Why has there been so few Zelda clones?

[Vash The Stampede]

I want to be super clear that where I'm taking issue with people's arguments, it's entirely on the merit of those arguments, internally. I am in no way suggesting you should like any of these things. I'm also not arguing BotW was a perfect game; I felt it was best in the first half, when everything felt super open and unexplored, but I agree it fell into the Ubisoft "get all the things" mania by the latter half. Partly, it's that they designed the game so you could just rush Ganon and succeed. Interesting choice, but it necessarily meant that none of the things you could go looking for were actually needed. Not sure if that's a better design than "here's a progression block with an obvious and single solution, go find that solution" that both Zelda games and Metroidvanias are prone to. They both have pluses and minuses.

I actually collected all the seeds in the game and the reward was poop. Biggest waste of my time ever. I also like the idea of killing Ganon whenever i want except Ganon was a push over. I would understand that I needed to do everything in the game because the boss fight is hard, but it isn't. I was seriously over prepared for killing him. Feels bad when killing the last boss is easier than the rest of the game.

And this is what we mean by a possible perspective issue. Not trying to be rude, but some of us cut our teeth on the original Legend of Zelda, back in '87 or '88, when that game blew our minds.

I still have the golden cartridge along with the original Nintendo. I like Zelda II better.

Same with Goldeneye, which was a big step up from Doom, and which was the first real console-based FPS worth a damn. I spent my bachelor party mostly playing Goldeneye 64 and eating pizza and so forth with a bunch of friends, and it was a fantastic night, and that was years after Goldeneye came out.

Would these games hold up against modern releases, that have been built upon their backs? Of course not. But they were the fundamental building blocks from which those later games were built, and absolutely groundbreaking in their time.

Goldeneye was unique in that it was probably the first FPS that you explore and did things that wasn't imitation 3D, like Doom. But Doom survives today through Brutal-Doom and even being ported to the Nintendo Switch. While the graphics for Doom was good for 1993, it was the gameplay that allows it to survive. Quake and Quake 2 did not get many ports because these games were about graphics and not so much gameplay. I'm not saying Ocarina is bad but a lot of the gameplay elements were done better in modern games. Doom Eternal is awesome but not the same game as 1993 Doom. I think Serious Sam is the best thing to getting a Doom like game and it still isn't that good either.

I see The Elder Scrolls III Morrowind being a "Zelda like game" that does a better job at dungeon crawling and exploring. Cause that's what I think makes a Zelda game, which is world exploration and dungeon exploration. Which is why Breath of the Wild was disappointing because there were no dungeons. Lots of stupid physics puzzles but no dungeon and no boss to kill for loot. Also the weapon system sucked. Lots of weapons but nothing unique or good except the Master Sword, which needed a DLC to be good.

[Selastan]

Yea didn't you know it's 2020 where genres are named after games. Just think "Souls Game" is a thing now as if Souls invented ARPGs with checkpoints. The average gamer these days probably doesn't even know the difference in a RPG from an Adventure game. Genre definitions are completely lost on them.

Naming genres after games has been around forever. Roguelike, anyone?

[Tech614]

Naming genres after games has been around forever. Roguelike, anyone?

Imagining comparing a genre from the early 80s that had no name being named Roguelike after Rogue to someone calling ARPGs "Souls games" because they think Souls games invented ARPGs with checkpoint based progression. Or asking for "Zelda Clones" when Zelda is just an action adventure game with puzzles, of which there are many many many games.

[Dhrizzle]

Basically, Z targeting sucked along with crappy waiting time to kill certain enemies. You don't even jump in Ocarina of Time as you just walk to a ledge and the game jumps for you. Some puzzles are just hitting a glowing thing to open a door, which is not really a puzzle. The world is also locked away until you complete certain tasks. Egorpator in 2014 was even right to say that Nintendo was opening up players to a more open world like the original Zelda. Basically, Breath of the Wild.

Z-targetting was amazing, not just for the level of control it gave but also the cinematic views of the fighting. You're correct that some of the simplest puzzles are just "hit a thing, open door" but that's either right at the beginning or little side activities to find shinies or whatever. Using that as a criticism is like saying WoW is rubbish because characters only have 2 abilities and one is auto-attack.

