Why has there been so few Zelda clones?

[Endus]

BotW doesn't feel like a Zelda game at all. It's a good game, but a poor Zelda game if you ask me.

The musical score sucks. The storyline is minimal. The puzzles are nonexistant in the world but are instead all packed into simple extra levels with no imagination or vibe. There are hardly any people in the world to talk to or do sidequests. The weapons and armor mechanics are pretty generic for any game but feel so out of place in a Zelda game.

All the things that make a great Zelda game are missing.

I mean, a lot of that's just not accurate. There's more people to talk to in this game than most Zelda games. A ton of sidequests. A metric ton of environmental puzzles even in the overworld, in a way that Zelda games generally haven't had before this game.

The storyline is pretty much the same as every Zelda, and if anything, more fleshed-out than most.

I'll grant you that the weapon system is new, but every Zelda game tries something new. The focus on "realistic" physics as the core of the puzzles is also new, but a step forward, frankly.

[Morgaith]

At this point i think you have to realize that "zelda clone" could mean twilight princess style or breath of the wild which are very different games.

[Dhrizzle]

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'm not going to watch a 30 minute video to find out your reasoning so I'm just going to say Ocarina of Time was definitely as amazing as I thought it was.

[Tech614]

I'm not going to watch a 30 minute video to find out your reasoning so I'm just going to say Ocarina of Time was definitely as amazing as I thought it was.

You must be new to Vash, the game was a console exclusive so by his definition he has to find a reason why it sucked/wasn't good. That's what he does, in every thread. Switch thread, PS5 thread etc lol...

But yea, OoT was amazing for its time. It's not the best aging game but that doesn't change what it meant to the gaming world in 1998.

[Endus]

I'm not going to watch a 30 minute video to find out your reasoning so I'm just going to say Ocarina of Time was definitely as amazing as I thought it was.

I swear, people judging it poorly are doing so from the perspective of games today, not games at that time.

Ocarina of Time was completely groundbreaking and paved the way for pretty much the entire concept of 3rd person action-adventure games. If you went back and played it today, it might not be as impressive, but that's because you've internalized so many innovations as just standard stuff.

It's like the film Citizen Kane. Absolutely blew the socks off cinematographers in a way that new concepts it invented have become so overused that they're cliche tropes, now, because everyone wanted to copy off that film, because it was so crazy good.

Watch it today? It's kind a slow and the camera work doesn't stand out, because you're watching it from a vantage point where every innovation has been Film 101 standard tropes for 80 years. You almost certainly don't remember a film era that wasn't directly and immensely shaped by Citizen Kane. So those things no longer stand out, unless you were there to experience it the first time, or do the historical research to realize exactly how innovative it really was.

[prwraith]

I don't really consider breath of the wild a zelda game either. 4 extremely short dungeons, not a lot of "tools" or unique items added. No hookshot etc. Honestly feels more like another game masquerading as a zelda game.

Jedi Fallen order
Darksiders 1

Both felt more zelda than botw. @Endus I don't really consider myself a purist for zelda or any game. But it's to me like playing mass effect and then playing dragon age with mass effect names in it. Sure you can call it mass effect, but it's not really the same thing.

I think Botw was fun, a great time overall. Just not *zelda* as it were

[Garybear]

I don't wanna be that guy, but you're gonna have to define what a "Zelda" game is, because I don't really consider Breath of the Wild one. So if you do consider it one, then what is a Zelda game?

Zelda games are just metroidvanias with a more open map design

[zealo]

I swear, people judging it poorly are doing so from the perspective of games today, not games at that time.

Ocarina of Time was completely groundbreaking and paved the way for pretty much the entire concept of 3rd person action-adventure games. If you went back and played it today, it might not be as impressive, but that's because you've internalized so many innovations as just standard stuff.

It's like the film Citizen Kane. Absolutely blew the socks off cinematographers in a way that new concepts it invented have become so overused that they're cliche tropes, now, because everyone wanted to copy off that film, because it was so crazy good.

Watch it today? It's kind a slow and the camera work doesn't stand out, because you're watching it from a vantage point where every innovation has been Film 101 standard tropes for 80 years. You almost certainly don't remember a film era that wasn't directly and immensely shaped by Citizen Kane. So those things no longer stand out, unless you were there to experience it the first time, or do the historical research to realize exactly how innovative it really was.

