I recently finished playing A Link to the Past, and two things caught my attention. The first one is how similar it was to Ocarina of Time in terms of structure (OoT being the only Zelda game I'd played). An open-ish world(s) with a number of secrets and dungeons. In a way it shouldn't be surprising, but I can't help but to be blown away by how well a 3d game managed to capture the essence of a 2d one.
The second one is a differece between the two. And it's the reason of this thread. While OoT felt very puzzle oriented, A Link to the Past felt very action-y. With its dungeons more about skill than solving puzzles. I would have though it would be the opposite. After all, the SNES game has very limited gameplay. It's a 2d game, where you can move in only 8 directions and hit with your sword. Yes, there is ranged attacks and magic, but the core of the combat is that simple. Move around and hit with your sword.
At the same time, knowing the legacy, I had a feeling the game would know how to keep that basic combat ever entertaining and fresh. And it did. Even though the core of the combat remained the same, the game found ways to make me constantly improve. To feel like every new level was an evolution of the old one. And in the last dungeon I found a sequence of rooms that encapsulate this accomplishment:
First room: This room shows two ways the game manages to keep itself fresh: New enemy designs (the skeleton can dodge your sword and counterattack while the other guy can spit fire) and those rolling floor thing that will affect your movement. Also, an important note: nothing here is new to the game. This dungeon only use old stuff in new combinations.
Second room: Now we have a more complex formation of rolling floors, but also a statue with a rotating eye that will shoot a laser at you! Better keep moving.
Third room: How about TWO statues that will shoot laser at you? Also, they are moving with the floor. And how about some spike blocks to limit your movement? Yes, that will work. Said some developer 30 years ago.
Forth room: Even if all of that wasn't enough? Let's put some fucking ice that totally screw withZelda Link's movement!
Can you see it? The progressive development of gameplay? That takes something simple and make it complex?
This is something I feel is missing in many western games. Take The Witcher 3, for example. It has a good, yet simple combat. And it remains like that for the entirety of the game. Mind you, I'm not saying TW3's combat is bad. I liked it. It managed to keep me engaged for all the hours I spent in that amazing realized open world. But it never managed to go beyond that. If it was a 2d game like Zelda, it would be like if every room was the same. Maybe with some different colors, and the enemies would look different, but the same nonetheless. What would make it fresh wouldn't be gameplay, but narrative or pretty graphics. I could also mentions game like Uncharted 2 or Alan Wake, the latter which I felt had a very nice combat system, but that was never properly explored.
Of course, there are western games that more fully explore their gameplay options. Take Half Life 2 and its episodes. Like someone in this very forum so brilliant put, while for other games physics are just something to make the game look nice, in HL2 case it's about gameplay as well. And by exploring its physics engine that game managed to create a number of different "rooms" with the same basic principle.
I'm not saying anything new when I mention how some western games seem to put production values, graphics and narrative ahead of gameplay, but I do feel it's something worth saying. Because if you can combine the two approachs, you can make a much better game.
The second one is a differece between the two. And it's the reason of this thread. While OoT felt very puzzle oriented, A Link to the Past felt very action-y. With its dungeons more about skill than solving puzzles. I would have though it would be the opposite. After all, the SNES game has very limited gameplay. It's a 2d game, where you can move in only 8 directions and hit with your sword. Yes, there is ranged attacks and magic, but the core of the combat is that simple. Move around and hit with your sword.
At the same time, knowing the legacy, I had a feeling the game would know how to keep that basic combat ever entertaining and fresh. And it did. Even though the core of the combat remained the same, the game found ways to make me constantly improve. To feel like every new level was an evolution of the old one. And in the last dungeon I found a sequence of rooms that encapsulate this accomplishment:
First room: This room shows two ways the game manages to keep itself fresh: New enemy designs (the skeleton can dodge your sword and counterattack while the other guy can spit fire) and those rolling floor thing that will affect your movement. Also, an important note: nothing here is new to the game. This dungeon only use old stuff in new combinations.
Second room: Now we have a more complex formation of rolling floors, but also a statue with a rotating eye that will shoot a laser at you! Better keep moving.
Third room: How about TWO statues that will shoot laser at you? Also, they are moving with the floor. And how about some spike blocks to limit your movement? Yes, that will work. Said some developer 30 years ago.
Forth room: Even if all of that wasn't enough? Let's put some fucking ice that totally screw with
Can you see it? The progressive development of gameplay? That takes something simple and make it complex?
This is something I feel is missing in many western games. Take The Witcher 3, for example. It has a good, yet simple combat. And it remains like that for the entirety of the game. Mind you, I'm not saying TW3's combat is bad. I liked it. It managed to keep me engaged for all the hours I spent in that amazing realized open world. But it never managed to go beyond that. If it was a 2d game like Zelda, it would be like if every room was the same. Maybe with some different colors, and the enemies would look different, but the same nonetheless. What would make it fresh wouldn't be gameplay, but narrative or pretty graphics. I could also mentions game like Uncharted 2 or Alan Wake, the latter which I felt had a very nice combat system, but that was never properly explored.
Of course, there are western games that more fully explore their gameplay options. Take Half Life 2 and its episodes. Like someone in this very forum so brilliant put, while for other games physics are just something to make the game look nice, in HL2 case it's about gameplay as well. And by exploring its physics engine that game managed to create a number of different "rooms" with the same basic principle.
I'm not saying anything new when I mention how some western games seem to put production values, graphics and narrative ahead of gameplay, but I do feel it's something worth saying. Because if you can combine the two approachs, you can make a much better game.