And yes you had to complete tasks to open up parts of the world; you needed weapons to access the Deku tree, you had to finish the first dungeon to access Hyrule field and from there you had to collect certain items to allow you to reach certain parts of the map. I don't see that as a problem.

I see The Elder Scrolls III Morrowind being a "Zelda like game" that does a better job at dungeon crawling and exploring. Cause that's what I think makes a Zelda game, which is world exploration and dungeon exploration. Which is why Breath of the Wild was disappointing because there were no dungeons. Lots of stupid physics puzzles but no dungeon and no boss to kill for loot. Also the weapon system sucked. Lots of weapons but nothing unique or good except the Master Sword, which needed a DLC to be good.

This might be the problem you're having, treating Zelda as a crap RPG when it's an action/puzzle game. This might be due to the way OoT was very clever at giving an illusion of a true open world and non-linear game while tying puzzle-solving items with a sense of the character becoming more powerful (along with things that literally just made your character more powerful such as extra hearts and bigger weapons.)

- - - Updated - - -

Imagining comparing a genre from the early 80s that had no name being named Roguelike after Rogue to someone calling ARPGs "Souls games" because they think Souls games invented ARPGs with checkpoint based progression. Or asking for "Zelda Clones" when Zelda is just an action adventure game with puzzles, of which there are many many many games.

"Souls-like" doesn't just refer to ARPGs, it goes more specifically to 3rd-person ARPGs with checkpoints and fights requiring pattern recognition with correct responses to enemy moves, usually with heavy punishment for mistakes (as in you lose a lot of health and have to restart often.) Basically if you play a "Souls-like" game you'll notice similarities between it and the Dark Souls games but it will play differently to Diablo or Torchlight.

Ditto with "Zelda clone," there are ways in which these games offer items that allow you to solve puzzles, enhance fighting ability and open new areas of the map that are pretty key to the genre along with a lock-on or at least soft-lock method of combat. There are noticeable similarities between games like Ocarina of Time, Beyond Good and Evil, Darksiders etc. that are absent in other "action adventure games with puzzles" such as Resident Evil.

[Vash The Stampede]

Z-targetting was amazing, not just for the level of control it gave but also the cinematic views of the fighting. You're correct that some of the simplest puzzles are just "hit a thing, open door" but that's either right at the beginning or little side activities to find shinies or whatever. Using that as a criticism is like saying WoW is rubbish because characters only have 2 abilities and one is auto-attack.

And yes you had to complete tasks to open up parts of the world; you needed weapons to access the Deku tree, you had to finish the first dungeon to access Hyrule field and from there you had to collect certain items to allow you to reach certain parts of the map. I don't see that as a problem.

I'm not saying that Ocarina of Time is a bad game but that certain elements of the game weren't well thought out. But that's how Zelda games have been since they went 3D. Z-targeting messes with camera which makes it hard to see what's going on around you while you're fighting. There's a reason why not many 3rd person perspective games do this. Even in Breath of the Wild they change this to make the camera not suck.

This might be the problem you're having, treating Zelda as a crap RPG when it's an action/puzzle game. This might be due to the way OoT was very clever at giving an illusion of a true open world and non-linear game while tying puzzle-solving items with a sense of the character becoming more powerful (along with things that literally just made your character more powerful such as extra hearts and bigger weapons.)

My perspective on a game is my perspective. I'm not treating it as a RPG but as a game. I wanted Breath of the Wild to be more like the original Zelda where you find dungeons and explore and kill bosses for cool items. This is the problem with Zelda games as they don't have a formula and therefore nothing to clone, as Nintendo changes what is a Zelda game with each new release. Not all Zelda games are equal either. I feel that Breath of the Wild had bigger plans for it, but due to limited budget, some things were cut. I'm sure there were suppose to be dungeons in it. Pretty sure there was suppose to be a hookshot as evidence with all the left over targets in the fire zone. They couldn't be bothered to remove the targets when they decided not to include the hookshot. The reason for no hookshot was because it allowed players to move around the game too quickly. Hookshot was a staple to the Zelda franchise, so clearly that doesn't define what is a Zelda game either.

