Uh, have you played BOTW? You're not going to get that far against anything but small enemies by "just pressing B", and even at the outset or reset points that can be a losing strategy. Sure you can try to avoid combat but that in itself doesn't negate the depth of combat and still usually involves engaging with the game's stealth system and enemy AI (sight/sound, discovery/distraction). Again, that freedom of choice is central to every aspect of the game's design but I'll be honest, you won't get all that far either if you purposely avoid all combat. That'd actually make the game much more difficult in the long run and people do play passive runs for the challenge.

It's also weird to me you try to delineate flexibility and complexity, the two are fundamentally entwined and are exactly what make BOTW combat engaging. It's not just the mechanics of direct combat (which again, are more complex than you're giving credit) but the integration of BOTW's subsystems and how that impacts player approach. It's fun coming up on an encampment, group of enemies or even a singular large/tough enemy and planning how best to engage and exploit everything in your toolbox to your advantage. Do you crawl up in the brush and snipe the scouts first? Do you secure the highground and rain down some bombs? Do you wait until they start sleeping and creep in close for some silent assassinations? Are there any explosive barrels, metal crates, boulders or even just bits of metal, high grass or stagnant water for you cause instant mayhem? Or do you even just rush in, weapons swinging and prepared to pull millisecond shield and dodge counters because you're just that good? There's incredible depth to BOTW's combat design, that works holistically with the game's core design, to really deliver combat that sets itself apart from the older titles. It's more flexible, more strategic and yes, more complex than anything before. The Master Quest DLC was a perfect "forced" implementation of this and made running it repeatedly (for the arrow reset exploit before that got patched out) incredibly rewarding and fun.

As far as SS's complexity, naw. It really is mainly 1 on 1 timing and pattern recog, and the AI is simple with obvious telegraphing. And that doesn't make it bad, again I think the puzzley combat is fun and super engaging with motion controls (as was the general puzzle solving with motion controls tbh). Even when multiple enemies come in they behave like OOT enemies and move in one at a time, taking turns (this doesn't happen in BOTW either, enemies will mob you outside certain setpiece encounters, both melee and distance simultaneously). If anything, the simple AI makes actual SS combat a bit less tense and flexible than WSR too, though that makes sense under a difficulty lens.

I have over 180 hours in Breath of the Wild, thank you, and I have gotten very far just pressing one button in Breath of the Wild. After playing Skyward Sword and many other action games Breath of the Wild's combat is very shallow.

To me flexibility isn't complex. A complex battle system to me is something like Xenoblade Chronicles series, SMT, Bayonetta, and Astra Chains. A battle system that requires me to pay attention and learn the enemies' movements and actions. Breath of the Wild have flexibility, but the game does nothing to push you to learning the combat system outside of swinging your sword. Which is again, you can literally beat the entire game pressing one button.

This is all to say, you're never going to sell me on Breath of the Wild having a complex battle system. It works, it's fun, and gives you a lot of cool options, but that's about it. I honestly got bored with the combat and stop engaging in it outside of bosses.

 

[fiendcode]

I have over 180 hours in Breath of the Wild, thank you, and I have gotten very far just pressing one button in Breath of the Wild. After playing Skyward Sword and many other action games Breath of the Wild's combat is very shallow.

To me flexibility isn't complex. A complex battle system to me is something like Xenoblade Chronicles series, SMT, Bayonetta, and Astra Chains. A battle system that requires me to pay attention and learn the enemies' movements and actions. Breath of the Wild have flexibility, but the game does nothing to push you to learning the combat system outside of swinging your sword. Which is again, you can literally beat the entire game pressing one button.

This is all to say, you're never going to sell me on Breath of the Wild having a complex battle system. It works, it's fun, and gives you a lot of cool options, but that's about it. I honestly got bored with the combat and stop engaging in it outside of bosses.

Well, I have 425 hours in BOTW, have 100%ed both modes and still find the combat encounters more complex and engaging than any other game in the series. And I'm pretty sure I'd have gotten nowhere just mashing B, but then I'm more a systems exploit type gamer and I realize creative problem solving isn't a gameplay approach that appeals to everyone.

This in stark contrast to my recent handheld run with SSHD, which became incredibly tedious incredibly fast without motion control to give it that intuitive kinetic interface. The game was both easy AND boring, I think I'd rather replay the DS games than SS again without a Wiimote. A game so rigid, claustrophic and linear it basically forced an entire series rethink, truly the worst but thank god it happened.

 

[RDragon]

Well, I have 425 hours in BOTW, have 100%ed both modes and still find the combat encounters more complex and engaging than any other game in the series. And I'm pretty sure I'd have gotten nowhere just mashing B, but then I'm more a systems exploit type gamer and I realize creative problem solving isn't a gameplay approach that appeals to everyone.

This in stark contrast to my recent handheld run with SSHD, which became incredibly tedious incredibly fast without motion control to give it that intuitive kinetic interface. The game was both easy AND boring, I think I'd rather replay the DS games than SS again without a Wiimote. A game so rigid, claustrophic and linear it basically forced an entire series rethink, truly the worst but thank god it happened.

To me, Skyward Sword is still my favorite and I enjoyed it just as much the second time. Also beat it twice on the Wii both on Normal and Hero mode. And if I am being honest, I would take evolution of Skyward Sword over Breath of the Wild. After so many open world games this generation, I am kinda done even if I am getting Tears of the Kingdom day one.

Never tried to play it in handheld because I find the idea of playing Skyward Sword outside of motion control as playing Link's Awakening with the original GameBoy color pallet.

 

[fiendcode]

OG LA is great! I recently replayed it on my Zelda G&W, it totally holds up outside the item swapping (also a real problem for the GBC and GBA Zeldas). I actually wish Nintendo would release it on NSO or at least let us run compatible GBC games in DMG mode.

