Koh -Vs- Ocarina of Time

[alexmach1]

go into dungeon, get item, beat dungeon centered around use of that particular item, fight boss; boss most likely necessitates use of item. probably forget about the item for the subsequent dungeons. rinse and repeat.

metroid?
even OoT had the items reused to access new areas, like the hookshot could boost you up to new items just like the morph ball could roll you into new areas to get items.

[PrettyNier]

metroid?

what do you mean by "metroid"? that formula does not apply for metroid

and do you mean "Ocarina of Time" by OoC? if not, what do you mean

[alexmach1]

what do you mean by "metroid"? that formula does not apply for metroid

go through area, kill enemy, get item, use item to get through area, go to next area for next item

and do you mean "Ocarina of Time" by OoC? if not, what do you mean

yes

[PrettyNier]

metroid is not sequestered into isolated dungeons with a singular item that solves its every puzzle, including the bossfight. metroid does not largely forget its (much tighter) breadth of items upon the completion of said "dungeon". every ability in metroid serves multiple functions, some explicit, some not, and these purposes are actually utilized in a gameplay sense rather than simply acting as a "key" transporting you through a door. the items are also distributed organically, with some areas possessing none and others possessing multiple. further, the "locks" that these "keys" would be for serve not as locks but as obstacles to be tackled - viscerally and personally - in many different ways.

it is the sequestration and the short-term memory that game possesses, along with the lack of ingenuity in its design, that serves as the fault.

to climb up the large drop from upper brinstar into lower brinstar does not demand the ice beam; you can make your back up with the ice beam, or with the wall-jump (an organic abilty to be utilized however one wishes), or if you're skilled enough, you can shine-spark back up. it is not required that you get the varia suit, you can successfully infiltrate norfair and survive without it, and acquiring the gravity suit later on comes packed in with the functions of the varia suit. you can skip the grappling beam entirely because the other abilities at your disposal are good enough (with skill) to conquer any obstacle the grappling beam would simplify.

the abilities in metroid are rarely keys, nor are they even tools; they are an extension of the relationship between you and the world around you.

[Terminal Devastation]

I'll admit any of the "get upgrade versions" to preceed are just linear keys that add nothing to the game.

But when it comes to the Hookshot/longshot, it is in fact, just as diverse as the grapplebeam in super metroid. (Honestly, I think you've mixed up your metroids... since Grapple beam was mostly just a area crossing tool in super metroid).
THe hookshot DOES react differently to different enemys. It stuns most, kills some (Notable mention, Large skultulas), and even grapples to Iron Knuckles (Why you'd WANT to do this is another matter). I use it to save arrows. Just like you'd use missiles in metroid to kill stuff faster, or not use them to save the missiles.
Further more... it grapples on to most wood surfaces. Sure there was visible grapple points for where you absolutely needed to go, but those are not the only place they can grapple. (TO be honest, OoT uses the hookshot better than most Zelda games, and even better than mostgames I've seen use similiar items. Only one better I can think of is Thief's rope arrow, and that's pushing similiar a lot)

Anyways... I figure that ideally, each dungeon serves as tutorial of what each dungeon item can do so the item can be using in later dungeons in more advanced methods while you're learning THAT dungeons item.
I found this to be done have decently... especially in Bottom of the Well to Shadow Temple, and Ice cave to water temple cases.

And no. You can't fault them for not having a brand new idea years in advance. (For not trying to have so much item overlap... maybe you can)
It's like faulting the makers of Pong for not making Portal 2 back then.

For the record, I'm just trying to show you're not entirely correct. I agree things could be better, but I strongly disagree that fact makes the game bad.

[edit] In regards to comparison to metroid... Yeah, Zelda could learn a lot from metroid... but Zelda's formula isn't as flawed as you seem to think. Zelda's formula's flaw isn't the formula use item you got in the dungeon based around it. I may have mentioned it earlier, but that can serve as a fluid tutorial. The flaw in the formula comes from the linear nature of the order of dungeon progression. There is less of a sequence in Metroid.
If one had some more choice of which dungeon to go to, and say the items from each dungeon merely open up more possibilities to solve a problem in the remaining dungeons while lacking said items from didn't mean you couldn't complete or get to a dungeon, the zelda formula start to excel... more than Metroids formula. Because again... each dungeon would serve as a hidden tutorial for each item, and you'd just have to choose which to learn first.

[PrettyNier]

(Honestly, I think you've mixed up your metroids... since Grapple beam was mostly just a area crossing tool in super metroid).

