What exactly do people see in a Zelda game to get so hyped?

LOL. I love this shit!

because this is going to be the best Zelda to date

Maybe it's nostalgia, maybe it's brand loyalty. Hell I know and I don't really care. Zelda games are just amazingly good fun so I'm always excited for a new Zelda game.

You shouldn't say that. lol

lolololol

man you're killing me!

You are easily amused.

Yes exactly! Franchises can't keep running based on only nostalgia. Impossible. Old Nintendo franchises for ex are still made because their games are still highly acclaimed and wanted. The nostalgia argument is really bad.

Ok...... you almost got me. -__-'

Nostalgia is an argument for people who are too immature to accept that other people have different opinions.

A mature person who doesn't care for Zelda will acknowledge that people have different tastes and opinions on what is good.

An immature person will claim nostalgia because they can't mentally deal with the fact that a franchise they don't like gets a lot of praise, so they use the nostalgia card to explain it to themselves.

thats true i guess. but if they stop buying these sony will stop putting them out there. i wouldnt mind some ps1 or early ps2 remakes being remastered

Good observation. I noticed that ever since Skyward Sword (and the literally on rails trainwreck Spirit Tracks), Zelda has started embracing non linearity quite a bit.

Nostalgia is a helluva drug.

That being said, the games are fun, pretty to look at, well rounded packages.

@lightleggy: What exactly do people see in Call of Duty or Battlefield to get so hyped when its been the same game for a decade?

Because Zelda has always been when Nintendo traditionally comes out in top form, though I won't say that about SS which I found to be an abysmal entry in the franchise and one of the worst Zeldas yet. But they're always usually quality games. Fun when hitting all the right notes, and very polished. I will say I really hope they fix the pacing and hand holding in this upcoming one and kick up the difficulty, as those are the flaws that are destroying this series more than anything else. ALBW was better in this though, so there's promise.

Lol. Stop making threads please.

Did you try Spirit Tracks?

You say Zelda hasn't changed but then list SKYRIM as a game that has changed?

Skyrim is 90% the same thing as Oblivion which was 99% the same thing as Morrowind but with less content. The only thing that has changed in that series is the graphics have got better in the same style but they never bother fixing the combat.

While if you look at Zelda all of them have different graphic styles and different core systems. The only consistent thing about them is they have dungeons which are all unique instead of the copy paste stuff in Skyrim.

well, that's how the first zelda game was. They are just going back to the root.

What exactly do people see in any game to get so hyped? Oh look, the same stupid question can be asked for any game, what a shock.

I get where you are coming from its not for everyone, personally I adore The legend of Zelda and usually only purchase nintendo consoles for it specifically. But again I get where you are coming from, its not for everyone

Zelda games are exciting because of the world to explore and new dungeons. Puzzle solving and exploration are two of the big things to get excited about with Zelda. One can also look forward to the boss battles(Majora's Mask had AWESOME bosses). With an open world, the potential to enhance the two points increases. Zelda is not everyone's cup of tea, as it apparently doesn't appeal much to you, and that's fine.

The game looks great . Level design is non linear and most importantly , it is going to have actual gameplay .

seriously? it a cool world you get to explore by unlocking sections when you get new items and find secrets and stuff. obviously. Plus dungeons and bosses in Zelda games are usually badass.

My favorite game series is Zelda, but I gotta agree with Heil, Twilight Princess and Skyward Sword both had their flaws, SS had more than TP imo.

What adventure genres are better than Zelda?

My point exactly. This Zelda will be a great one.

More than anything, the Zelda series quality comes from exceptional level design. The games have a wonderful array of clever puzzles that evolve as you gain a greater selection of items to interact with the world. The Souls and elder scrolls series completely lack that aspect.

P.S. I will not address your apparent lack of knowledge of the Legend of Zelda franchise. It would take too long.

Skyward Sword wasnt a bad game, and something different from time to time was actually welcomed. But its time for Zelda to backtrack now, go more the route of OoT or the open world type, like they are doing now.

Good point.

