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

It's gameplay is just great. The atmosphere of the world combines with the gameplay to make it really feel like you're on an adventure,exploring a foreign, unknown land. Plus action adventure games are cool in general and Zelda is usually excellent in that regard.

@Timstuff: The Souls games and Zelda both do combat pretty poorly. I would love for the game to move to a combo-based fighting system. I think it is already quite a bit better than Dark Souls, though.

UC3 was a fine game , way better than UC1 and a great successor to UC2. Maybe not better than UC2 , agreed , though definitly on par more or less. Call is sucky is beyond logic

Never said, it wasnt. But recent Zeldas had gotten pretty linear.

The weapons in Dark Souls feel like they have actual weight to them, and it's one of the only games I can think of where your footing has a significant effect on how well you do in combat. What spot you are standing in when you execute an can be the difference between wiping the floor with your enemy and a near instant death for yourself.

What the heck am I reading?!?

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.

Games don't need voice overs, and the vast majority of voice acting is terrible anyway. Not to mention, I greatly prefer reading and going through the dialogue at my own pace, something voice overs dont really allow as they set the pace for me. I am glad Zelda does not have voice overs, english voice overs at least. Recent Zeldas did have some characters with voices which was meant to resemble hylian.

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.

This I agree with on the other hand. I always liked Zelda due to the fact while giving you a world to explore it was not massive for the sake of being massive and thus the resources were not spread too thin. Beats the boring Twilight Princess overworld that just felt padded out and certainly beats Skyrim's forgettable overworld mindlessely flooded with bland 2 room dungeons that can be cleared in 30 seconds, lack of diverse ecosystems and copy paste structures.

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.

Have they? It seems like most open world games are just getting worse and worse due to spending too much resources on making a big world and not enough on making the content in the world worth anyone's time.

What I love about Zelda games is how the items you get in the game change the way the game is played from the moment you get them. A lot of games you get weapons and items that you just use to kill mobs. In Zelda games the items change the world. (Same as in Metroid to a degree as well) In Zelda the items solve elaborate puzzles that you cannot just hack and slash your way through like in so many other games. Zelda requires brains and brawn, in my opinion the very best of what gaming has to offer.

Uncharted 3 was panned here much like TP and SS were. Don't ride a double standard. They are all 90+ games on MC.

UC hasn't done anything new since Drake's Fortune. Certain aspects of the formula were just ironed out to make them flow better from set piece to set piece. The Zelda formula might stay the same, but the game fundamentally changes each and every iteration. How were MM and OoT similar? Besides both being on the N64?

This new Zelda is looking to bring back the organic exploration found in the very first game on the NES, where people can go anywhere, and challenge anything in whatever order they want. That hasn't been done in Zelda, well, since the first one (A Link to the Past had it to a degree, but not as much as the first).

There is no legitmate argument behind the "it's an old IP, therefore it's not as good as something 'new' or 'fresh'". When I personally played Uncharted 2, while I had fun going on the roller coaster ride, absolutely nothing about was new, or fresh to what has been done before in that genre, especially with it's "inspirational" franchise of Tomb Raider. All Uncharted did was take out the exploration and put the player on a track through from beginning to end. Except in Drake's Fortune, where there was far too many firefights to even make it remotely believable or fun.

It looks decent but let's be honest it pales in comparison to The Witcher 3. It's going to be carried somewhat on it's reputation but the fans have every right to want it and probably know they will enjoy it. It's just, people have every right to look at it in the cold light of day and say, well, it's not that impressive so far. Skyrim came out years ago now and it had the freedom they are boasting this game will have, probably moreso.

wait... so people still talk about zelda... really?

@Timstuff:

Regarding voice acting, people's unfounded fear of the CDI games is not the only reason not to want voice acting. Some people just don't want it. It isn't a necessity, I'd hardly even call it a standard.