 

[balgajo]

Curiously SS and BOTW are my least favorite 3d Zelda. One is a corridor where only dungeons are important and in the other the overworld is the star but forget the things that make a Zelda game great and unique. That said I like combat gameplay on both.
As always 3d Zelda games combat suffers from having options but you don’t have reasons to use them except for fun.

 

[RDragon]

OG LA is great! I recently replayed it on my Zelda G&W, it totally holds up outside the item swapping (also a real problem for the GBC and GBA Zeldas). I actually wish Nintendo would release it on NSO or at least let us run compatible GBC games in DMG mode.

I played the original on the Super GameBoy. Can't play that using the green-tint GameBoy color. It hurts my eyes.

 

[fiendcode]

I played the original on the Super GameBoy. Can't play that using the green-tint GameBoy color. It hurts my eyes.

Ah, I played the original on a Pocket but I also avoid the green smear filter on NSO for that (or color).

 

[AngryAlchemist]

This thread is quickly becoming the kind of hyperbolic over-exaggerative discussion that makes talking about Zelda's sales history so exhausting. Generalizations are fine and have their place, but pushing generalizations to extremes is no good.

So just a couple things to touch on:

1. The idea that Miyamoto should consistently be sourced as a veil of wisdom, particularly when linking that article, makes no sense. No disrespect to the greatest game designer of all time, but Miyamoto's opinions on Zelda since its 3D inception have always been baffling, from him wanting Ocarina to be entirely first person, to constantly gaslighting Aonuma, to wanting extremely short development times. He says more things that would kill the Zelda franchise today than would actually help it in that very article. There's no denying that his push for new gameplay systems is great, one of the most positive qualities of Nintendo's output in general, but that's also something he's consistently wanted in pretty much every series he's partaked in. So saying "but Miyamoto wasn't happy with this" doesn't tell us that much, he came from a different era where hits were turned out in a month.
2. No, Zelda 1 did not let you do the dungeons in any order. The first half of the game is extremely non-linear, then the second half starts requiring items from the first half for you to finish dungeons. Effectively, you make "sets" of what dungeon order you do. I.E. dungeons A, B, C, D can be done in any order, whereas E, F, G, and H require you to match with A-D. Like A-E, C-F, etc. A Link to the Past is pretty much the opposite of this, where parts of the Dark World's dungeon order is effectively non-linear (especially if you got certain overworld items early)
3. The idea that Wind Waker's biggest problem wasn't that it was ideologically opposed to the trends of the Western gaming market at the time because of its art style and was rather that it wasn't new enough doesn't really track with reality. That entire era had Nintendo caught with their pants down, it was an era where Miyamoto thought removing the peace sign from Mario would make Sunshine appeal to a mature demographic. And it's not like we don't have information to back this up, it was straight up the only era where Nintendo was actively insecure of their brand image, going as far as to do deals with Capcom and try and make mature series with Geist, Eternal Darkness, and marketing Metroid like never before. Not to mention the aforementioned Miyamoto quote. None of this is to say that if Nintendo theoretically made Wind Waker a game like Breath of the Wild, it wouldn't have done better Toon styled or not. But not only was Wind Waker already partially an attempt at that (with the open sea), but that's just not the reality we live in, and the data/quotes we have suggest it had way more to do with Wind Waker's art style than anything. Even the part of the article that tries to deny this is frankly the only part of the article that's terribly written, they source an Aonuma quote where he basically says making a new Zelda is about adding a little bit of new things but keeping the old appeal in tact ... and the article admits that the latter was the problem in America due to the art style, which the article also says is Zelda's biggest market, so ... ? Just seemed like a case of the writer trying to say "BUT ACTUALLY" and failing (there's no denying that gamer drift was very real for Zelda in Japan, though). Their conclusion doesn't really follow their interjection.
4. The article doesn't even say they were thinking of cancelling Zelda, it says they were thinking of putting it on ice. These are two different things, but also, it's pretty safe to assume that Nintendo's business decisions during the Gamecube era weren't the best, and Nintendo almost putting Zelda on ice wasn't a logical consideration.
5. Going back to point #3, I'm not sure why we keep ignoring market contexts when talking about these games. Skyward Sword and Wind Waker's failures have a lot to do with the momentum of their consoles, the response to art styles, etc.

Well, I have 425 hours in BOTW, have 100%ed both modes and still find the combat encounters more complex and engaging than any other game in the series. And I'm pretty sure I'd have gotten nowhere just mashing B, but then I'm more a systems exploit type gamer and I realize creative problem solving isn't a gameplay approach that appeals to everyone.

I don't get it, either. Breath of the Wild is much more challenging and sophisticated than I think a lot of people give it credit for. I don't do crazy twitter-clip levels of gameplay, but get a few blood moons in and you'll surely have to do more than just mash B.

 

[RDragon]

I don't get it, either. Breath of the Wild is much more challenging and sophisticated than I think a lot of people give it credit for. I don't do crazy twitter-clip levels of gameplay, but get a few blood moons in and you'll surely have to do more than just mash B.

What can I say, I didn't find Breath of the Wild hard outside of the first twenty or so hours and most of that is Link having no defense and no stamina so you die falling off cliffs and arrows. And the difficulty drops off a cliff harder than any Zelda game I have ever played once you get some hearts and decent armor. So yeah, went through most of the game pressing one button if I wasn't throwing bombs. Really, the game shouldn't have given you endless bombs.

 

[AngryAlchemist]

What can I say, I didn't find Breath of the Wild hard outside of the first twenty or so hours and most of that is Link having no defense and no stamina so you die falling off cliffs and arrows. And the difficulty drops off a cliff harder than any Zelda game I have ever played once you get some hearts and decent armor. So yeah, went through most of the game pressing one button if I wasn't throwing bombs. Really, the game shouldn't have given you endless bombs.