Ocarina Of Time haven't even aged that poorly either.

There have been advances in graphics and so on since, but the core gameplay still holds up remarkably well for a 3D game from the 90s when developers where still in the business of figuring out how to do that well.

There's other rather iconic games from the same time period such as the first couple of Tomb Raiders that has controls being absolute dogshit in comparison, that are still remembered rather fondly for what they were back then.

[AwkwardSquirtle]

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.

Are you serious? Firstly the history of naming genres after games goes back to Rogue-like in the 80s and Doom Clone in the 90s, and secondly there's more to a souls-like than the features you described. Obviously Dark Souls didn't invent many, if any, of its core design features, but it was iconic enough to define the formula. Doom wasn't the first FPS, but they were called doom clones for a long time.

[DeltrusDisc]

I don't wanna be that guy, but you're gonna have to define what a "Zelda" game is, because I don't really consider Breath of the Wild one. So if you do consider it one, then what is a Zelda game?

Gotta agree with this, to a degree.

BotW, while an interesting game, is NOTHING like previous Zelda games, in terms of gear/inventory. It's more like Skyrim, and in an annoying way. I actually barely put any hours into the game, for reasons related to my household, and because it was pissing me off.

Damn it, I just want to run around and use my sacred weapon, not have to constantly pick up new sticks to fight with.

A Zelda game, to me, is OoT, MM, and, while it was a kinda crappy one after them, TP.

[Tech614]

Are you serious? Firstly the history of naming genres after games goes back to Rogue-like in the 80s and Doom Clone in the 90s, and secondly there's more to a souls-like than the features you described. Obviously Dark Souls didn't invent many, if any, of its core design features, but it was iconic enough to define the formula. Doom wasn't the first FPS, but they were called doom clones for a long time.

"Souls Game" is not a genre period. "Game Clone" is not a genre period. This is a lazy way of describing a game coming from people that play a narrow selection of games. Rogue Like and Metroidvania are iconic terms from when games where still evolving and sort of ok, but describing a genre based off a modern game like Souls is actual garbage. Nobody called Kings Field games "Souls Games"... wonder why. They where literally exact same shit in first person instead. Nobody even called them "Field games" for that matter either. This is a made up garbage term by the Souls community which drastically over values the originality of the games. They are good, great even but nothing about them is new, defining or revolutionary.

[AwkwardSquirtle]

"Souls Game" is not a genre period. "Game Clone" is not a genre period. This is a lazy way of describing a game coming from people that play a narrow selection of games.

Souls-like and rogue-like are absolutely genres, what on earth are you talking about? Darksiders 1 and 2 are action-adventures with checkpoints. Neither is a Souls-like. If you want to be more specific and call it an "action adventure with a dark tone, with rogue-lite elements" then you'd be more precise, but you also didn't accomplish any more than I did by calling it a souls-like. FPS might be a better description, but it's not substantially more useful than Doom-clone was back in the day.

[Endus]

I don't really consider breath of the wild a zelda game either. 4 extremely short dungeons, not a lot of "tools" or unique items added. No hookshot etc. Honestly feels more like another game masquerading as a zelda game.

Hookshot's not a requirement, or you're excluding the original from being a "zelda game".

You've got multiple tools you get in terms of slate powers, and their upgrades, plus there's the special tools/powers you get from each dungeon. Plus weapons with powers that in any other Zelda game would have been a dungeon tool themselves. Consider that, in prior games, the bow was a dungeon tool. The shield. Various arrow types. Rods. Etc.

While it's a new take, so have most Zelda games been. Some people didn't think Ocarina of Time should qualify, because it was 3D. Did that make sense?

[JustaWarlock]

The last true Zelda game was a link to the past - everything after that has just been 3D trash.

[Fencers]

The Legend of Zelda post Ocarina of Time is an action-adventure series. There are tons of action-adventure games. More than you can shake a stick at. It is the most popular and widely produced genre of video games.

Either you don't play enough games or have a narrow conception of genre elements.