It was uniquely effective against most water enemies in Super and was also the means to quick-killing Draygon. It could also pick up items that it touched. But that's kind of not the point here, and those aren't intrinsically meaningful utilizations; i'm addressing alternative uses of the hookshot because its primary use is uninteresting and does not adequately justify its existence. The grappling beam does not necessarily require alternative methods because its primary function is incredibly interesting and enjoyable, because of its taut, sensitive and manipulative physics which are complimented by the intelligent level design. That it attaches to the floating balloon enemies in Maridia further shows the sort of insight that the designers held when designing the item. The variety is in the way the item is utilized within its definition, not by How Much is in the definition.

Anyways... I figure that ideally, each dungeon serves as tutorial of what each dungeon item can do so the item can be using in later dungeons in more advanced methods while you're learning THAT dungeons item.

1.) an item does not need an entire dungeon to act as a "tutorial" for it. that diminishes the sort of presence a dungeon ought to hold and it, as said before, makes the experience rote. you know what to expect, you know whats coming, and it is in essence the same every time.
2.) a tutorial for -- what? later use of the item? items get the most use - and the most meaningful use - in the dungeon they're found in. they're generally forgotten until a brief sparkle hits the eye of the level designer and, in a bid to impress mr.aonuma, he places a "hookshot" grapple at the end of a corridor or a bridge later on. aonuma smiles in excitement and releases a single tear "beautiful" he cries to his designer. "this will be the best game we have ever made" he mutterse to himself. it exists after their respective dungeons, of course, but their use rarely if ever accomplishes much of worth other than to act as a reminder both you and the designers that it exists.

Bottom of the Well to the Shadow Temple is one of the few instances I found even remotely commendable, and even then, only to a limited extent.

he flaw in the formula comes from the linear nature of the order of dungeon progression.

Linearity is not a qualitative trait, it is simply a mode. If anything, linearity allows for tighter more focused design. Something that Zelda was incapable of capitalizing on.

There is less of a sequence in Metroid.

In some. Super Metroid has largely the same structure and order (Crateria > Brinstar > Lower Brinstar/Norfair region > Crateria > Wrecked Ship > Maridia > Lower Norfair > Tourian). The details of these trips can differ, particularly in the realm of lower brinstar/norfair, but the general structure remains the same.
Metroid Fusion is entirely linear and its sequence plotted exactingly: and yet, it still stands as the second best Metroid game behind Super.

And no. You can't fault them for not having a brand new idea years in advance. (For not trying to have so much item overlap... maybe you can)

It's something they should have thought of but didn't. That's a failure in creativity, end of story.

my apologies for not being impressed by a series defined by a rote uninteresting structure, by a series whose vocabulary and structure is bloated and meandering and superficial, by a series defined by its unwillingness to properly explore its structures.

[TomGuycott]

Honest question Nier, what games do you actually like? Just curious, I sometimes get confused.

[Terminal Devastation]

(Honestly, I think you've mixed up your metroids... since Grapple beam was mostly just a area crossing tool in super metroid).

It was uniquely effective against most water enemies in Super and was also the means to quick-killing Draygon. It could also pick up items that it touched. But that's kind of not the point here, and those aren't intrinsically meaningful utilizations; i'm addressing alternative uses of the hookshot because its primary use is uninteresting and does not adequately justify its existence. The grappling beam does not necessarily require alternative methods because its primary function is incredibly interesting and enjoyable, because of its taut, sensitive and manipulative physics which are complimented by the intelligent level design. That it attaches to the floating balloon enemies in Maridia further shows the sort of insight that the designers held when designing the item. The variety is in the way the item is utilized within its definition, not by How Much is in the definition.

Anyways... I figure that ideally, each dungeon serves as tutorial of what each dungeon item can do so the item can be using in later dungeons in more advanced methods while you're learning THAT dungeons item.

1.) an item does not need an entire dungeon to act as a "tutorial" for it. that diminishes the sort of presence a dungeon ought to hold and it, as said before, makes the experience rote. you know what to expect, you know whats coming, and it is in essence the same every time.
2.) a tutorial for -- what? later use of the item? items get the most use - and the most meaningful use - in the dungeon they're found in. they're generally forgotten until a brief sparkle hits the eye of the level designer and, in a bid to impress mr.aonuma, he places a "hookshot" grapple at the end of a corridor or a bridge later on. aonuma smiles in excitement and releases a single tear "beautiful" he cries to his designer. "this will be the best game we have ever made" he mutterse to himself. it exists after their respective dungeons, of course, but their use rarely if ever accomplishes much of worth other than to act as a reminder both you and the designers that it exists.