And that's perfectly fine if that's your opinion. I personally don't think most Zeldas are that hard, but outside of 1, 2, and ALTTP, I can't imagine ranking any of them as harder, or at least having more depth in their combat, than BOTW. Breath of the Wild at least has thunderblight ganon, blood moons to keep you on your toes, and a few difficult parts in the beginning of the game. A lot of Zelda games start easy and get even easier. Just talking about combat ofc.

 

[fiendcode]

What can I say, I didn't find Breath of the Wild hard outside of the first twenty or so hours and most of that is Link having no defense and no stamina so you die falling off cliffs and arrows. And the difficulty drops off a cliff harder than any Zelda game I have ever played once you get some hearts and decent armor. So yeah, went through most of the game pressing one button if I wasn't throwing bombs. Really, the game shouldn't have given you endless bombs.

Oh, so you didn't fight any Lynels, Guardians, Hinox, Lava/Frost talus, gold/silver enemies in general or actual Bosses then?

 

[RDragon]

And that's perfectly fine if that's your opinion. I personally don't think most Zeldas are that hard, but outside of 1, 2, and ALTTP, I can't imagine ranking any of them as harder, or at least having more depth in their combat, than BOTW. Breath of the Wild at least has thunderblight ganon, blood moons to keep you on your toes, and a few difficult parts in the beginning of the game. A lot of Zelda games start easy and get even easier. Just talking about combat ofc.

It wasn't about being hard, so much as Breath of the Wild's difficulty is overstated, imo. Also Link to the Past isn't hard either even when I played it as a kid unless you mean the ice dungeon. Blood Moon does nothing but revive enemies you killed, although having a blood moon after you slaughter a camp is funny. Thunderblight is legit hard, he's harder than the final boss for reasons. Which brings up another issue, the bosses were pretty boring outside of Thunderblight to the point I hardly remember them.

Oh, so you didn't fight any Lynels, Guardians, Hinox, Lava/Frost talus, gold/silver enemies in general or actual Bosses then?

I fought all of them including the DLC. Guardians are a joke once you get the shied bash down (which the game made easier thanks to the save system), Hinox died to bombs (really shouldn't have given me endless bombs), Talus are hard at first but go down easily once you learn their gimmick, and Lynels is like a rhythm game. Get the pace and they fold. I even learned to switch armor in the middle of the fight when I was being playful. And to make things even easier, they gave me a weapon that freezes enemies once you upgrade it.

 

[AngryAlchemist]

Oh, so you didn't fight any Lynels, Guardians, Hinox, Lava/Frost talus, gold/silver enemies in general or actual Bosses then?

The endless bombs thing in particular is a funny point. I remember I got to the part where you go the village near the sea, which is fairly early on. I did one of the shrines near it that is a major test of strength, and after degrading all my weapons and the Guardian being down to like, 20% health, I still couldn't kill it after like 30 bombs. It actually got to the point where it was so repetitive I just let it kill me, because the default bombs did so little damage without being upgraded.

It wasn't about being hard, so much as Breath of the Wild's difficulty is overstated, imo. Also Link to the Past isn't hard either even when I played it as a kid unless you mean the ice dungeon. Blood Moon does nothing but revive enemies you killed, although having a blood moon after you slaughter a camp is funny. Thunderblight is legit hard, he's harder than the final boss for reasons. Which brings up another issue, the bosses were pretty boring outside of Thunderblight to the point I hardly remember them.

This is just ... what? Blood moon does do stuff, the average enemy gets stronger every blood moon. A Link to the Past, by most standards, absolutely is one of the harder Zelda games, probably one of the hardest games Nintendo made that era. Link's sword has a very small range, there's two pretty challenging enemy gauntlets in hyrule castle, it's very easy to fall down holes, etc.

Also, Breath of the Wild's difficulty being overstated ... where? Most of its detractors make the point you don't even have to engage with the combat system. Not sure how that translates to it having overstated difficulty.

 

[fiendcode]

The endless bombs thing in particular is a funny point. I remember I got to the part where you go the village near the sea, which is fairly early on. I did one of the shrines near it that is a major test of strength, and after degrading all my weapons and the Guardian being down to like, 20% health, I still couldn't kill it after like 30 bombs. It actually got to the point where it was so repetitive I just let it kill me, because the default bombs did so little damage without being upgraded.

Yeah, bombs are definitely fun to use but their damage is low and they're more useful throwing smaller enemies and mobs for the most part (mainly the kind of enemies you also kill "just pressing B"). Although I do love sending those moblins flying off their forts, lol. They're also good for the nighttime keese swarms, so many kills and wings to pick up in one shot.

 

[RDragon]

This is just ... what? Blood moon does do stuff, the average enemy gets stronger every blood moon. A Link to the Past, by most standards, absolutely is one of the harder Zelda games, probably one of the hardest games Nintendo made that era. Link's sword has a very small range, there's two pretty challenging enemy gauntlets in hyrule castle, it's very easy to fall down holes, etc.

Also, Breath of the Wild's difficulty being overstated ... where? Most of its detractors make the point you don't even have to engage with the combat system. Not sure how that translates to it having overstated difficulty.

If they did get stronger, I didn't notice outside of the enemies changing colors. Link to the Past wasn't hard for me and I beat it when I was elementary school. So did my dad who barely played games.

I have seen plenty people call it one of the hardest if not hardest Zelda game, mostly because Breath of the Wild has the hardest beginning.