To be honest,I have not played a Zelda game since the day's of the Super Nintendo.Am I missing anything.Do tell please.

Comparing Zelda to Dark Souls is as dumb as system wars could possibly get.

Mainly the series past, although the last two games were gash. Mainly due to the crappy gameplay mechanics, weak AI and just generally outdated feel, which as you said was because it felt too much like OOT.

I think the 7 dished out for skyward was about right, they are still fun and polished games, but feel a bit dated at this point. you still get a decent amount of playtime and content, so while I would pick the game up if I had a Wii U, I wouldn't go out and buy one like I did with the Wii and Twilight at launch.

Same reason I still like Metroid games not named Other M, and keep playing NSMB even though they are really old as dirt despite shiny graphics and new powerups. Pure game mechanics. years ago Nintendo figured out how to make games based purely on certain mechanics and perfected them. Sometimes I like to throw out my innovation, cynicism , and search for something new to play something I know I will enjoy before I even open the box.

With the difference that Uncharted is 1 generation old and Zelda ... well you know how to count. Theres a difference there if you get what i mean.

Yeah, amazing how so few console Zelda's have come out over the past decade (since 2004 there has been two, TP and SS) and there is already a 4th console Uncharted lined up for year 8.

Uncharted is getting a lot older in terms of iterations than things like Zelda. Hell, in 25 years, there has only been 8 console Zelda games (LoZ, LA, ALTTP, OOT, MM, WW, TP, SS). That's one every 3 and 1/8th years.

I don't know what point you were trying to make, but it's not working.

We hear this every time a new Zelda game comes out, and then half the fandom always ends up complaining a year later about what a huge step backwards it was for the franchise compared to the previous game.

To a degree I agree with the TC. People always get excited about new Zelda games because they have so many unmet hopes and dreams about what the franchise could be, and whenever Nintendo announces a new game everyone is secretly hoping that "this one will be the one that finally makes the series amazing again." Compared to other modern games though, Skyward Sword was lacking, and Twilight Princess came out after I had already played Oblivion, and Oblivion made Twilight Princess feel empty and primitive by comparison. The new Zelda is going to be Nintendo's first open-world Zelda game, which is a bold step forward for the series, but at the same time it probably should have happened last gen, but it couldn't due to the Wii's outdated hardware not being up for the task.

Nintendo seems to have an issue of constantly being behind the curve, and I know I will be chastised for saying this, but this series is getting close to 30 years old and they still haven't added something as basic as voice acting. And don't give me the "it would be like the CDi games all over again", because that's bollocks. If Link talking is a dealbreaker, there are plenty of voice acted games that have silent protagonists, so I will not even entertain the idea that the two things are somehow mutually exclusive. Kid Icarus Uprising actually had voice overs and they were perfectly decent. In 2014 we are well past voice overs being this scary new untested thing that is too dangerous to use in a beloved franchise like Zelda.

On a more relevant note to what was actually in Nintendo's presentation though, I am worried that we are going to end up with another Twilight Princess in that I am not sure if Nintendo really knows how to fill a big open world with enough content to keep players happy. Other devs have been doing open world games long enough that they've gotten this aspect down to a science, but the last "traditional" console Zelda game Nintendo made (Twilight Princess), despite being a game confined by doors and invisible walls still was a very large world with relatively little content. Hyrule felt like a hub connecting the different areas, and that hub just happened to be extremely big. With the new game being open-world, that world is going to be even bigger, and I am not confident that Nintendo is up to the challenge of being able to find enough content to fill it with.

I know I may sound like I'm being cranky and ungrateful, but with all of the deafening excitement the internet at large has been expressing about this game, I feel the need to temper it with some realistic expectations. This series has not been on the cutting edge for a fair while now, and just because it's Zelda does not mean that we should hold it to a lower standard than the other games we play.

I'd rather read text then listen to the same 7 people voice every NPC throughout the whole length of the game (i.e. Oblivion).

I don't mean to cut your point down, but this really struck me, personally, as a non-issue. Unless they invest millions in high-grade voice actors, and a specific one to do each and every role (or someone talented enough to handle different kinds of voices), then it won't be worth it. In an game with a serious tone, the kind of voice acting that high budget games like Oblivion used just ruins the experience and immersion.

