Dr. Noh Chimes In On Zelda Criticism

If you haven’t heard, Tevis Thompson’s essay Saving Zelda has been making rounds across the internet. I have no idea who Tevis is, and why he is suddenly at the forefront of Legend of Zelda criticism. I guess that’s what happens when something gets linked on Reddit and The Penny Arcade Report. I must say that his essay is an interesting read. Tevis brings up a few interesting points, but I can’t say I agree with them all.

Tevis’s main argument is that “modern Zeldas are broken at their core.” For him, Zelda games should be more about exploration, discovery, and survival. For Tevis, the original Legend of Zelda epitomizes this. Opposed to this is the puzzle solving, linear progressing, and hand-holding nature of modern Zelda titles. For Tevis, ever since A Link to the Past, Zelda games have lost their edge.

There are a number of things to consider when comparing the NES Zelda titles with modern iterations. I believe that Zelda games are indicative of the time in which they were released. The original Zelda was released in 1986. Video game development was a much different world at that time. Tevis argues that because the original Zelda had little plot, it made for a better game. I’m intrigued by the idea of a Zelda with no plot focused on exploration, but considering the way the series has progressed and evolved, it almost feels as if a change of that sort would be too experimental. It’s ironic that going back to its roots could be considered too much of a change, but it’s also foolish to dismiss the lore that has been created. To me, the reason the original Zelda had no plot is because that’s how NES games were developed at that time. Action games like Super Mario Bros. had a story, but most of it was told through the instructions manual rather than through the game. Plot seemed like more of an afterthought.

As it stands, Zelda has had 4-5 console titles that span 3 generations of consoles that Tevis would consider as modern Zeldas. The transition from 2D to 3D that made Ocarina of Time so cherished was and still is a great achievement. I believe the more focused addition of puzzle elements stood to add depth to the series, creating an engaging experience of a different manner than the original. The problem is not that Ocarina of Time changed the series. The problem is the change, or lack of change with the titles that followed. The Zelda series is guilty of becoming formulaic, but that’s also indicative of its time.

The things that Tevis takes issue with in regards to Zelda is can be attributed to gaming as a whole. Hand-holding, sticking to a formula, lowering difficulty, and plot-structured linear game progression are not just things modern Zeldas can be blamed for but modern gaming as a whole is guilty of it. For some, it is represented even more blatantly.

Tevis’s apparent jadedness of the series will doubtfully be resolved in the near future. The likelihood of a plot-less, exploratory Zelda game is seemingly unlikely, but stranger things have happened (see: Tingle’s Balloon Fight or BS Zelda). Nintendo is more likely to experiment with gameplay within a franchise for its handheld iterations and/or non-canonical, side story titles or spin offs.

I believe modern Zelda titles do still retain a spirit of exploration: it’s especially noticeable in Wind Waker. As the series continues to evolve, and it always has, the changes within the series will reflect modernity as well as creating its own influential trends. I’ve no idea what the Zelda series will evolve into 10 years from now, but I’m sure it will be quite different from what it is now.

I believe exploratory gaming still exists, but the transition into the 3D realm changed its nature. Exploration as described by Tevis in Zelda was about discovery. Modern exploratory games are about freedom. Sandbox games and emergent games exemplify this in games like Grand Theft Auto and Minecraft, but unlike the original Zelda, players have the choice to explore or not.

Image Source: 1