The endless bombs thing in particular is a funny point. I remember I got to the part where you go the village near the sea, which is fairly early on. I did one of the shrines near it that is a major test of strength, and after degrading all my weapons and the Guardian being down to like, 20% health, I still couldn't kill it after like 30 bombs. It actually got to the point where it was so repetitive I just let it kill me, because the default bombs did so little damage without being upgraded.

30 bombs is nothing since again, they're endless. Patience is your friend. I also beat a hard Shine that broke all my weapons too. Probably the most fun I had in Breath of the Wild. No weapons, used all my healing items, limited hearts. Got my heart pumping and felt so good taking it down.

 

[Ishaan]

The idea that Wind Waker's biggest problem wasn't that it was ideologically opposed to the trends of the Western gaming market at the time because of its art style and was rather that it wasn't new enough doesn't really track with reality. That entire era had Nintendo caught with their pants down, it was an era where Miyamoto thought removing the peace sign from Mario would make Sunshine appeal to a mature demographic. And it's not like we don't have information to back this up, it was straight up the only era where Nintendo was actively insecure of their brand image, going as far as to do deals with Capcom and try and make mature series with Geist, Eternal Darkness, and marketing Metroid like never before. Not to mention the aforementioned Miyamoto quote. None of this is to say that if Nintendo theoretically made Wind Waker a game like Breath of the Wild, it wouldn't have done better Toon styled or not. But not only was Wind Waker already partially an attempt at that (with the open sea), but that's just not the reality we live in, and the data/quotes we have suggest it had way more to do with Wind Waker's art style than anything. Even the part of the article that tries to deny this is frankly the only part of the article that's terribly written, they source an Aonuma quote where he basically says making a new Zelda is about adding a little bit of new things but keeping the old appeal in tact ... and the article admits that the latter was the problem in America due to the art style, which the article also says is Zelda's biggest market, so ... ? Just seemed like a case of the writer trying to say "BUT ACTUALLY" and failing (there's no denying that gamer drift was very real for Zelda in Japan, though). Their conclusion doesn't really follow their interjection.

You may have misunderstood that article. The article isn't saying that the cel-shaded style wasn't primarily responsible for Wind Waker's poor reception, it's simply noting that when you remove something people like about a popular game—in this case the more eerie, melancholic art style of Ocarina of Time—whatever else you do needs to compensate for the loss of the thing you took out. However, TWW didn't really add much new to the formula, with the end result being that the biggest change to the game was one that was overwhelmingly negatively received.

The article is a summary of a specific series of events outlined in The Legend of Zelda - A Complete Development History, which follows the extremely complex history of both Zelda and Nintendo over the course of a good 30 years. Both the article and the development history dissertation/book were penned by me. I penned the dissertation over the course of four years after reading, cataloguing, and contextualizing hundreds of developer interviews and behind-the-scenes materials. There's a lot more context to be found there.

 

[BTB123]

This is just ... what? Blood moon does do stuff, the average enemy gets stronger every blood moon.

That is false. Blood moons just revive all dead enemies. They don't change anything.

 

[Ishaan]

This thread really feels like it's turning unnecessarily antagonistic. I don't even know what the premise of it is anymore.

Is the premise that adding traditional dungeons to TOTK would move the needle in terms of sales? I think any reasonable person that understands why BOTW was successful would be willing to admit that it wouldn't. I don't know if we need several pages of passive aggressiveness to agree on that point.

Zelda has always been a game that has tried to make its world as interactive as possible, right from Zelda 1 to BOTW. The difference is that back in the day, that interactivity was in the form of pre-scripted, context-specific events, whereas it is now in the form of realtime, emergent gameplay. In that sense, Zelda's values remain the same as ever and have simply evolved with the times.

 

[fiendcode]

That is false. Blood moons just revive all dead enemies. They don't change anything.

They do upgrade enemies when you've reached certain XP thresholds. And to keep things balanced weapon drops also upgrade alongside them, so you get access to better stuff.

Basically the more enemies you kill, the stronger the revived enemies will be. At the end of my regular mode run red and even blue enemies were mainly scarce or gone from Hyrule.

People don't realize it but BOTW is actually the second real Action RPG in the series, it's just that the XP system is hidden and rather than advancing your avatar it advances the world around them.

 

[AngryAlchemist]

You may have misunderstood that article. The article isn't saying that the cel-shaded style wasn't primarily responsible for Wind Waker's poor reception, it's simply noting that when you remove something people like about a popular game—in this case the more eerie, melancholic art style of Ocarina of Time—whatever else you do needs to compensate for the loss of the thing you took out. However, TWW didn't really add much new to the formula, with the end result being that the biggest change to the game was one that was overwhelmingly negatively received.

No, I understood what the article was getting at. It was saying that if you take away something, you have to add something new and appealing in return to boost sales. What I did misread is that you were interjecting that it wasn't solely the issue, which is true. I apologize, that one word does change the context quite a bit! I didn't mean to come off as rude, like I implied the rest of the article was still great to read even when I wrote that comment. However, I still think the interjection implies a bit too much that the issue was innovation, when it also goes on to say that Wind Waker's problem in it's greatest market was the art style, and when we know from sales that Twilight Princess was the most successful Zelda game after that was fixed. It is just a strange sidepoint to use as an interjection to art style when ... you know ... the game that "fixed" the art style issue outsold both of the DS Zelda's that were meant to combat gamer-drift.

That is false. Blood moons just revive all dead enemies. They don't change anything.