I do, however, agree with your fear of them screwing up a large open world. That was actually my first thought when I heard about it. I also agree that the combat could use an upgrade, not to say that it is bad, just not as engaging as it could be. I think the full-on Dark Souls treatment is unfitting for at least one reason. That reason being that Zelda is meant to be accessible and making the combat take so much investment would, no doubt, alienate many potential players, this is one of the complaints some people have with Dark Souls itself, but with that being a niche game I don't consider it an actual issue. There must be a compromise of some sort though.

-----

On to the OP.

I honestly don't feel the hype. I love Zelda games, I even consider Skyward Sword one of the best, with A Link Between Worlds probably being my favorite with its great design. The reason I'm not hyped though is that we haven't seen anything worthwhile. Sure, it looks good, I really like the new art-style. We don't know much about the actual game though. Open world, yay, but we don't know how they'll handle it-- if it will turn out well. Honestly, I'm more hyped for Splatoon.

People hype games too much over the parts that aren't games. I watched the whole Sony E3 conference (It was the only one I saw, that is why I'm using Sony), and when they showed off the Dead Island 2 trailer, people cheered. There was nothing there indicative of the game. To be fair we all know what Dead Island is at this point, but it happens a lot. It happened with BloodBorne too, a new IP.

Well this is the first open world Zelda game..so its exciting to see what comes of it. :P

Zelda is always overhyped, it's true.

Fortunately, they're still good games.

I don't know why people are quite so hyped up about this announcement, since it was practically guaranteed we'd hear something about WiiU Zelda, and they gave us the bare minimum to qualify - almost no gameplay, no real idea what the final game will play like, and a 2015 release date I'd bet anything becomes 2016 next fall.

But hey, if you were afraid it wasn't even gonna show, now you can rest easy. It's set up to become the last major title to release for WiiU, right before they launch a new console.

There's been a lot of replies and I obviously can't answer them all.

So I'll just say this: Yes, I've played every Zelda game except for the cd-i games (of course), spirit tracks and ALBW. So no, my knowledge on zelda is not "small". It's simply that I'm not blinded by nostalgia/fanboyism so I actually see the flaws in the franchise.

Zelda combat has never been great, it's been exciting because it was one of the first games to take a succesful approach on "sword and shield" gameplay, but the combat itself is pretty darn bad. From bad enemy AI, an extremely overpowered player, underpowered opponents and underwhelming boss fights.

One guy went out to say that Zelda has amazing boss fights: I beg to differ, the reason why I hate Zelda's boss fights is because they are just about rinsing and repeating. You find the boss' weak spot, which generally involves using the item you obtained in the dungeon, you hit that weak spot, the enemy becomes incapacitated, you hit him as many times as you can during this stage, he wakes up, and then you repeat. The weak spot doesn't even changes, you have to do the same thing again, 3 or 4 times, and boom, the monster is dead. How shallow do you have to be to consider that a "great boss fight"? Zelda has blown away every single chance at a badass bossfight in their games, letting down everyone with the "epic duels", like WW, TP and SS final bosses. With either braindead AI (TP and WW) or by giving the player a ridiculously overpowered attack (The lightning strike from SS final boss fight).

Zelda games are easy as all hell, In fact, Zelda, along with Okami (which was inspired by zelda) have been the only franchises with games in which I NEVER died because of how ridiculously easy they were, and it pisses me off that Okami was bashed here at GS (especially in the review, it was pretty much the reason why they didn't gave the game 9.5 or 10) for being easy while nobody ever complains about Zelda. To me, that really is proof that reviewers turn a blind eye at nintendo's flaws just for being nintendo.

Also, comparing Zelda with TW, Skyrim and the soul series is pretty valid. Zelda has plenty of RPG elements, only a fool would think that RPGs require an experience system. But even overlooking the RPG aspects, they're still pretty similar in setting and combat system (or gameplay in general), which was the main reason why I compared them.

I'm glad to see that a lot of folks here aren't blinded by nostalgia and accept that Nintendo is very far behind from other games.

