The main problem I have with the Legend of Zelda franchise.

Yes, I am aware that the Legend of Zelda franchise is one of the best-known video game franchises in existence. However, I don't believe that it's perfect in any way, shape, or form. There are a few reasons why I believe this.

---

Reason 1 - "Players cannot choose their levels at will."

I am aware that players have the option to get to certain temples in the first game. Some have completed the third before the first, and so on. I believe that this is a good selection of levels. Yes, some are mandatory before going on to others, which I dislike. I'm aware that some temples require more objects found in other temples, but I never understood this. Perhaps it's meant to guide players in the right stage order. However, now I'll explain why I really dislike the fact that players are unable to choose which stages to enter upon beginning the game.

First off, the entire plot revolves around searching the land of Hyrule and its temples in order to find the missing pieces of the Triforce. Either that, or you have to find some other object, such as a stone. You'd think that with a topic such as exploring, players would be allowed to choose any temple at will. However, in games such as "the Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time," you have to go to this particular stage, then the next stage. Then, you have to keep going on and on. Everyone who plays it will expect to play Inside the Deku Tree, Dodongo's Cavern, Inside Jabu-Jabu's Belly, the Forest Temple, the Fire Temple, the Water Temple, the Shadow Temple, the Spirit Temple, and Ganon's Castle in that particular order. Yes, I can understand playing Inside the Deku Tree first and playing Ganon's Castle last, but with a game consisting of a treasure hunting gimmick, it detracts from the quality of what it's trying to tell.

Here's why I'm really big on players having the ability to choose their own levels in video games. First off, every single time you play it, it won't feel exactly the same every time. This will give players an opportunity to play as they choose to the final stage. This feature was shown to be wonders in the Mega Man series, and it allowed many players that enjoyed the game to want to replay the game even more, as it gave a somewhat different experience each time. In games that require players to play every stage in a set order, I don't feel like playing it. I expect almost everything coming up, and if I were to get a game over on a certain level, I'd have to play the entire game over again, as shown in games like Sonic the Hedgehog for the SEGA Genesis.

In short, the games in the series would've been better off if they allowed players to choose their levels, as opposed to playing them in a set order.

Reason 2 - "The hub worlds are filler."

I am a person who wishes that hub worlds didn't exist in video games. Not only do they feel unnecessary in games actually containing actual stages, but they feel like interruptions between stages. Whenever I'm in a hub world trying to get to the next stage, I don't feel like I'm actually playing the game. I feel like I have to unlock the next stage with an unnecessary side quest, or something along those lines. It would've saved developers a lot of time, and it would've caused less frustration for players who don't know where to go. You see, this is where the stage select screen would be handy. Sure, hub worlds are meant to somewhat feel like a stage select screen, but a stage select screen allows for faster pacing and more game-play. This is noticeable in games like Sonic Adventure and Banjo-Kazooie.

So why do the hub worlds in the Legend of Zelda games detract from the game-play? Like I said, it's mainly long buffers in between levels. In the Legend of Zelda games, I consider the actual temples to be levels. For example, after I complete the Fire Temple, I do not consider any part of the game as a level until the Water Temple, not even the Ice Caverns. I feel like after I complete the Fire Temple, I should go straight to the next temple of choice. However, we are talking about hub worlds, so I'll get back on track.

Do you know how large Hyrule Field is in all of the earliest games within the franchise? First time players will most likely need a map to play the first one, and Hyrule Field is just so open and boring to walk to. I especially hate having to walk all the way from Lake Hylia to Kakariko Village. I could just warp there, but assuming I don't have the ability to warp there yet, you have to walk for a very long time. Seriously, it's too big.

In short, the hub worlds are filler, and they really make traveling to the next stage boring. This is where stage select can come in handy.

---

So there are the two biggest problems I have with the Legend of Zelda series. As soon as I can think of more, I'll edit this. As for now, here are the biggest issues I have.

A link between worlds negates both of your "points"

Your topic is crushed

@Nuck81: I mean the franchise in general. One game doing something different doesn't justify the entire franchise sticking to a majority. If I recall correctly, then "the Legend of Zelda," Zelda II: The Adventure of Link," "the Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past," "the Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time," "the Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask," "the Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess," and "the Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword" does this. That's SEVEN titles.

The thing is, people like the OP don't really think much about game design, only about what they think "makes sense".

Zelda games wouldn't be as fun if you could just go through everything in any order. That's because:

1. The dungeons stack, based on the tools you've already acquired, and

2. The dungeons steadily increase in difficulty.

If all of the dungeons could be accessed in any order, there would be no increase in challenge, and all stages would probably be about equally the same in difficulty. Likewise, there would be no real reason to acquire any of the tools or subweapons in the game - you would just have your sword and shield, and that would be boring.