It would ruin Zelda as well. CDi Zelda is just funny by comparison these days.

It is a good question, and you are right they are very dated.... and challengless.

Its odd really.....

Nostalgia is that powerful.

Well... I have'nt played a Zelda game, which was'nt good....

There are plenty of games that do not need to have every single random NPC have voice acting. Unimportant characters and conversations can still use text, but the important characters and conversations should be voice acted. This has been a convention in Japanese RPGs for ages.

I literally only died 4 times in Twilight Princess. The original Zelda for NES is infinitely more challenging than any Zelda game to come out in the last few years. It was Dark Souls hard, whereas aside from an annoying boss or two, the recent Zelda games have been hand-holding easy. Perhaps therein lies the secret to Dark Souls' success, and the reason so many gamers have become jaded and cynical towards Nintendo. The phrase used to be "game X is Nintendo hard," but now it's "game X is Dark Souls hard."

I like the items and puzzle solving. People looking for difficulty from the combat are barking up the wrong tree.

The puzzles are not terribly exciting anymore either. There is the occasional head scratcher, but the dungeons have gotten predictable and formulaic over the years. Also, I would like to point out that in the original Zelda, survival was an equal part of the challenge to solving the game's mysteries. To this day it's a game that I find myself returning to because I enjoy how challenging it is, whereas with the 3D zeldas, combat feels more like a chore than anything else, and it feels like the only reason the game even has combat anymore is out of tradition.

It doesnt matter how many games you releasing each gen , the main concept is to provide something great and way better than before. TP and SS failed to do that.The one was worse than the other. Period. Not bad games but nothing major in the series.

Biggest example , SMG ! SMG was great and SMG 2 expanded that great platforming even further. I dont think you would say NO to an ypothetically SMG 3 or even SMG 4. Lets not be hypocrites.

So dont sound like 3 UCs in 8 years ( PS3 cycle) is a bad thing when every single one was better than the one before it. Its not for no reason the serie praised from developers , gamers and everyone in gaming industry with countless awards in such short time with it being a NEW IP which means its success didnt come from nostalgia and hype alone to win everyone in gaming industry like Zelda does for many years now ( or other N titles )

So you wanna get hyped ? Do so , i did also with Zelda because of the looks . But to ask why someone to be hyped about UC4 when UC delivered epicness with UC2/3 unlike TP/SS ...well something is wrong then if you say you dont know what my point is or if its working or not.

They've always been easy (unless you want to count archaic and cryptic third gen level design), but I still find them well thought out, and most importantly, fun, hence why I am always looking forward to the next Zelda.

edit: oh, i guess you do want to count archaic game design. Yeah, that difficulty has to do with poor gameplay design of the era, not as the intent of being challenging. Zelda has always revolved around simplistic combat, even in those games.

not a lower standard, but a different standard, if you want a game like Dark Souls then go play Dark Souls, This is Zelda, and I'm going to jam the hell out of it

Wat? UC3 sucked especially compared to UC2.

Recent Zelda games tend to have clunky combat, predictable puzzles, and an overall lack of polish. Dark Souls is in a different genre (RPG, as opposed to Zelda which is Adventure) so it's not entirely fair to compare them directly, but in Dark Souls the combat has roughly the same concept as Zelda: you lock on to an enemy, and use strikes from different angles and with differing amounts of power to defeat your enemy, in combination with perfect timing. The combat is one place where these two games are directly comparable, and the Zelda games are inferior in this regard, even though Ocarina of Time was an ancestor of Dark Souls' combat.

Dark Souls had everything I could have wanted from the sword combat in a 3D Zelda game, whereas Twilight Princess just felt like Ocarina of Time with better animations, and Skyward Sword just felt like a floaty mess. Zelda may not have Dark Souls' complex RPG gamplay, and Dark Souls may not have Zelda's grand adventures and puzzles, but combat is a big element for both games, and Zelda does not compare favorably.