I always see inconsistent reporting on this. So I'm not sure what's true at this point. Don't enemies in Breath of the Wild sometimes level up to a harder version if you've killed them enough times? And the only way that they can achieve that level up is by respawning, which is done by the blood moon. That's why you'll notice harder Bokoblins in areas you've already been in if you return to them later in the game.


https://www.polygon.com/zelda-breat...d-moon-effects-duration-weapons-items-enemies

Harder to notice, though, is a subtler mechanic tied to the Blood Moon. Over time, as you repeatedly kill the same enemies, they come back tougher. That low-level red bokoblin that you killed might come back as a stronger blue bokoblin. This series of evolutions generally runs red, blue, black, then silver, though this isn’t true for all enemies — there’s no silver hinox, for example. It’s not just that the enemies are tougher, though. They’re also better equipped — which is good news for you and your looting.

There's also youtube videos on it. Basically, Breath of the Wild has a hidden XP system that changes how tough enemies are. But enemies only respawn with Blood Moons, so the Blood Moon essentially is what changes enemy levels.

 

[fiendcode]

Big reddit post that details BOTW's XP system:

 

[AngryAlchemist]

This thread really feels like it's turning unnecessarily antagonistic. I don't even know what the premise of it is anymore.

Eh, besides my comment about the article, which was only about that specific portion is on me and I admit that and apologize, I don't really feel it's that antagonistic. Just people sharing their experiences.

I do agree that the premise is a bit odd. It's because the reason for the thread essentially came about as people nitpicking finer points in Zelda's sales evolution, not the final impact of its innovation with Breath of the Wild. It's very hard, basically impossible, to argue that Breath of the Wild's sales didn't come from innovation, or from recognizing the core appeal of the series. It made sense to make the thread at the time, but with the trajectory of Zelda being very hard to argue against, it's essentially just arguing over smaller points relating to sales of the past.

That being said, I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing.

 

[Old sorta fan]

Eh, besides my comment about the article, which was only about that specific portion is on me and I admit that and apologize, I don't really feel it's that antagonistic. Just people sharing their experiences.

I do agree that the premise is a bit odd. It's because the reason for the thread essentially came about as people nitpicking finer points in Zelda's sales evolution, not the final impact of its innovation with Breath of the Wild. It's very hard, basically impossible, to argue that Breath of the Wild's sales didn't come from innovation, or from recognizing the core appeal of the series. It made sense to make the thread at the time, but with the trajectory of Zelda being very hard to argue against, it's essentially just arguing over smaller points relating to sales of the past.

That being said, I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing.

I'm enjoying it. I thank everyone for contributing and look forward to learning and discussing more.

 

[awng782]

I know that going open world is a popular trend recently, but being linear did not inherently limit the appeal of older Zelda titles.

 

[BTB123]

They do upgrade enemies when you've reached certain XP thresholds. And to keep things balanced weapon drops also upgrade alongside them, so you get access to better stuff.

Basically the more enemies you kill, the stronger the revived enemies will be. At the end of my regular mode run red and even blue enemies were mainly scarce or gone from Hyrule.

People don't realize it but BOTW is actually the second real Action RPG in the series, it's just that the XP system is hidden and rather than advancing your avatar it advances the world around them.

I know all this. It's not the blood moons specifically that upgrade stuff but you killing monsters.

 

[Ishaan]

However, I still think the interjection implies a bit too much that the issue was innovation, when it also goes on to say that Wind Waker's problem in it's greatest market was the art style, and when we know from sales that Twilight Princess was the most successful Zelda game after that was fixed. It is just a strange sidepoint to use as an interjection to art style when ... you know ... the game that "fixed" the art style issue outsold both of the DS Zelda's that were meant to combat gamer-drift.

So, there are two reasons that a lack innovation is mentioned as a possible secondary factor in the case of Wind Waker's sales:

1. If you look at the next decade of Zelda games that followed, TWW ends up being the first of the 3D Zeldas that was overly reliant on the structure Ocarina of Time had established. That's where their inability to break away from the "conventions of Zelda" (their words) began. As you pointed out yourself, it is entirely possible that if TWW had made different or bolder choices in the realm of gameplay (or even taken place on land with horseback riding etc. etc.), it may have compensated for the visual style to some degree.

2. A few years later we got Phantom Hourglass, which is essentially "Wind Waker 2" and a game that Nintendo considers an irrefutable success. Now, Phantom Hourglass didn't sell a whole lot more than Wind Waker did, but it was developed on a lower budget and managed to innovate in a bold new way that drew new players (namely women and children) to it. PH is a more confident product than TWW in that sense, because it knew the audience it was aiming for from day one and successfully courted it, leading to it seeing gains in Japan over every other Zelda since Ocarina.

On the subject of whether or not "traditional" Zeldas still have a place in this day and age... I think they do, but with some major changes. The problem with traditional Zeldas today isn't just their linearity, but also their lack of mobility and player agency. In that regard, I think games like Sekiro and ReCore were both more successful at capturing the essence of a traditional Zelda title than The Wind Waker and Skyward Sword.

 

[Tokuiten]

I have over 180 hours in Breath of the Wild, thank you, and I have gotten very far just pressing one button in Breath of the Wild. After playing Skyward Sword and many other action games Breath of the Wild's combat is very shallow.

To me flexibility isn't complex. A complex battle system to me is something like Xenoblade Chronicles series, SMT, Bayonetta, and Astra Chains. A battle system that requires me to pay attention and learn the enemies' movements and actions. Breath of the Wild have flexibility, but the game does nothing to push you to learning the combat system outside of swinging your sword. Which is again, you can literally beat the entire game pressing one button.

This is all to say, you're never going to sell me on Breath of the Wild having a complex battle system. It works, it's fun, and gives you a lot of cool options, but that's about it. I honestly got bored with the combat and stop engaging in it outside of bosses.

I have 84 years in Breath of the Wild (this is a humorous stab at the "i have played game x for more hours than you, thus my opinion has more validity!!11" posts above ;>) and how is Xenoblade's battle system complex in the slightest?! Xenoblade 2, yes, it's the only entry that offers meaningful depth. But XB1 and XBX suffer from repeating the same unresponsive attacks over and over (even if you choose to play as Melia in XB1, it's the same spell combo over and over again), and XB3's biggest flaw is that despite having many systems for combat, none of it matters (min-max experts aside). XB3's combat is complicated, but not complex.