You talking about how UC wasnt something fresh or new or didnt offer anything that hasnt done before yet why everyone in gaming industry ( even competitors ) praised it ?

Werent sheeps that werr telling all over the internet that TP will be huge or SS the best Zelda ever ? ... SS didnt deliver the epicness everyone was waiting. In fact not even close. Same as TP. UC2/UC3 did deliver for those that are into that genre and were fans of the series which praised not only from fans and PS4 owners but from every single industry member / developer , why is that if it was that bad and sucky and nothing new to the genre ?

I can talk all day long what Zelda SS or TP did wrong compared to older Zeldas but whats the point to do that ? UC was an entirely new IP that won critics , gamers and whole gaming industry , won countless awards for a reason , it did all this without nostalgia and hype involved like Zelda which every single time can sell pretty good with nostalgia and hype alone ... therefore to call it a sucky game or whatever .. baaah. I think its your personal opinion and nothing more. Same as mine when it comes to SMG... I didnt like it for various reasons ...i cant say was sucky though more like ... not for me!!

With that being said , both games are worth of hype , depends in what genre you more into , if you are a Wii U or PS4 owner , if you are Nintendo franchises fan or Sonys etc etc ... So i dont agree why someone musnt be hyped with UC4 as a counter to TCs topic. UC is one of the best if not the best representative of its genre so .. why not ?!

In cow logic, it's simply this. When Sony was king of consoles in the PS2 era they devleoped a lot of fans and a huge following. So much in fact that the failed launch of the PS3 was still considered top console by the fans even though sony seriously dropped the ball at launch. This type of following is identical to how zelda had a huge game like Link to the Past, and Zelda 64 which were great games, and the following still hyped the games that followed even though they didn't live up to the quality of the big ones.

For some, once a fan always a fan.

Cripes, that double standard.

Since it's Uncharted and "new", that means it isn't at fault. Since it's Zelda and "old", that means it is at fault.

U2. U3 TP and SS are all 90+ games on Metacritic. Your entire problem has been around that TP and SS are apparently "poor" games (or something), which they were for Jeff Gerstman and Tom McShea (respectfully). Given their MC scores, they weren't elsewhere. But then when it comes to UC, you give them a free pass because it's "new IP' despite being built on nothing but old action-adventure/TPS tropes. Hell, there are points the games almost have self-realization they are pulling elements from Tomb Raider and Indiana Jones.

People are excited about the new Zelda because it's Zelda. Because it has a track record of being amazing, creative and incredibly innovative, despite what you personally might think.

What do people see in any game to get so hyped? I mean I see so much hype for FPS games and yet....they are uninteresting to me. Same with sims and racing games. But hey....to each his own.....live and let live and all that shit. Game on....cheers!

No you are wrong , i give everything out of my own experience since ive finished most of Zeldas myself ( some multiple times on PC ) and i played every single UC i have my own judgement. This has nothing to do with Mcshea or Metacritic. If you lurk in Nintendo forums or ask hardcore Zelda fans if they like TP / SS most likely theyll say were ok/good but far from the best in the series. Most of them even. And when i said Zeldas are not amazing or creative ? Incredibly innovative though ..that depends which title you talking about.

Now about UC , i said everything on my last post , i cant repeat myself. People are excited about Zelda because its Zelda. It has a history , its getting momentum from nostalgia and hype alone. UC didnt have any of that and became a behemoth ... How on earth that happened if its just another action-adventure ?

I repeat since it seems you missed that on my last post ...Both games are worth of hype , depends in what genre you more into , if you are a Wii U or PS4 owner , if you are Nintendo franchises fan or Sonys etc etc ... So i dont agree why someone musnt be hyped with UC4 as a counter to TCs topic/logic. UC is one of the best if not the best representative of its genre so .. why not ?!

a Link between worlds was the worst zelda game I have played in a long time. Why? Because it was way too easy and casuallized. The thing you praise , opening up of puzzle order, and being able to get everything from the start was a wrong design choice. Very wrong. It turned what could of been the greatest sequel to my favorite zelda game a link to the past, into a easy mode little kid game. I couldn't stand that decision, although I liked the wall flattening power and such.