When the OP talks about a Zelda clone, he's talking about a Breath of the Wild clone, and that game is a clone of other games. Cloning a clone is asinine.

[LordTakeo]

Ever tried Okami?

[Shakou]

Up until Breath of the Wild, the Zelda games weren't exactly best in class.

Uh yes they were, and with few exceptions as far as the Main Series is concerned. Zelda has been a flagship launch title for Nintendo, for every console since the Super Nintendo.

They have all mainly been essential games. Every single one. Not always what the fans want, but in most cases absolutely genre defining, if not defining that whole console era.

What a lot of people miss about Zelda games is that the emphasis of gameplay is on solving puzzles, and not on combat. Even the combat *is a puzzle*.

With Breath of the Wild they just took the kid gloves off and made a more mature type of Zelda game with more in-depth gameplay and customization options, and they listened to what fans had been asking them for. Fans had been very vocal and united in wanting a much larger game world to explore and significantly less emphasis on linear storytelling. So that's Breath of the Wild.

It ranks pretty high on my list of favorite Zelda games for sure, it was a heavy hitter but it did not completely break the mold on Zelda gameplay, the major shift was the huge expansive world that you could fully explore that gave games like Skyrim a run for their money, and much more emphasis on replay value.

[Blackmist]

No Zelda clones? Zelda has influenced nearly every videogame that exists today.

To the point where if a player picks up OoT for the first time, they'll think it's nothing special. It's just every adventure game since but worse. Until they realise it was doing that shit in 1998, where your average 3D game was a crappy platformer with like two mechanics.

Take a look at God of War from 2018 and tell me what's really different between that and OoT.

[Endus]

I'm not saying that Ocarina of Time is a bad game but that certain elements of the game weren't well thought out. But that's how Zelda games haven't been since they went 3D. Z-targeting messes with camera which makes it hard to see what's going on around you while you're fighting. There's a reason why not many 3rd person perspective games do this. Even in Breath of the Wild they change this to make the camera not suck.

Uhh, what?

Z-targeting ensures the camera is locked behind the player, relative to the enemy they're locked on to. This ensures the enemy remains at the center of your camera angle, and you don't lose them by flipping the camera around manually. The entire point was to make it easier to see what you're fighting.

You do lose some visibility of the area in every other direction, yes. But that's the tradeoff. And you can swap in and out as needed, if you need that wider perspective at any point.

And Breath of the Wild absolutely has Z-targeting, dude. I don't know where you got the idea that it doesn't.

And a ton of major 3rd person games have this kind of lock-on feature. Not usually called "Z-targeting", of course, because they don't label the button that applies it the "Z" button (something only true of the N64 controller). This kind of lock-on is a staple of most 3rd-person melee-focused games, including the Dark Souls series and a lot of brawlers.

My perspective on a game is my perspective. I'm not treating it as a RPG but as a game. I wanted Breath of the Wild to be more like the original Zelda where you find dungeons and explore and kill bosses for cool items.

I mean, you literally do that, in BotW.

Pretty sure there was suppose to be a hookshot as evidence with all the left over targets in the fire zone. They couldn't be bothered to remove the targets when they decided not to include the hookshot. The reason for no hookshot was because it allowed players to move around the game too quickly. Hookshot was a staple to the Zelda franchise, so clearly that doesn't define what is a Zelda game either.

Hookshot wasn't in either of the first two Zelda games, only showing up for the first time in Link to the Past. It also hasn't been present in Oracle of Ages/Seasons, Minish Cap, Twilight Princess, Phantom Hourglass, Skyward Sword, and now, BotW. If we count the Oracles games as one game (we probably shouldn't), then the Hookshot's been in as many games as it hasn't. It's a recurring concept, but by no means an expectation.

[Eninya]

It's not a clone by any stretch of the imagination, but a 2d action RPG that is basically peak evolution of the top-down combat Zelda gameplay is CrossCode. My favorite indie game of all time. It's very story driven and combat focused, but has puzzles, too.

[prwraith]

I never played Darksiders unfortunately

You should. Though i'd argue the first darksiders is more zelda than the 2nd.

[Zandalarian Paladin]

A lot of games tried to emulate Zelda in one way or another. It is still the most well known 3D RPG of all time.