Bottom of the Well to the Shadow Temple is one of the few instances I found even remotely commendable, and even then, only to a limited extent.

he flaw in the formula comes from the linear nature of the order of dungeon progression.

Linearity is not a qualitative trait, it is simply a mode. If anything, linearity allows for tighter more focused design. Something that Zelda was incapable of capitalizing on.

There is less of a sequence in Metroid.

In some. Super Metroid has largely the same structure and order (Crateria > Brinstar > Lower Brinstar/Norfair region > Crateria > Wrecked Ship > Maridia > Lower Norfair > Tourian). The details of these trips can differ, particularly in the realm of lower brinstar/norfair, but the general structure remains the same.
Metroid Fusion is entirely linear and its sequence plotted exactingly: and yet, it still stands as the second best Metroid game behind Super.

And no. You can't fault them for not having a brand new idea years in advance. (For not trying to have so much item overlap... maybe you can)

It's something they should have thought of but didn't. That's a failure in creativity, end of story.

my apologies for not being impressed by a series defined by a rote uninteresting structure, by a series whose vocabulary and structure is bloated and meandering and superficial, by a series defined by its unwillingness to properly explore its structures.

I was going to respond section by section, but then I realised something.
You're not finding 3 or 4 faults. You're finding ONE and trying to describe it as more, because you can't quite see the root fault you're trying to bring up.

Every supporting evidence you're bring up supports finding the same darn fault, Zelda is too split up in overall level design as a game. Each area is actually isolated rather than a part of the whole. More a group of individual themed dungeons than a whole cohesive game.
I'd guess you'd like a small indie game that was secretly just ONE Zelda dungeon and thats all. Just one game that follows the pattern of a single Zelda dungeon. Enter Dungeon, find Dungeon item. Solve all the puzzles using said item, defeat boss using said item. Like, say... Portal.
But while Portal focuses on the one item entirely... Zelda goes on the next item and rises and repeats the pattern, without expanding on the previous mechanics, leaving each section isolated.

And hey. I can agree with you on that. I just think the individual dungeons were fun and designed well enough to make their item of the day work well in context.[/b]

[Zero Kirby]

Every supporting evidence you're bring up supports finding the same darn fault, Zelda is too split up in overall level design as a game. Each area is actually isolated rather than a part of the whole. More a group of individual themed dungeons than a whole cohesive game.

To be fair, this is a pretty big fault when games like Metroid Prime and Batman: Arkham City also have very distinct splits in level designs, and yet nobody would imagine one part of the game standing alone from the rest (except the challenge modes in Arkham City but they're on the side and are supposed to stand apart). They make them all fit together as a whole. What you learn earlier in these games (Missiles lock-on to enemies, some enemies are weak to specific attacks, R.E.C. makes thugs swing their weapons wildly around them, thugs will improvise protection and weapons) serves you in the future (you might try Super Missiles on the fast Chozo Ghosts and find them to be extremely effective, or use the REC on an armed, armored thug and discover it sends them flying backwards).

They are better at Zelda games than Zelda, basically. Skyward Sword's a nice step in the right direction thanks to its smaller item cache with much broader strokes, but unfortunately things are likely to swing back into formulaic again and bam - another Twilight Princess will come out.

[PrettyNier]

Honest question Nier, what games do you actually like? Just curious, I sometimes get confused.

A decent amount. I'll just list some favorites.

Demon's Souls / Dark Souls
Super Metroid / Super Metroid: Eris
Shadow of the Colossus
Ico

Castlevania: Symphony of the Night / Castlevania: Harmony of Dissonance
Castlevania / Super Castlevania IV
Metroid Fusion
Devil May Cry / Devil May Cry 3: Dante's Awakening
Shin Megami Tensei: Nocturne
Breath of Fire IV
Demon's Crest

Mega Man Zero 1-4
Mega Man X / Mega Man X4

these two are tremendously flawed but simultaneously compelling.
NieR
Deadly Premonition

the following interest me greatly but i only have a limited experience playing them:
Secret of Evermore
Panzer Dragoon Zwei
Vagrant Story


there's a lot more but i don't really feel like listing them right now. i also have a lot of different reasons for each of these games. you can ask me about particular games if you want either from this list or not and i can give a brief blurb for what i think about them/whether i like them or not.