And if you refuse to acknowledge the bolded, then this whole argument is based on you dismissing the definition of complexity. Flexibility in combat is exactly that. It's also why I agree with @Ishaan's posting above (not directly above, the one prior) and I mean it negatively against Elden Ring: BotW's combat is more complex than ER's. All the thousands of crazy youtube clips are proof of that. Being able to tackle enemies in hundreds of different ways, that is complexity. What you're doing: Link has a sword and that's the only tool that counts. For reasons, you don't allow all the other tools that exist in BotW. It honestly reads like trolling to me when you say "I got bored with the combat" and then cite those other games that have you use the same 2-3 combos for 30-50 hours. BotW constantly introduces new ways to engage in combat and even then you will find new ways by watching youtube videos. If that isn't complexity, I truly don't know what is.

 

[RDragon]

I have 84 years in Breath of the Wild (this is a humorous stab at the "i have played game x for more hours than you, thus my opinion has more validity!!11" posts above ;>) and how is Xenoblade's battle system complex in the slightest?! Xenoblade 2, yes, it's the only entry that offers meaningful depth. But XB1 and XBX suffer from repeating the same unresponsive attacks over and over (even if you choose to play as Melia in XB1, it's the same spell combo over and over again), and XB3's biggest flaw is that despite having many systems for combat, none of it matters (min-max experts aside). XB3's combat is complicated, but not complex.

And if you refuse to acknowledge the bolded, then this whole argument is based on you dismissing the definition of complexity. Flexibility in combat is exactly that. It's also why I agree with @Ishaan's posting above (not directly above, the one prior) and I mean it negatively against Elden Ring: BotW's combat is more complex than ER's. All the thousands of crazy youtube clips are proof of that. Being able to tackle enemies in hundreds of different ways, that is complexity. What you're doing: Link has a sword and that's the only tool that counts. For reasons, you don't allow all the other tools that exist in BotW. It honestly reads like trolling to me when you say "I got bored with the combat" and then cite those other games that have you use the same 2-3 combos for 30-50 hours. BotW constantly introduces new ways to engage in combat and even then you will find new ways by watching youtube videos. If that isn't complexity, I truly don't know what is.

In Xenoblade Chronicles 1, you had to pay attention to your positioning if you're using a character like Shulk since he gets bonuses from attacking from the side, front, or back. You also want to keep an eye out for Break so you can Topple and Daze. Later, enemies get the infamous Spike attack which can trigger extra damage, put you to sleep, or leave you daze with some enemies not having Spike until you Topple them. During Shulk's visions state, you have a limited amount of time to act. You then have character like Melia who is one of the strongest characters in the game, as long as you control her because her CPU sucks and Melia plays very differently compared to other characters in the game.

And this is just the first game that had by far the simplest battle system in the series. Xenoblade Chronicles has a battle system that encourages you to pay attention by watching your positioning, how to act on Shulk's visions, dealing with Spike, and when to Chain Attack since you Chain Attack Gauge was linked to how many times you can revive a fallen ally. So if you Chain Attack and someone dies, you had to endure until you get at least one more Gauge.

As for Xenoblade Chronicles 3, it is easily far more complex and involved than Xenoblade Chronicles 2. Because of the different class combos, different Heroes, how many defenders/healers/attackers do you need, ect. If you're just going through Normal difficulty, then these choices are downplayed, but as someone who played Xenoblade Chronicles 3 on Hard from the start, so no New Game +, those choices matters especially if you're fighting Unique Monsters. I remember more than once getting into 20 minute battles with Unique Monsters despite being five to eight level higher and still wiping out. Which forced me to rework my team comp. Like I learn fast that some bosses you shouldn't use the Break/Topple/Launch/Slam combo since they become enrage and eventually wipe my team and instead I should use the Break/Topple/Daze/Bust combo to knock them out of their enrage state which takes the pressure off. Or that I needed three healers instead of my standard two on top of given Noah the accessory to revive fallen allies despite his class. And it becomes close to a requirement to learn how to absolutely abuse Noah and his Lucky Seven combos on a lot of those later Unique Monsters. I also can't tell you how many blind play throughs I saw with people getting wiped out on story bosses on Normal because they never bothered to fully learn the Class system.


Breath of the Wild's combat is more flexible, but very few people are going to say that Breath of the Wild's combat is more complex than Elden Ring. Especially a battle system that you can pretty much ignore until the mandatory boss battle.

It honestly reads like trolling to me when you say "I got bored with the combat" and then cite those other games that have you use the same 2-3 combos for 30-50 hours.

Saying that you used the same "2-3 combos for 30-50 hours" in games like Bayonetta and Astra Chains (50 hours in Astra Chain and over 100 hours between all three Bayonetta games playing Normal to Hard) tells me that you never played them or you played on Easy and button mash. And yes, I indeed got bored with Breath of the Wild's battle system. If you think I'm trolling, fine. I don't really care.

If that isn't complexity, I truly don't know what is.

You already told me when you claim that you use the same two to three combos in games like Bayonetta and Astra Chains that your experience in game combat is pretty limited.

 

[AngryAlchemist]

So, there are two reasons that a lack innovation is mentioned as a possible secondary factor in the case of Wind Waker's sales:

1. If you look at the next decade of Zelda games that followed, TWW ends up being the first of the 3D Zeldas that was overly reliant on the structure Ocarina of Time had established. That's where their inability to break away from the "conventions of Zelda" (their words) began. As you pointed out yourself, it is entirely possible that if TWW had made different or bolder choices in the realm of gameplay (or even taken place on land with horseback riding etc. etc.), it may have compensated for the visual style to some degree.