Every time the industry gives birth to a new genre or over perform in one, you see a ton of clones shortly after. Zelda has many clones, 2D AND 3D.

Oceanhorn (1 and 2), Hob, 3D Dot Game Heroes (PS3 exclusive), the Darksiders (1 and 2), Okami, Genshin Impact, Immortals: Fenyx Rising, Evoland and those are just off the top of my head. All 3D, too.

So I'm not sure if your thread title is right.

[DeltrusDisc]

And this is what we mean by a possible perspective issue. Not trying to be rude, but some of us cut our teeth on the original Legend of Zelda, back in '87 or '88, when that game blew our minds. And then worked through Link's Awakening because it was literally the only other Zelda game that existed at the time. Those games were already high points for us for a decade before Ocarina of Time came out, and revamped everything.

Same with Goldeneye, which was a big step up from Doom, and which was the first real console-based FPS worth a damn. I spent my bachelor party mostly playing Goldeneye 64 and eating pizza and so forth with a bunch of friends, and it was a fantastic night, and that was years after Goldeneye came out.

Would these games hold up against modern releases, that have been built upon their backs? Of course not. But they were the fundamental building blocks from which those later games were built, and absolutely groundbreaking in their time.

God damn it that sounds like an awesome time!

[Vash The Stampede]

Uh yes they were, and with few exceptions as far as the Main Series is concerned. Zelda has been a flagship launch title for Nintendo, for every console since the Super Nintendo.

For Nintendo yes but I can think of a lot of better action/puzzle/exploration games than the Zelda series. Skyrim comes to mind. Breath of the Wild is Nintendo's most successful Zelda game so far, and it was not like previous Zelda titles.

What a lot of people miss about Zelda games is that the emphasis of gameplay is on solving puzzles, and not on combat. Even the combat *is a puzzle*.

Ok lets see, and I'm pulling this from memory.

Original 8-bit Zelda- You explore a world full of dungeons and fight difficult bosses to progress. Not much in puzzles here.
Zelda II - Same deal but dungeons turn into 2D side scroller. More emphasis on combat, not so much on puzzles.
Link to the Past - Pretty much the same as the original Zelda, but with a light and dark world to explore.
Ocarina of Time - First 3D Zelda title that puts even more emphasis in combat where you can dodge, roll, block, and even jump attack. Also you can switch between the present and future timeline. You also get big boy body. Not much in puzzles here.
The Wind Waker - Probably the first Zelda game where puzzles are more emphasized. You lose the ability to travel between different worlds.
Twilight Princess - More emphasis on puzzles and now we have big boy link again. Also switching between worlds is back again.
Skyward Sword - More puzzles and time travel is back.
Breath of the Wild - Lots more puzzles than any previous Zelda title. Not only is the world peppered in those seed puzzles, but also lots of those temple's where you basically do physics puzzles. Also the four animal things were just giant puzzles. No world switching or time travel here.

Do you see any puzzle solving consistency here? There's not much in consistency in Zelda games. For a while Zelda games did switch between two sides of the same world, and that wasn't always the case even after Link to the Past introduced it. All we know that is consistent with Zelda games is that there's a guy named Zelda that you play as, and he saves a princess named I think Impa, and he sometimes goes after three triangles of great power. Also the final boss is a pig guy from Minecraft. Sometimes that pig guy is human.

[Tech614]

It is still the most well known 3D RPG of all time.

Series that mostly had no RPG elements is an RPG? It's an action adventure game dude, it's not an RPG and most Zelda games don't have any RPG elements(stats, levels, gear etc) at all. BoTW has some very minor RPG elements but still no where near enough to call it an RPG.

[Zenfoldor]

Up until Breath of the Wild, the Zelda games weren't exactly best in class. Sure some are good games but nothing top tier. Original Zelda was top down, with Zelda 2 being a mix of 2d side scroller and top down. Ocarina of time was the first 3D Zelda, but as Egoraptor put it the game isn't as good as we thought it was.

