Forums
Guides
Features
Media
Zelda Wiki
Patreon
    Zelda doesn't appeal to me anymore

      Post by jackthomaser ().

      This post was deleted by HollowmanOfEoL: Bot ().
    • Z-MAN7 wrote:

      Yeah I get that, I've seen anime. However I don't believe Japan exists in the world Hyrule is in.
      There is a precedent where the developers' bias has manifested in the game.

      Consider the common racist attitude towards south Asian people and the negative portrayal of the Gerudo. Further, consider why Lana is light-skinned and good, but Cia is dark-skinned and evil. Why is Tetra tan, but the moment she assumes the guise of a princess she's much lighter skinned?

      The Zelda team shouldn't be given a free pass just because it's a fantasy setting, and we shouldn't assume that they treat it separately as a world free from their influence and bias because they haven't. It's very much a product of their culture.
    • Zelda has really been milked in recent years.

      -Ports and remasters everywhere (WW, MM, TP)
      -Spin-offs (Hyrule Warriors)
      -Shovelware (Triforce Heroes, TP Picross)

      I mean, I'm not saying it hasn't happened before. Just that it feels like they've been releasing a lot of crap lately in the past 4 years with the "Zelda" name on the logo.

      I just want BotW. Not lazy cash-ins like ALBW or TFH.
    • Tony wrote:

      It's very much a product of their culture.
      That I can see. Ordon village is based on old japanese villages, Gorons love Sumo and have a Yakuza vibe in TP. The opening act in SS was literally anime high school. The series overall follows classic high fantasy tropes with a touch of japanese flair.


      Further, consider why Lana is light-skinned and good, but Cia is dark-skinned and evil. Why is Tetra tan, but the moment she assumes the guise of a princess she's much lighter skinned?
      That's reaching a bit too far, Tetra goes back to her old self at the end of WW, even has a stained glass mural in ST. Cia wasn't all bad, she wanted Link all to herself and was being manipulated by Ganondorf. Her and Lana went back to being Time Guardians together.


      The Zelda team shouldn't be given a free pass just because it's a fantasy setting
      As long as we continue to get awesome games, I'd give them all the free passes in the world to be honest fam.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Z-MAN7 ().

    • DeiStar wrote:

      Zelda has really been milked in recent years.

      -Ports and remasters everywhere (WW, MM, TP)
      -Spin-offs (Hyrule Warriors)
      -Shovelware (Triforce Heroes, TP Picross)

      I mean, I'm not saying it hasn't happened before. Just that it feels like they've been releasing a lot of crap lately in the past 4 years with the "Zelda" name on the logo.

      I just want BotW. Not lazy cash-ins like ALBW or TFH.
      Those are clearly your personal opinions and that's just fine. However, I don't see a problem with remakes - I enjoyed them all and it allowed me to play some of my favorites games again without having to go find the appropriate console to play the original.

      Also, I wouldn't say that ALBW and TFH were lazy cash-ins. ALBW was Nintendo trying to get back to roots - what the fans were asking for - non-linearity and overall, it was well received.

      TFH, while not super popular, was Nintendo trying something new with the series. It clearly didn't work out as well as they hoped, but it certainly wasn't them trying to cash in on anything.

      Sig & Avvy by Lady Sunshine, the most wonderful girl in the world
      Come check out our little business - Birdie B Bath Bombs
    • It's not Zelda. It's neo-Nintendo that is the problem. Won't get into it again, but they really need to up their game. The age of low budget minigames being the best selling games of all time has ended. If that's their sole intention, they can move to mobile and milk their franchises until the end of time. People expect a lot more from their console games these days. Zelda: BotW is a start, but doesn't mean anything by itself. Nintendo has a lot to prove on the NX.
      "Can't post that on a Christian forum."
    • DeiStar wrote:

      Zelda has really been milked in recent years.
      I assure you that spinoffs, ports and remasters are nothing new. They've been doing it since the series came out, and it's actually been rather light in "recent years."

      Z-MAN7 wrote:

      That's reaching a bit too far, Tetra goes back to her old self at the end of WW, even has a stained glass mural in ST. Cia wasn't all bad, she wanted Link all to herself and was being manipulated by Ganondorf. Her and Lana went back to being Time Guardians together.
      You're stating incidental information and not addressing my points.