2. A few years later we got Phantom Hourglass, which is essentially "Wind Waker 2" and a game that Nintendo considers an irrefutable success. Now, Phantom Hourglass didn't sell a whole lot more than Wind Waker did, but it was developed on a lower budget and managed to innovate in a bold new way that drew new players (namely women and children) to it. PH is a more confident product than TWW in that sense, because it knew the audience it was aiming for from day one and successfully courted it, leading to it seeing gains in Japan over every other Zelda since Ocarina.

On the subject of whether or not "traditional" Zeldas still have a place in this day and age... I think they do, but with some major changes. The problem with traditional Zeldas today isn't just their linearity, but also their lack of mobility and player agency. In that regard, I think games like Sekiro and ReCore were both more successful at capturing the essence of a traditional Zelda title than The Wind Waker and Skyward Sword.

Yeah, I agree with this, and sort of assumed it was what you meant after I realized my original mistake. Thank you for the clarification.

 

[BTB123]

Astra Chains Astra Chain

Astra Chains

The game is called Astral Chain.

 

[Agent42]

So, there are two reasons that a lack innovation is mentioned as a possible secondary factor in the case of Wind Waker's sales:

1. If you look at the next decade of Zelda games that followed, TWW ends up being the first of the 3D Zeldas that was overly reliant on the structure Ocarina of Time had established. That's where their inability to break away from the "conventions of Zelda" (their words) began. As you pointed out yourself, it is entirely possible that if TWW had made different or bolder choices in the realm of gameplay (or even taken place on land with horseback riding etc. etc.), it may have compensated for the visual style to some degree.

2. A few years later we got Phantom Hourglass, which is essentially "Wind Waker 2" and a game that Nintendo considers an irrefutable success. Now, Phantom Hourglass didn't sell a whole lot more than Wind Waker did, but it was developed on a lower budget and managed to innovate in a bold new way that drew new players (namely women and children) to it. PH is a more confident product than TWW in that sense, because it knew the audience it was aiming for from day one and successfully courted it, leading to it seeing gains in Japan over every other Zelda since Ocarina.

On the subject of whether or not "traditional" Zeldas still have a place in this day and age... I think they do, but with some major changes. The problem with traditional Zeldas today isn't just their linearity, but also their lack of mobility and player agency. In that regard, I think games like Sekiro and ReCore were both more successful at capturing the essence of a traditional Zelda title than The Wind Waker and Skyward Sword.

A better example of this direction was the GDC you mentioned before.



The base of the game, the prototype was basic the Legend of Zelda 1, which denied this inspiration try denied reality.

 

[Old sorta fan]

So, there are two reasons that a lack innovation is mentioned as a possible secondary factor in the case of Wind Waker's sales:

1. If you look at the next decade of Zelda games that followed, TWW ends up being the first of the 3D Zeldas that was overly reliant on the structure Ocarina of Time had established. That's where their inability to break away from the "conventions of Zelda" (their words) began. As you pointed out yourself, it is entirely possible that if TWW had made different or bolder choices in the realm of gameplay (or even taken place on land with horseback riding etc. etc.), it may have compensated for the visual style to some degree.

2. A few years later we got Phantom Hourglass, which is essentially "Wind Waker 2" and a game that Nintendo considers an irrefutable success. Now, Phantom Hourglass didn't sell a whole lot more than Wind Waker did, but it was developed on a lower budget and managed to innovate in a bold new way that drew new players (namely women and children) to it. PH is a more confident product than TWW in that sense, because it knew the audience it was aiming for from day one and successfully courted it, leading to it seeing gains in Japan over every other Zelda since Ocarina.

On the subject of whether or not "traditional" Zeldas still have a place in this day and age... I think they do, but with some major changes. The problem with traditional Zeldas today isn't just their linearity, but also their lack of mobility and player agency. In that regard, I think games like Sekiro and ReCore were both more successful at capturing the essence of a traditional Zelda title than The Wind Waker and Skyward Sword.

Does Nintendo consider Spirit Tracks to be a business success? Was it made for a similar budget as Phantom Hourglass? I never played it and haven’t paid attention to its sales as I was pretty over the 2000’s 3D Zelda formula by then. I also disliked the forced stealth elements in Phantom Hourglass*




* (I don’t like video game stealth in general as I don’t like waiting for some enemy to turn around. It’s a waste of time to me. I liked Breath of the Wild’s stealth more as it had to do with being quiet as it did staying outside of sight. It’s sort of like @RDragon ’s dislike for Breath of the Wild’s flexibility. It’s not that it’s not good as it’s just a matter of personal taste.)

 

[Ishaan]

Does Nintendo consider Spirit Tracks to be a business success? Was it made for a similar budget as Phantom Hourglass? I never played it and haven’t paid attention to its sales as I was pretty over the 2000’s 3D Zelda formula by then. I also disliked the forced stealth elements in Phantom Hourglass*




* (I don’t like video game stealth in general as I don’t like waiting for some enemy to turn around. It’s a waste of time to me. I liked Breath of the Wild’s stealth more as it had to do with being quiet as it did staying outside of sight. It’s sort of like @RDragon ’s dislike for Breath of the Wild’s flexibility. It’s not that it’s not good as it’s just a matter of personal taste.)

I would imagine they were disappointed by Spirit Tracks' sales. It sold less than 3 million units worldwide, and even if it was developed on a Nintendo DS budget, I'd imagine they were hoping for more.

