Hazelnut Bastille - Link to the Past influenced

[Sarge]

Zelda fights are almost as good as Final Fantasy fights.

[Tanooki]

The amount of praise seems mostly like an adult or younger hipster rose tinted mental orgy over it being a sequel to the SNES game

I guess it depends on what someone wants in a sequel. For myself, playing practically the exact same game, except with one (stolen) twist to the old formula, wasn't enough to bowl me over. Now it's possible the ALBW late game becomes more unique and innovative, granted. But the first couple hours bored me into pure apathy.

I don't need a game to innovate, but it needs to entertain. Hell I have all 6 Megaman NES games and I never got bored of it. But this one, you nailed it in one two word phrase -- pure apathy. It made me not want to care. Sure you could go flat into cracks and it was faux open world but it was a huge re-run in a bad way to me. Sounds odd I guess as Mega Man was one huge re-run but the stages varied enough as did the weapons it somehow didn't feel as such.

Far as Zelda goes loved the 1st, SNES, Wind Waker, Link's Awakening/DX, and that's really about it. Liked Zelda 2, Ocarina, Minish Cap, Four Swords on GC. Don't hate but not a fan of Twilight, Skyward Sword as they're alright but never finished. Disliked/hated the Oracle duo, Majora with a passion, the DS first one(but bought it again to re-try it lately so that could change), Link between worlds (hate/apathy/bored)...and the others no experience with them to be fair on it at all.

[Xeogred]

I don't feel like a game always has to innovate to entertain

A game doesn't, but an umpteenth sequel really ought to.

That's why I prefaced the post with Mega Man, (though that's not even being fair to A Link Between Worlds since it's not as much a carbon copy as people diss it for.)

When you have a long running series that's gone in so many different directions you're going to have the people who want more of the same and the people who want radically different. A sequel is destined to not not please everyone.

I've noticed this gets really heated in regards to Zelda for some reason. I suppose because when one game is somebody's near religious experience and another person's pile of crap (hello Ocarina of Time) it makes people a little angry. I'm not referencing the current discussion, just musing about all of the Zelda fights I've seen throughout the years.

Yeah, once Breath of the Wild launches, Skyward Sword will become the best Zelda game ever made.

The Zelda cycle.

[Tanooki]

Sounds about right, or you fall into a camp like myself where it has been a wider margin of dissatisfaction over multiple releases in a row to where you're kind of just over it. I'm sorry to say but I'm over playing new Zelda games most likely as I get apathetic and fed up fairly quick as I don't like the changes post-Wind Waker in the least bit, especially their style of the modern open world stuff. Before that post-Ocarina it has been quit hit and miss as my faith in the franchise as a blind buy got broken years ago.

That said, love the material, the characters, the music, and the story. I'm more happy to read the zelda manga series at this rate than play the games.

[Exhuminator]

or you fall into a camp like myself where it has been a wider margin of dissatisfaction over multiple releases in a row to where you're kind of just over it

Nailed it.

[Tanooki]

Wish I hadn't, but I came to the realization some years ago with Twilight Princess. I've tried to get into a few since and my tolerance for the direction of their bs is quite thin now which is why I may likely (not certain) never get Breath of the Wind.

I've also never touched Spirit Tracks either, but do have the backtrack slog of Phantom Hourglass. I need to try the DS games again as the control was a put off, not the style of them. My shelves show console side my Zelda appreciation was good on Gamecube then died off as I've got WW, TP, 4S, and I have had the collection pack and the OOT one too. They're only gone as I have better copies otherwise.

I love what I guess is called the normal/traditional Zelda style born in the 2D era but with a few of the WW/OOT 3D elements that were added and that's really about it. So a game like Hazelnut Bastille here interests me as do others like it as they play to that and not the more newer checkered Nintendo stuff. But I do get that being younger gamers who perhaps started on N64 or later this differing status of the games is all you knew or at least started with so it fits. It's why people battle over the franchise and won't agree as Nintendo does and doesn't move on, and how they handle it may not be the best but it works fine for newer gamers certainly.

[BogusMeatFactory]

I don't feel like a game always has to innovate to entertain

A game doesn't, but an umpteenth sequel really ought to.

That's why I prefaced the post with Mega Man, (though that's not even being fair to A Link Between Worlds since it's not as much a carbon copy as people diss it for.)

When you have a long running series that's gone in so many different directions you're going to have the people who want more of the same and the people who want radically different. A sequel is destined to not not please everyone.