      Why is it that Tetra the pirate was tan, and Zelda the princess was light-skinned? Why did she have to be light-skinned as a person of status in the first place? Whether she returned to her pirate self isn't the issue.

      Cia was literally the Guardian of Time's evil half, and "inexplicably" darker skinned than the good half. Why was this?

      What do these imply?
    • Tony wrote:

      You're stating incidental information and not addressing my points.
      Why is it that Tetra the pirate was tan, and Zelda the princess was light-skinned? Why did she have to be light-skinned as a person of status in the first place? Whether she returned to her pirate self isn't the issue.

      Cia was literally the Guardian of Time's evil half, and "inexplicably" darker skinned than the good half. Why was this?

      What do these imply?
      That people can take a non issue and make a big deal out of it.
    • Tony wrote:

      Please Understand wrote:

      Really? I don't recall any spinoffs until Four Swords Adventures.
      FSA is a main-series title, not a spinoff.


      The earliest (on this list) dates back to 1989. There were a ton of miscellaneous merchandise sold as well, including board games going back to '86.
      I think that depends on your definition of a spin-off. For me, FSA is absolutely a spin-off because it's not a regular Zelda game. I don't consider CD-i games spin-offs because, to me, they are not part of the series to begin with. Regardless, you are reaching a bit here by saying Nintendo always did spinoffs like they do now, because the pattern is clearly different. They used Zelda spin-offs as a way to get people to purchase separate peripherals and products.
      "Can't post that on a Christian forum."
    • DeiStar wrote:

      Zelda has really been milked in recent years.

      -Ports and remasters everywhere (WW, MM, TP)
      -Spin-offs (Hyrule Warriors)
      -Shovelware (Triforce Heroes, TP Picross)

      I mean, I'm not saying it hasn't happened before. Just that it feels like they've been releasing a lot of crap lately in the past 4 years with the "Zelda" name on the logo.

      I just want BotW. Not lazy cash-ins like ALBW or TFH.
      I hate TFH with a burning passion more than most people, but even I know it's not shovelware. I can't even deny that it's a canon mainline game.

      We can hate games all we want and think they are a waste of time but I still like using the proper words. And Picross I liked.

      definition of 'shovelware' wrote:

      Software that is hastily made, without proper testing, and 'shoveled' down consumers throats in order to make some quick cash.
    • Midoro wrote:

      Wiki considers anything canon if it is in the official timeline.

      FS, FSA and TFH are in the timeline.
      I judge spin-offs based on gameplay, not whether they are on the timeline or not. A game can be spin-off and yet still be on the timeline, for me.

      Then again, I care very little about the timeline and I consider it dumb.
      "Can't post that on a Christian forum."
    • Either way, spin-offs and remasters are nothing new for Nintendo in general. Dr. Mario came out 26 years ago, and Super Mario All-Stars came out 23 years ago. I do wish they would go back to bundling remasters, though.
      My philosophy on the timeline now is the same as Winston Churchill’s:

      “It is a mistake to look too far ahead. The chain of destiny can only be grasped one Link at a time.”
    • That still doesn't change the fact that games on the timeline are considered part of the main series, regardless of how different their gameplay is. As well, the three aforementioned games still have the main series title of "The Legend of Zelda" in them, unlike HW and LCT.

      If you want to argue that, you would be best to argue with someone else -- I didn't write the wiki's policy. But arguing about it still wouldn't change that.
    • @Midoro I'm not saying they should change their approach, just saying there's a huge difference between a spinoff that is a proper new game and a spinoff that is just a marketing trick. And we didn't start getting the former until much later on.

      Castigear wrote:

      Either way, spin-offs and remasters are nothing new for Nintendo in general. Dr. Mario came out 26 years ago, and Super Mario All-Stars came out 23 years ago. I do wish they would go back to bundling remasters, though.
      Yeah, but there has never been a shortage of proper Mario games. I think people are getting impatient by how long it takes to develop a regular Zelda title and cheaper spinoffs are not enough to satiate that hunger.
      "Can't post that on a Christian forum."