- Invitation Status
- Posting Speed
- One post per week
- Slow As Molasses
- Preferred Character Gender
- No Preferences
Except that it isn't just a technology thing. Changing from a top-down perspective 2D game to a free-roaming 3D game involves a lot more than just aesthetic changes. It completely changes the way dungeons work and how the game is played. O_o It's entirely possible to have massively updated graphics and still essentially have top-down graphics on a grid, where the only thing '3D' about it is just a visual change as opposed to massively changing the gameplay. I mean, Pokemon did it. Gen IV advertised a new 3D look, and the graphics were definitely improved a lot from the series' origins, but your movement in that game is still very similar to Gen I. This is not at all the difference between original LoZ and OoT, where the way you move and the layout of the land is all very different.
>_> Except not all the games have shifting mechanics. I only used them because they were good examples of massively different gameplay modes. A few games that do not include shifting mechanics include: the original LoZ, Zelda II, Skyward Sword, and probably others -- although I haven't played every Zelda game, so I don't want to speak for examples that I haven't played. My point is that, between the ones that I've played, I feel like they've all been a lot more diverse than Pokemon or Mario games.
And I'd say that saying "they all involve shifting" is still too surface-level for me to really say "it's all the same". Like, yeah, you can transform link into different things, but the things you transform into all bring some very different gameplay modes. The experience of giving up your sword and other weapons so that you can sniff things out with your wolf nose and dig to get through places that human Link can't feels very different from the experience of going back in time to turn into child Link, while child Link also has a very different version of Hyrule to explore than adult Link does, then go to an area that's only accessible in the past, and change some minute thing that creates a much bigger change when you go back to the future.
Like, yeah, they're technically both shifting mechanics, but I'd say that's still nowhere near as homogeneous as every main series Pokemon game having you catch pokemon under essentially the exact same rules, using the same types of pokeballs (plus new ones, but still), only letting you carry six pokemon at a time, transferring extras to the PC, then letting you battle those pokemon with essentially the same rules and type advantages in each game... etc.
Like, if you tried hard enough, you could boil any game series down to the same mechanics over and over. If they had nothing in common, then there's no reason for them to be a series. But Zelda and Pokemon are clearly on completely different levels in this regard.
And not to mention, not every Zelda game revolves around a shifting mechanic. For example, consider the newest upcoming game, Breath of the Wild. Some of the things it's advertising right now are things like: a huge, open game world to explore (along with implications that it's more open-ended than other Zelda games with a more linear story), taking away the thing about Link being able to get hearts from enemies and cutting down grass, instead meaning the player has to cook their own food to restore health, making the player ensure that Link is properly dressed for whatever environment he's in (as not giving Link warm enough clothes in cold places will mean that he'll lose health -- which they haven't done in other games before), etc. All of those are fairly new things for the Zelda series. Yeah, you could argue that you're still a sword-wielding dude running across Hyrule, but it still seems like they change enough things from game to game to make a lot of the gameplay experience varied enough.
Or at least, way more varied than Pokemon.
:/ Yeah, but you're still implying that keeping things the same is a flaw. A flaw that makes it not worth it to buy their games (which sends a much louder message to the actual game devs than just words alone). And you also make it sound as if Zelda is just as bad as Pokemon in the 'keeping things the same' department. Which, again, brings up the question, how much does a game have to change in order for this to not be a flaw? How should a game balance not keeping too many things the same with not changing the things that made it good? If there existed a perfect video game series that found this perfect balance, what do you think that would look like?
Also, I feel I should point out, that listing a game series like Pokemon in a thread titled "games you dislike that everyone else loves" implies that, yes, you do dislike it. :P