That being said, I have less hope for the new game. If a link between worlds has shown us, Nintendo is more about making things casual and easy mode now then ever before.That and their turning 2d mario into a damb co-op multiplayer game instead of a challenging platformer like smb 1-world. ....uggh.

If my fears are unwarranted then so be it. We may have a good zelda game...but I won't be buying a last gen console for 1 game (or 2 for that matter). After last gen I am trying not to buy more than one. As a PC, Console, 2 handhelds and an ipad gives more games then I could ever play. It's a waste of money for me for last gen tech...no matter how good this zelda could be.

Very few launches are spectacular. Most launch line ups are blase. PS3 was too expensive. But Sony was pushing their Blu Ray at the time. The console is not a bad console however. I did get pissed when they removed backward compatibility. But I just keep my PS2 connected as well.

I think the Dreamcast had the best launch line up but unfortunately Sony fans waited until the PS2 and didn't give the DC a chance. Miss that console.:(

Edit: I don't miss the DC...I still have it but I mean I miss what could have been if Sega had continued. Most innovative console manufacturer.

Zelda is an action-adventure. Witcher, Dark Souls and Skyrim are action RPG's. Apples and oranges.

Also, Zelda did "open world" long before them, with the original Zelda on the NES. The new Zelda is simply going back to the series' roots.

Got to say OP, the abuse you got from some for this fairly uncontroversial, very system wars post was quite shameful.

Got to say OP, the abuse you got from some for this fairly uncontroversial, very system wars post was quite shameful.

I will repeat this for as long as it needs to be said: Nintendo, and by extension any of it's old school franchises, is not above criticism. It is not a protected species and no one is under any obligation to be nice towards them. Anyone who can't handle that, system wars isn't the right place for you.

@DocSanchez:

We're here to talk about games, man. Lay off the people posting, sad you have to resort to that.

-----

Anyway, I'll have to defend ALBW a bit here based on some other posts in this thread, or maybe just one, I don't remember. The more open-ended structure of ALBW had nothing to do with how easy it was. It was, even, more difficult than some of the more recent console games. What it did affect, however, was the level and puzzle design. Much of the over-world, and a few parts of dungeons, had more engaging tasks to complete or puzzles to solve because many of them involved multiple items or powers for finishing them. Another reason that the puzzles are more engaging is because the items you might have had for a long enough time that you might not immediately think, "Well, I just got this better use it.", this is also supported by the previous point. Also, the puzzles were just pretty good for the most part.

Admittedly the Combat wasn't challenging, but it could be in some situations. It also wasn't bad, it worked very well. It just didn't seem to be the focus of this one, and I'm glad about that. In a top down sword based game, challenging combat can quickly become clunky, just look at ALttP, and that game isn't even that difficult.

I've always found Zelda to be very well designed and pretty unique. It has it's own charm, and I like how well it combines action with puzzle solving through the use of new items as you progress. Also, with the upcoming one taking a more open world approach, it seems like an exciting change from the 3D Zeldas I've played.

@AzatiS: I've played every single Zelda game except for Spirit Tracks and ALBW and I'm as hardcore of a fan as you can be. I payed $100 for OoT just to make sure I played it early enough and got the golden OoT and I own the original golden NES cartridge.

I think TP and SS were both fantastic games that lived up to the previous standards set by the series.

For you ...for majority of sheeps i personally know one of the two , or even both , were the worst games in the series .. Ask charizard for example which the guy is a genuine Nintendo fan ( not blind royal ) you might know him. Im not trying to say TP/SS werent good , every single Zelda out is good. But some are worse than others .. So i dont agree with the guy that said every single Zelda is super innovative every single time ... they are not and TP/SS proving that imo. You dont have to agree with that its my opinion.

That and the fact that they pulled a "Skyrim" on the latest entry.