Over in Japan, the game was overshipped at launch (600k units), only sold through half that, and was discounted very quickly by retailers. It eventually went on to sell 740k, but most of those copies were sold at bargain bin prices. Also, DS piracy had really hit its stride by then, which also contributed to ST's weak global sales. On the whole, I can't imagine they were pleased with how the game did, but a lot of it also comes down to market/platform conditions at the time.

 

[Terrell]

No, you'd ruin a successful formula to appease a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a vocal minority that only exists on video game forums.

Breath of the Wild's gameplay is a carefully balanced system. A perfect example is weapon degradation. If you got rid of it, players would just keep one weapon and there wouldn't be any real sense of survival or preserving and consuming resources. Weapons are meant to be transient resources like food or ammo that and are to be managed as such.

If you put in locks and keys, those keys would not be able to degrade and be consumed. They'd become a plot MacGuffin and detract from the player making his or her own adventure. They'd become things you need to get rather than a resource you manage to tame a hostile world.

You can't go back. If you go back a little bit, you make the game linear. If you make it linear, you burn the 20+ million new fans (and old fans like me where were sick of the linearity) you made with the open air gameplay.

How is any of what was suggested previously adding linearity? LoZ1 could see one with an excess of keys even before collecting the Magical Key that unlocks all doors (which, hey, maybe bring that back, or instead of it being a magic key, make it a lockpick). Locked doors do not demand linearity any more than something like Korok Seeds do. Locked doors introducing linearity would be utterly dependent on what you put behind a locked door and whether it’s the only way to get there. It is totally flexible based on design. And I have a bit more faith in Aonuma, Fujibayashi and the dev team to make something that invokes the essence of dungeons (that game system synthesis I mentioned) without eroding the overall design principles of what they’ve created. Not to say they will, but they could, if they wanted to.
Literally anything beyond “the same but more of it” is going to risk fan attrition, and even doing that isn't exactly a guarantee when it comes to retaining that large of a consumer base, especially in the long term. There's no sense in treating BotW too preciously.

I think we'd do well to remember that every feature you add to a game has a development time and cost associated with it. Adding traditional Zelda dungeons into a BOTW-like structure as optional content takes time and effort away from potentially leaning even harder into existing/new "multiplicative" systems that would push BOTW's innovations even further, for instance.

So… what constitutes “traditional”? Because there has been some variability in how dungeons were handled even within the series itself. I’ve made a point of not using the word and instead picking design elements from prior titles that do not warrant being brought forward because of how they are antithetical to contemporary (read: BotW) design and those that could be successfully integrated into it.

And considering BotW has reached enough sales that it nearly eclipses 3 of the prior best-selling Zelda games of all time, dev time and cost is really not a concern I consider, because they were going to increase regardless, nor is something being "optional" made out to be a waste of resources when half or more of the last game as it was designed is "optional", as well.

Designing follow-ups to BotW in a way that continues to engage and entertain the much larger audience it garnered is not going to be an easy task, no matter what they try. But at least there's some prior core competencies they can lean on to create more content while ignoring the parts that simply do not fit.

 

[Ishaan]

Designing follow-ups to BotW in a way that continues to engage and entertain the much larger audience it garnered is not going to be an easy task, no matter what they try. But at least there's some prior core competencies they can lean on to create more content while ignoring the parts that simply do not fit.

That is the challenge, yeah. People are obviously going to have different opinions on how to go about it, but I'd say the core of Breath of the Wild is the near-constant sense of discovery and spontaneity. Just about everything within its world is interactive in some manner, and there are so many possible permutations and combinations that it makes BOTW the ultimate "fuck around and find out" action-adventure game.

Based on the limited footage we've seen of TOTK's vehicle-building and time-reversal systems, you get the sense that they do want to lean harder into this interactivity and spontaneity, and give the player even more ways to "live" in that world without necessarily having to fight enemies or solve set puzzles or any of the other usual activities you would traditionally spend your time on. In some ways, Zelda feels like it's slowly evolving into a simulation game.

Maybe we'll eventually get to the point where the simulation aspect is just as prevalent as the action-adventure aspect, with future games allowing you to influence and change their worlds in even more drastic ways. Building/razing entire towns, maybe shaping landforms, creating trade routes, managing supplies etc. etc. There's a lot that they could explore in that regard and it would all be in the spirit of older Zeldas and their desire to create a world the player could live in.

 

[Agent42]

This thread really feels like it's turning unnecessarily antagonistic. I don't even know what the premise of it is anymore.

Is the premise that adding traditional dungeons to TOTK would move the needle in terms of sales? I think any reasonable person that understands why BOTW was successful would be willing to admit that it wouldn't. I don't know if we need several pages of passive aggressiveness to agree on that point.

Zelda has always been a game that has tried to make its world as interactive as possible, right from Zelda 1 to BOTW. The difference is that back in the day, that interactivity was in the form of pre-scripted, context-specific events, whereas it is now in the form of realtime, emergent gameplay. In that sense, Zelda's values remain the same as ever and have simply evolved with the times.

Your understanding of the Zelda series was profound. Have some different visions from other games and some market analysis, but Zelda has great similarities. Fujibayashi director of Botw was fundamental to move the direction of more emergent gameplay.

 

[ILikeFeet]

now that we'll get some gameplay tomorrow, we might be able to put some of this discussion behind us

 

[storres]

now that we'll get some gameplay tomorrow, we might be able to put some of this discussion behind us

We will move to the "I'll wait for Drake"

 

[Thiefcoal]

now that we'll get some gameplay tomorrow, we might be able to put some of this discussion behind us

So that everyone stays mad, it should be 10 minutes of Aounama doing wheelies in the great plateau.

 

[Malden]

I'm looking forward to 10 minutes of Miyamoto climbing trees

 

[Ishaan]

Both nervous and excited to see what's on show today, haha. We're finally going to get our first glimpse of what this game actually is.