Breath of the Wild is the first Zelda game to be an open world but not the first open world game, and not even good at it. Breath of the Wild is more of a Skyrim or Elder Scrolls type of game. You run around in an open world and do what you basically want except not very good at it. The best thing about Breath of the Wild is probably the freedom to use physics as you please, to the point where it's game breaking.

I disagree with your opinion, I think Zelda has always been best in class.

[Endus]

For Nintendo yes but I can think of a lot of better action/puzzle/exploration games than the Zelda series. Skyrim comes to mind. Breath of the Wild is Nintendo's most successful Zelda game so far, and it was not like previous Zelda titles.

Ok lets see, and I'm pulling this from memory.

Original 8-bit Zelda- You explore a world full of dungeons and fight difficult bosses to progress. Not much in puzzles here.
Zelda II - Same deal but dungeons turn into 2D side scroller. More emphasis on combat, not so much on puzzles.
Link to the Past - Pretty much the same as the original Zelda, but with a light and dark world to explore.

To take these three as a set, there's a ton of puzzles in there. Vague hints to things that have to be deciphered, visual clues that have to be noticed and exploited to find a hidden secret, block puzzles (2d Zeldas LOVED block puzzles), etc. The games are even arguably primarily puzzle games, with monsters only present as a component of those puzzles, to make rooms more challenging.

Ocarina of Time - First 3D Zelda title that puts even more emphasis in combat where you can dodge, roll, block, and even jump attack. Also you can switch between the present and future timeline. You also get big boy body. Not much in puzzles here.

Seriously, what do you mean by "puzzle"? Because again, there were myriad puzzles in this game. Each temple, alone, is a puzzle, the Water Temple being notoriously tricky.

The Wind Waker - Probably the first Zelda game where puzzles are more emphasized. You lose the ability to travel between different worlds.
Twilight Princess - More emphasis on puzzles and now we have big boy link again. Also switching between worlds is back again.
Skyward Sword - More puzzles and time travel is back.

I don't see how you think any of these three have "more puzzles" compared to the earlier games. They're the same kinds of puzzles.

Breath of the Wild - Lots more puzzles than any previous Zelda title. Not only is the world peppered in those seed puzzles, but also lots of those temple's where you basically do physics puzzles. Also the four animal things were just giant puzzles. No world switching or time travel here.

Ditto here; if those are puzzles, then all those early games were chock-full of puzzles.

I just need you to be consistent about what you mean by "puzzle".

[AcidicSyn]

Yea didn't you know it's 2020 where genres are named after games. Just think "Souls Game" is a thing now as if Souls invented ARPGs with checkpoints. The average gamer these days probably doesn't even know the difference in a RPG from an Adventure game. Genre definitions are completely lost on them.

Do people really use "Souls Like" or "Souls Game" to describe an ARPG with checkpoints? I thought that term was used specifically for such games that are (supposed to be) very difficult. With generous use of words like "punishing" to describe their difficulty.

[FlawlessSoul]

Ever tried Okami?

This is a really good example, actually. Okami was a sleeper hit, with multiple ports that continued to improve on the unique gameplay and controls (apart from the Wii port, which while good in theory just wasn't accurate enough for the celestial brush). Okami HD on Switch is good, but in handheld mode it's a perfect marriage of gameplay and hardware (you can draw directly on the touchscreen, or with the analogue stick).

[RobertMugabe]

Honestly I kinda have to agree with OP. There is actually quite a lack of 3d adventure games that have a focus on puzzle solving.

The only games that iare similar is the Assassin's Creed franchise. Botw straight up even took some features from them, such as the wall climbing mechanics.

But yeah I am huge fan of Ocarina of Time, Majora's Mask, Wind Waker and Twilight Princess.

I actually didn't even really like (and didn't finish yet) Botw that much, because pretty much all puzzles are located inside these shrines, which have all the same design and the few actual dungeons, while interesting are also pretty small and share the same design elements as well. Honestly, Botw is a great game, but it's not nearly as good as everyone was saying. It's one of the best games so far in terms of exploration, as the game really isn't holding your hand in anything, but there are almost no puzzles in the open world and honestly I am not a fan of the weapons system and food (though it all becomes a lot more forgiveable once you unlock the master sword). It's also a really grindy game... in many ways it has become more of an RPG (both negative and positive).