Its the magic of a Zelda game which other games do not have. If you want some of this magic dust please contact Nintendo of Japan who can tell you themselves to bugger off.

Even "missteps" like Skyward Sword have an enormous amount of creativity and polish.

While their products aren't always cutting edge, Nintendo have always been great

developers.

Seriously -- they made some silly design choices with Skyward Sword, but as a fan I still felt spoiled by the game. Wonderful puzzles/dungeons, characteristicly quirky, charming characters, lovely art/music, and a good amount of fan service ... these are all consistent staples.

@AzatiS: see but that's my biggest problem with this board. Because someone has 40,000+ post their word is somehow taken as scripture. Charizard is no different from any other fan. So because I think they were fantastic I'm looked upon as blind and loyal. And you also have to realize that tons of people are going to have a sheep mentality. So if one person says game A is bad everyone is going to jump on the bandwagon and vice versa. I don't think it's coincidence that the majority of video game journalist agreed, with most of them writing their reviews not knowing what their peers were writing, that both those games were great.

Even if you look at the GS review for skyward sword, it was clear McShea had no clue what he was talking about. He was one of the few reviewers that took issue with the game's control.

Twilight Princess' biggest problem was that it was a retread of OoT and it didn't quite reach those lofty heights.

Skywards Swords biggest problem was it's empty Skyloft world and reusing multiple sections of the world.

Were the games perfect? Not by any means. Were they better than 90% of game releases in the respective years and reach a bar of excellence set by the Zelda franchise? Most would say yes.

Nostalgia. Almost every reviewer mentions it on any New nintendo game. And they are rehashes and have the same old formula.It is the common census that Nintendo have different rules and a lower standards compared to the industry.

ie. Half Life 2 (an industry changer and masterpiece) v Mario Kart Wii (a fun family friendly game)

Old Nintendo fans have moved onto better things. The new young Nintendo fans are all over the place.

Open world Zelda looks kind of cool. I'm liking what I saw so far.

I just said a sheep's name that is not blind and you might know him , i know many sheeps like this in real life , if you ask them which Zelda was the worst console wise 99% of them will answer with TP or SS.

You thought were fantastic , i thought were just good. Different point of view i guess. Im not against people that thought were fantastic but the same goes for the people that find UC3 fantastic !! That was my point with the other guy , i dont know why you jumped in in the first place but im talking out of my experience. Read my posts , dont run into conclusions. I repeat , Zelda TP / SS were good but not the best in the series for majority of Zelda fans. Its for a reason massive amount of sheeps felt the same around the internet , wasnt only me or charizard.

I dont care what critics saying to be honest ( if i manage to try/play the game myself ) , when i play a game im the critic for myself and since im video gaming for over 20 years i personally think i might be even a better critic than most of the critics themselfs. Im not a journalist though and my english sucks so no chance for me to be in the industry but ill never go with what critics saying blindly ...

So i dont know why you talking about scores and critics to me when im talking about gamers concerns that finished the games.

And again you insist to talk like i said TP/SS were bad ... I think you should go back and read my posts carefully. You misunderstood me big time.

Wind Waker is actually a huge shift in formula. It was more about the game world than any Zelda before or since, with the possible exception of Majora's Mask.

The only two that are really similar are OOT and TP, probably because TP was designed as a spiritual successor to OOT.

Well, there's also the Oracle games. Which are both pretty much the same game.

+1

Enjoyment.

1) If you feel to jump do so but at least read all my previous posts otherwise there are misunderstandings or how you call it

2) No you didnt ...because then you would understand that i didnt try to say that Zelda is bad , i tried to say to that guy why he thinks UC4 is not worthing the hype if Zelda did ...

3) No you go to google or ask oldschool sheeps ( key word = oldschool ) , i did already. Real life friends and internet guys ( along with hunderds of posts ) .. You prove me , with that logic , that TP/SS were the best in the series .. can you ? What kind of logic is this ...