Video games - and computers in general - operate on coding that goes in sequential order. You create challenge by requiring the use of a particular item or key to progress to certain areas. You make it so that certain enemies are immune to sword and shield attacks and require other means of attack to defeat. That is what makes a video game fun.

I'm sorry if that doesn't make sense to someone like you, but that's the way it is.

@Ovirew: This is entirely based on the assumption that certain temples need items to enter and advance through. That's not at all what I'm talking about.

A game CAN increase in difficulty over time if the player doesn't gain any new abilities and such. That's when the levels around them are adjusted to meet that requirement. Just look at Super Mario Bros. for the Nintendo Entertainment System. That game increases in difficulty, and Mario doesn't gain any special equipment to do so. The mushroom, the fire flower, and the star remains consistent throughout the game. It's how the stages are designed and how the challenges are presented that makes progression fun or not.

What about the original Mega Man? Players can choose how they play the game, and still have the final boss at the end. Why? The challenge isn't essentially scaled. Each stage has their own unique challenges rather than harder challenges. Also, don't forget that there are different video game players, so one challenge for another player could be a breeze for another. Unique challenges will give a challenge to a variety of players, but when risking trying to scale the difficulty this way, it might not turn out so well.

Your just not a zelda type gamer. Nintendo will not streamline zelda.

@chad_devore: I don't want to suggest that it's impossible for you to have a Zelda game where any stages can be played out of order. I mean, like someone said in the other post, A Link Between Worlds was just that. I think there two stages in OOT that you could kind of beat in either order.

And yeah it's not impossible to have each stage present its own challenges, to have all of them be equally sort of challenging. But it is hard to do that. Especially when you acquire all of these different weapons throughout your adventure, and you might not realize right away that a certain one unlocks a sealed path here or reveals a hidden chest there. You really build upon your options that way and things become more like a puzzle you have to figure out. If players are free to go to any dungeon in any order, then you could only really force players to use what's at their disposal at that particular dungeon to conquer it. And chances are, the items they would acquire at each dungeon would lose their value a bit because you realize they won't be required to get through any of the other dungeons.

Zelda, Mario and Mega Man are fundamentally different. In Mega Man, acquirable weapons are just a different means of attack, and typically have little other use. Each boss usually was weak to one of the other boss's weapons via a rock-paper-scissors kind of deal, but aside from that the different guns didn't really impact how you progressed through stages.

I also really want to comment on your second point because I didn't get to yet. I think you are seriously limiting yourself in the way you look at games. The thing about Zelda games is, the 'hub' world is just as important as the dungeons are. By viewing each dungeon as a level, and the outside world as little more than space in between, you're essentially eliminating the exploration and much of the storytelling of the games.

I can't say that I really agree with it, but I guess some people are just really competitive and only feel like a game is fun and worthwhile if they are seeing strong cues that they are making progress towards the end. Me, personally? I like to get really into a game when I play it, if it's a good enough game. I like exploring every nook and cranny and finding those hidden goodies, and discovering little easter eggs and whatnot. Sometimes, I just like to goof off and mess around on a game without any real destination in mind.

I'm not saying you're wrong for wanting a Zelda game that's more like what you're suggesting. Maybe more will end up being that way, idk. It's just really hard to imagine. It takes a lot of the fun out of it for me, thinking of a reality where the only difference between the arrow and boomerang is how they move around the screen; and where all Zelda is, is dungeons and nothing else.

@chad_devore

To your second reason;

Zelda is just one big puzzle game. The dungeons themselves are zoned off puzzles, but the "hub world" you speak of is also a puzzle. You don't simply walk into a dungeon. You solve puzzles to get to the dungeon. So the "hub world" is more of a set of levels too. For example, unlocking the water temple in Majora's Mask requires you to find the eggs by searching the seas and pirates fortress. Saying that you're simply navigating a hub world at this point is just wrong. You're doing just as much puzzle solving as you would in a dungeon. This is just one example. Pretty much every single zelda game has a puzzle build up to the dungeon.

To your first reason;

I can see what you mean. But I consider Zelda more as a puzzle game with elements of adventure and combat. This is a game design choice and it's not something to consider "wrong" with the game, just different. If you really want open world games, then Zelda is the wrong answer (for the most part). Zelda has open world-ish sections which acts as a playground for you to solve puzzles in.

Skyward Sword's environments were puzzles onto themselves, a design choice for that game.

With that said, what you are proposing is not a Zelda game.

Nothing irritates me more than, "hey pick a dungeon in any order," it really wasn't anything special to choose dungeons in Link Between Worlds, and that's the newest entry in the franchise.