I was going to respond section by section, but then I realised something.
You're not finding 3 or 4 faults. You're finding ONE and trying to describe it as more, because you can't quite see the root fault you're trying to bring up.

Every supporting evidence you're bring up supports finding the same darn fault, Zelda is too split up in overall level design as a game. Each area is actually isolated rather than a part of the whole. More a group of individual themed dungeons than a whole cohesive game.
I'd guess you'd like a small indie game that was secretly just ONE Zelda dungeon and thats all. Just one game that follows the pattern of a single Zelda dungeon. Enter Dungeon, find Dungeon item. Solve all the puzzles using said item, defeat boss using said item. Like, say... Portal.
But while Portal focuses on the one item entirely... Zelda goes on the next item and rises and repeats the pattern, without expanding on the previous mechanics, leaving each section isolated.

And hey. I can agree with you on that. I just think the individual dungeons were fun and designed well enough to make their item of the day work well in context.

...I appreciate the attempt at psychoanalysis, I do, but isn't that a bit presumptuous? I usually find games like that to be unsatisfying. Commendable, of course, but there generally isn't enough to hold my interest. I want more than just a singular refined mechanical system from an experience. I'm a bit perplexed that you came to that conclusion given that the only other game I've mentioned (which has been in a positive light) has been Super Metroid, which is... not that sort of game at all.

I've mentioned before, the criticism isn't that there is too much; its that what's there doesn't work as well as it should. What's there is misguided. Simply, it isn't the presence of alternative options or different areas and dungeons and levels, it is the soulless implementation of those two things. the level

I want the level design to differ, I don't want every dungeon to come packaged with the same formulaic expectations; maybe don't have an item in some of the dungeons. maybe this one dungeon that gives you an item crafts itself in a way so that you become "trapped" and getting that item is the way you get out, sort of a microcosm of a level within the macrocosm. I want the mechanics and items to be interesting and engaging, with reduced overlap; I want the level design to be smartly designed and undeceptive. you know, all things that zelda isnt

Honestly, just, destroy the "formula".

[Marth]

I've been checking this topic here and there for laughs, and now I think it's time you all stop arguing subjectivity. Jason is the only one using real objective logic to explain the faults of the game/game's design and standing on his own two feet. Most of you still arguing with him are like a toddler paddling in circles attempting to swim for the first time. Your arguments are based on subjective qualities that you found appealing or unappealing in the game. There is no right or wrong in what you find enjoyment in, everyone is different! Come on folks, that's like the fundamental rule of human socialization.You sound like children really because the collective argument(aside from Jason and a few others) that you're all trying to articulate in an intelligent manner boils down to "Wah, he doesn't like the game I like, boo-hoo mommy say I'm right".

This topic was pointless to begin with and doomed from the start when KoH made it to explicitly argue his opinion. What did you plan to do here buddy, argue until everyone agreed with you? Or just create a topic that argued for the sake of argument? Because that sure as hell did not accomplish anything productive. The title of the thread alone is overly pretentious and set the course it was going to take, "KoH -Vs- Ocarina of Time"? KoH, who are you anyway? Why do we care what your opinion is(this is not to sound offensive and I apologize if it does)? The way you entitled this you made it seem as if your opinion was coming from some significant and ingenious game designer. If this was "Hidetaka Miyazaki vs. OoT" it'd be a different story (just picked a name at random not playing favorites) Because they have some seriously enticing and well designed games under their belt, to have the right to voice his opinions in an authoritative manner.

Tldr; Jason is the only one being an adult for the most part, This topic did not need to be made, and furthermore most of you are arguing subjectivity (which has no right or wrong answer in case you're all still wondering). Let's stop this here. *start the Marth is an asshole posts now*

[Gors]

I agree with you, I mean, this was really dumb and obvious

I mean, this kinda had a valid topic about game design, but it's been blocked by 'lol y u no like oot' posts. Dude, I love OoT like a lot of people but loving something doesn't mean OoT is perfect. It's actually far from it. Liking something doesn't magically make a game good

This being said, Prettynier is hardly attacking OoT for the sake of attacking, there are reasons behind his posts (a thing you all failed to have) and etc etc

Games also do age, but the main core of the game doesn't. If the core is good/bad, it won't magically get better/worse as time passes. We're talking about games, not cheese/wine

maybe, had this topic presented in a less pretentious way, perhaps? Maybe we would have an actual topic.