4) Im critic myself when i personally finish a game , i dont get where you disagree here. Im gaming even more than many Gamespot critics for example , why to listen to them and not my own judgement. Its not that i lack experience in gaming because i lack proper english or because i speak my mind blantly ( which critics cant do for obvious reasons but be sure they doing so behind the scenes ).

Again , i know what you mean but be sure that im not speaking out of my butt or because 1-2 sheeps said so .. Personal experience >> real life friends opinions (the ones that are core gamers with 20+ years of gaming experience ) >> Community >> Critics . Thats my personal order if you wondering ... And if my personal experience meets my rl friends one and that one meets majority of X games community ... i cant be that off even if Critics score a game 100. Thats my logic

But you're real life experiences aren't everyone's. You seem to have this complex about someone being an "old school" gamer. I've been gaming since ColecoVision in 1985. I'm as old school as old school can get. And you can have that perception yes. That's all well and good, and you're friends can have that similar perception. But you're argument of 99% of people thinking that holds absolutely no weight if all you're going on is opinion. There are no facts to verify that apart from your own personal experiences, in the same way that I cannot prove mine either. Because my experience says that they were amazing games, my real life friends who also grew up playing video games also thought they were great, the community is easily swayed so I actually rank their opinion below reviewers (but that's just me) and not everyone in this community thought TP and SS weren't fantastic titles. So your logic isn't off personal experience and friends trumps everything else, but you can't look at that as confirmation that your opinion is true.

At the end of the day it's just games. You enjoy what you enjoy and I'll enjoy what I enjoy, but to ask why fans of a fantastic series would be hyped for a sequel that looked as promising as that trailer did is clearly flamebait.

Oh why you disagree with everything ? What complex you talking about ? What the heck dude ?!! You dont listen ... you are a fanboy or what ? I said it again and again and again in more than 3 post of mine , TP/SS were good and that if you find them fantastic thats fine ... What else to say to you ?!! You proving me again you dont even listen ....

So you saying ALL zeldas were fantastic equally ok , i get it !! If thats your experience since 1985 and you dont favor once zelda over the other and you think every single one was equally good .... Nothing more to discuss i guess. Im not going with my opinion , you dont even listen... Im making a "review" in my head about a game i finish , then talking about it with other hardcore gamers that did the same , then im lurking in community sites with people that OWN the game not trolls and see what they have to say. That is my opinion ? Or some thousands opinions ... Its not that im bypassing all the good stuff and staying on negatives ... Diablo 3 vanilla if rings a bell to you a fine example.

Anyways , i dont think we have to continue this , its going nowhere. When did i say you shouldnt enjoy what you want .. man you are a sheep or what ? why the heck you going into offensive while you disagree for no reason !! Because i think some Zeldas were better than others ? ... Gosh !!

What are YOU talking bout? Go back and reread my post.

As a matter of fact here the TL:DR version:

"At the end of the day it's just games. You enjoy what you enjoy and I'll enjoy what I enjoy."

Don't know. Why do I like Mario? Just a tight, entertaining gameplay experience. When they're done right, I don't thing any games beat Nintendo's flagship titles.

Magic, my fellow gamer, magic!! Zelda is pure digital crack!!

A potential religious experience in the making.

You know when you were a kid and you walked into the forest behind your house for the very first time... and everything was just magical and your imagination exploded in the best way possible?

Zelda is kinda like that, but better.

@AzatiS: I wouldn't say that TP and SS are the best Zelda games, but they aren't the worst either. I would rank SS toward the top and TP toward the bottom. From what I have played, taking into account not only the impact the game made on the era in which it was released, but the actual quality of the content in the game as well, and how it stands up to time, I would rank them as follows (games I have not played are omitted):

Wind Waker>Ocarina of Time>Skyward Sword>Majora's Mask>Minish Cap>Link to the Past>Twilight Princess>>>>TLOZ>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Zelda 2

Creativity. Imagination.

Sony basically wants to be Nintendo.