I've noticed this gets really heated in regards to Zelda for some reason. I suppose because when one game is somebody's near religious experience and another person's pile of crap (hello Ocarina of Time) it makes people a little angry. I'm not referencing the current discussion, just musing about all of the Zelda fights I've seen throughout the years.

I think a lot of it has to deal with how a person behaves psychologically. People come in with expectations and they live their lives with preconceived notions of how things will be. We set criteria and when it doesn't meet the criteria to a T, it is regarded as bad. We have tunnel vision, looking for what we want instead of looking to see what is presented to us. I know I am getting all abstract in my thought process, but it is what it is. A person will see Zelda as a specific thing. It is either Link to the Past or Ocarina of Time and there is no give on that conversation.

We keep having the argument of what makes a Zelda game a Zelda game and it is a silly argument because there is always another person there to fix their glasses and point out how wrong you are. It is nonsense.

As for innovation for an umpteenth sequel, I feel most games do and it is frustrating when people don't see it because again it is tunnel vision and a world of preconceived notions and self-fulfilling prophecy.

[Exhuminator]

it is frustrating when people don't see it because again it is tunnel vision and a world of preconceived notions and self-fulfilling prophecy.

I've been playing Zelda since 1987. I think having played this series for 30 years gives me a pretty good frame of reference for my "preconceived notions". There have been minor variations to the formula, embellishments here and there, but Zelda is still Zelda. The fact that it is so consistent is a positive to most, and a detriment to some.

[BogusMeatFactory]

it is frustrating when people don't see it because again it is tunnel vision and a world of preconceived notions and self-fulfilling prophecy.

I've been playing Zelda since 1987. I think having played this series for 30 years gives me a pretty good frame of reference for my "preconceived notions". There have been minor variations to the formula, embellishments here and there, but Zelda is still Zelda. The fact that it is so consistent is a positive to most, and a detriment to some.

If you feel that way, that is fine, but I disagree and that is fine too.

[Xeogred]

It weirds me out how some people can pick and choose some Zelda's, but that'd be a bit ignorant of me considering I think very little of Wind Waker (that said I think it's a case of the old saying, it's a great game on its own, but a lesser Zelda compared to others in my book). This is why I had zero comment on Oceanhorn, a Wind Waker look-a-like isn't going to sell me.

The only thing that makes sense to me that I think someone above was onto, is that maybe the strong divide comes from what somebody's first Zelda was. No idea though. For me though like I said earlier, I started from the original itself and have continued to love the franchise. I never care that the plot is often the same tropes, someone once joked to me it's almost like how various cultures have their own Flood and Bible stories, so it's like different cultures telling their own spin on a same Zelda tale haha. I thought that was a cool way to look at it (I see the "official" timeline as something comical). I guess I'm maybe in the minority that can enjoy same stories but with some alternative changes and remixes here and there. For me the selling point of Zelda has always been that it's a very gameplay heavy driven franchise and that's what I'm always going to fall back on most in games. And the whole intricately connected level and world design is always something I absolutely love. The way a Zelda game progresses with you slowly getting new items, hearts, equipment, abilities, and can start hoarding things as the game goes, is incredibly satisfying to me and I generally love other games that have similar formats.

Interesting tidbit is that I have little interest in fantasy in general. I dig it, but it's never a huge selling point for me unlike sci-fi. But I've never had any issues here with Zelda. Always a huge fan of its world and settings. Nintendo nails it everytime and they feel like their own thing.

Anyways, I still think Zelda releases are pretty special. We generally get maybe ~2 per console cycle and that keeps it fresh and exciting for me, so they're still always a big deal. Just like Metal Gear Solid or something, I love when my favorite old franchises keep going and can still knock it out of the park. It's disturbing to consider there's probably a multitude of new franchises that started around the PS2 era, that probably have more entries than Zelda combined by this point. Total overkill and over exposure, if Zelda went annual it'd kill it for me too... any franchise really. So I appreciate Nintendo's well paced consistent delivery of Zelda throughout the years. Every entry is a quality product and feels great.

I can't say I ever feel happy about Metroid's state though, since I'd call that schedule inconsistent. Some console generation will get one or some, the next won't. It's been incredibly random and unpredictable. And you can clearly tell Nintendo acts a little like the franchise was an accident that they never wanted to go too far. Perhaps Super Metroid's legacy is the only thing that kept it barely alive.