[TomGuycott]

Honest question Nier, what games do you actually like? Just curious, I sometimes get confused.

A decent amount. I'll just list some favorites.

Really good game list

[Terminal Devastation]

...I appreciate the attempt at psychoanalysis, I do, but isn't that a bit presumptuous? I usually find games like that to be unsatisfying. Commendable, of course, but there generally isn't enough to hold my interest. I want more than just a singular refined mechanical system from an experience. I'm a bit perplexed that you came to that conclusion given that the only other game I've mentioned (which has been in a positive light) has been Super Metroid, which is... not that sort of game at all.

I've mentioned before, the criticism isn't that there is too much; its that what's there doesn't work as well as it should. What's there is misguided. Simply, it isn't the presence of alternative options or different areas and dungeons and levels, it is the soulless implementation of those two things. the level

I want the level design to differ, I don't want every dungeon to come packaged with the same formulaic expectations; maybe don't have an item in some of the dungeons. maybe this one dungeon that gives you an item crafts itself in a way so that you become "trapped" and getting that item is the way you get out, sort of a microcosm of a level within the macrocosm. I want the mechanics and items to be interesting and engaging, with reduced overlap; I want the level design to be smartly designed and undeceptive. you know, all things that zelda isnt

Honestly, just, destroy the "formula".

I wasn't attempting to psychoanalysize (at least intentionally). I'm trying to figure out at how big a unit you're finding the "formula" to fail, or if its just Zelda's inherent base pattern you dislike. The later is more personal taste, and there's really nothing flawed either way about it (as in, the pattern or ones taste).

A lot of the things you mentioned suggested you found Zelda to fail on, to borrow your own phrase, the microcosm of a level within the macrocosm. With the microcosm of a level being the actual level, and the macrocosm being the entire game.
Zelda neglects to continue to build upon the "use" of each item outside of the dungeon they were found it. Areas aren't designed with the previous things in mind.
Super metroid on the other hand, it's just as likely to find a puzzle that uses one or more of the things you found previously as just the new thing. Area's are designed around the previous things and the new things.

Which leads me to why I mentioned portal. Portal is designed as a whole, rather than a series of parts. That's the comparison to Super metroid I was making. The formula's are vastly different, but that remains the same.
I might have been wrong about you liking it, but I'm lead to believe you find it a decent game regardless. Still could be wrong there, but, eh, doesn't matter.

With all that said... Zelda's formula DOES have wiggle room to make things interesting. Since I like the phrase, the "microcosm of a level" would be easy to incorporate into a Zelda game, without changing the dungeon's expectations. I believe its rather common that the room the item was found it locks you in until you get and use the item. There's no reason the locked in can't be much earlier in the dungeon (I want to say there's one zelda game with a dungeon that DOES in fact do this... but I'm drawing blanks). A Link to the Past (which is a better game) mixes things up quite a bit in dungeon design. The 4th dark world dungeon is quite different from the usual pattern. The dungeon item is useless in the dungeon itself, and even uses a completely different mechanic from any other dungeon. Yet still has a dungeon item. I think the Water temple in Oot could have been improved if it changed the water level of the lake outside and made the fire arrow it's item rather than the long shot, and just have Dark Link guard the final flood valve. Would be able to delay a lot of the dungeon for a while, and still progress how you'd like, and still keep the pattern, since at this point it would feel like a rip off if you DIDN'T get a dungeon item in a dungeon in a zelda game... but that doesn't restrict how, where, or when you'd get the item or how useful it was in the dungeon.

Maybe it would be neat to have a dungeon where the item right there in the front door... and you don't enter the main part of the dungeon until much later. Or killing the boss changes the dungeon so you can access the item later.

Also... I realize the topic might have shifted from why OoT is or isn't a bad game to what could make a Zelda game really great... but I think the later is far more productive and interesting, so I'm just going to role with it.

being said, Prettynier is hardly attacking OoT for the sake of attacking, there are reasons behind his posts (a thing you all failed to have) and etc etc

I'm largely asking for more and more detail about said reasons, mostly because I find a lot of his reasons not quite complete, because I don't see them quite that way. If I pry them part into smaller units, maybe I can see just where he's coming from in a way I understand. Or just maybe... I can find something flawed in his reasoning, point it out, and we both can learn from it as he reforms the reason stronger than before.

[Gors]

that's fine; as long as one don't resort to 'i like oot' as reasoning for this, it should be alright. game design is something really interesting, and therefore you should discuss it properly.