I would like Zelda games to continue to evolve in the narrative. I think that would be really hard to do if you can "choose any order." The game could benefit, maybe, from having your choice of Dungeon A or Dungeon B at some juncture, but that's it.

And Hyrule Field is what makes Zelda games special. The sense of exploration, open world, riding on your horse at sunset, etc. The field could benefit from having more things to do. But to eliminate it altogether, hell, might as well be playing a Mario or Sonic game, level-to-level.

All of your posts are "I don't like this game, and if this game was like this, it'd be good."

Anyway, Zelda is fine how it is and link between worlds it what you are looking for, so go get that one.

Well, I only made three posts so far.

I'm someone who analyzes games. I look for the main goal of the game. Afterwards, I take out what doesn't belong and try to adjust it to what does belong.

I try to make video games as VIDEO GAMES.

You should play Pandora's Tower if you haven't already. Sounds like it's basically what you are looking for.

Reading between the lines a little bit, it seems like you've got the same attitude that many supporters of Western gamers have: make it more like Skyrim.

They won't do this though because the games aren't designed this way. They excel at creating games that get you to explore and solve and battle seamlessly and in harmony. No other game I've ever played comes close to how Zelda does this.

A Link Between Worlds tried out the 'do temples in any order' and showed that it doesn't work very well. You can do those dungeons in any order, and it absolutely does provide an awesome sense of freedom at the beginning of the game when you can choose wherever you want to go, but by midgame it becomes a huge drag. The problem is, as someone else mentioned, that one of the best parts of Zelda dungeon design is when they stack. The challenges increase in complexity as your equipment and inventory increase in complexity. It provides a natural difficulty curve and a great sense of player progression. it does come at the expense of player freedom, but the trade off has been shown to be worthwhile.

Removing the overworlds is a terrible idea. You like Zelda for the dungeons, and that's fine. But many Zelda fans also like the series for its exploration, its secrets, its world, its sense of scale, and its sidequests, and removing the overworld removes all of that. You're problem is travel time, but that's a problem that has been solved long ago by quick transportation and warping. Most of us don't want to get to the destination immediately. We want that feeling of adventure that comes from traveling through the kingdom, fighting monsters and collecting treasure along the way. If all you want out of Zelda is dungeons, you're playing the wrong franchise. Go check some straight puzzle or action games instead. Sounds like they'd be more your style.

@i-rock-socks Nope.

Anyways, for the rest of you.

Whenever I replay a game where you don't get to pick stages, you always expect what's coming up. In Sonic 3 & Knuckles for example, I've enjoyed Ice Cap quite a bit. However, I had to play Angel Island, then Hydrocity, then Marble Garden, then Carnival Night, then Ice Cap. It gets boring to have the same order. That's why in the Legend of Zelda franchise, WHICH FOCUSES MAINLY ON EXPLORATION AND GETTING THE STUFF FROM EACH TEMPLE, should have this variation.

the main goal of the game(in this case,LoZ) is to follow the story.there's linear gaming and those that's not,would you expect every last LoZ is a non-linear?! please...it's what Ninty do,they challenge you to discover the plot line of the franchise and the games.you can see diversity strikes in gaming too...some people chose linear gaming as if what's the first thing one should do...go get a first quest from someone close to the protagonist.simple.

just imagine if you as a day 1 knight got a quest to kill the arch demon far in the outer reaches of the mountain with a much higher damage resistance whilst you are only equipped with a tiny dagger without any special effects, a wooden shield,and a leather armor,with only 2 cm of health bar...you'll die in less than a millisecond...so everyone here's right...get yourself warmed up,and gather all available weapons before the final one-on-one fight.

in my experience with the LoZ...I remember the Minish Cap,that alone is enough to keep me and my GBA sp occupied,and in the end I finished it with little to no trouble,and got it sold in exchange of a DS

overall analysis: you are the non-linear gamer...as for I myself is either linear or non-linear gamer

@i-rock-socks: Again, nope. If you don't want to read my threads, simply don't click on them.

You hate Zelda for being Zelda.....sooo you lose. Point invalid, your welcome to your opinion, but you seem to want Zelda to be something it's not....like Skyrim....all I will say is I'm glad it's the way it is, Zelda is the closest any franchise will ever come to be perfect.

@i-rock-socks: So then, if you didn't read my threads, you're basically insulting me for nothing. READ the stuff before you get an opinion. If you really believe that about me, then don't support me by reading my posts! Honestly, I don't know what you're trying to prove.

Why is this thread marked as a "Question" thread? Mods?

I guess they're legitimate criticisms but I love the series anyways.

As much as Zelda games are not my all time favourite, they are virtually flawless