- - - Updated - - -

"Souls Game" is not a genre period. "Game Clone" is not a genre period. This is a lazy way of describing a game coming from people that play a narrow selection of games. Rogue Like and Metroidvania are iconic terms from when games where still evolving and sort of ok, but describing a genre based off a modern game like Souls is actual garbage. Nobody called Kings Field games "Souls Games"... wonder why. They where literally exact same shit in first person instead. Nobody even called them "Field games" for that matter either. This is a made up garbage term by the Souls community which drastically over values the originality of the games. They are good, great even but nothing about them is new, defining or revolutionary.

Preach it, brother!

[TEHPALLYTANK]

BotW doesn't feel like a Zelda game at all. It's a good game, but a poor Zelda game if you ask me.

The musical score sucks. The storyline is minimal. The puzzles are nonexistant in the world but are instead all packed into simple extra levels with no imagination or vibe. There are hardly any people in the world to talk to or do sidequests. The weapons and armor mechanics are pretty generic for any game but feel so out of place in a Zelda game.

All the things that make a great Zelda game are missing.

Yeah, that kind of fits with my impression of it too. It just doesn't really feel like a Zelda game to me, but I started Zelda with Ocarina of Time and then Majora's Mask.

My image of Legend of Zelda really starts with OoT cause I started playing that shortly after I turned 4 (it came out a few months after my birthday), and later Majora's Mask when that came out. OoT and Majora's Mask are some of the few cherished childhood memories I have, so there is a ton of sentimental value I've got wrapped up in my image of a Zelda game. A big part of that lies with having an instrument to play, that was easily one of my favorite things about those two games.

I skipped over all the DS titles(never got a DS) and of Skyward Sword (cause I'm not buying that shitty tablet that Nintendo was calling a console). The last game in the series that I've played that really felt like a Zelda game to me was Twilight Princess. It felt wrong having the grass whistles instead of an instrument; I wish they'd gone with the howling as a persistent mechanic instead of one-off events. I would've loved to have had songs to play with an instrument and/or howling.

[Vash The Stampede]

I mean, a lot of that's just not accurate. There's more people to talk to in this game than most Zelda games. A ton of sidequests. A metric ton of environmental puzzles even in the overworld, in a way that Zelda games generally haven't had before this game.

The storyline is pretty much the same as every Zelda, and if anything, more fleshed-out than most.

I'll grant you that the weapon system is new, but every Zelda game tries something new. The focus on "realistic" physics as the core of the puzzles is also new, but a step forward, frankly.

The problem I had with Breath of the Wild was the world felt empty. To make matters worse there was a lot of copy and paste quests in the game, which is a feature UbiSolft likes to exploit and I hate them for it. It was good but not as good as some other open world games.

I'm not going to watch a 30 minute video to find out your reasoning so I'm just going to say Ocarina of Time was definitely as amazing as I thought it was.

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.

You must be new to Vash, the game was a console exclusive so by his definition he has to find a reason why it sucked/wasn't good. That's what he does, in every thread. Switch thread, PS5 thread etc lol...

But yea, OoT was amazing for its time. It's not the best aging game but that doesn't change what it meant to the gaming world in 1998.

Get over yourself dude. I played the game through UltraHLE back in 1999. I had a Voodoo Rush at the time. It's the same problem with Goldeneye 007, in that it was amazing for the time, but was it amazing for graphics or gameplay? Same problem with Shenmue, and why Shenmue 3 sucks. Turns out it's mostly for graphics, which did not hold up well after 21 years. Zelda Link to the Past held up much better because the graphics for 2D weren't going to get much better and the gameplay was good. You wouldn't want a faithful remake of Ocarina of Time. You would want a lot of Breath of the Wild thrown into a remake of Ocarina of Time.

[Rennadrel]

I don't wanna be that guy, but you're gonna have to define what a "Zelda" game is, because I don't really consider Breath of the Wild one. So if you do consider it one, then what is a Zelda game?

Yeah, it's a pretty big outlier compared to the other games in the series. Sure, OoT and MM had a more expanded world base, but there wasn't near as much traversal in terms of accessible areas and places to explore. I think as far as that style of world goes, it really diverged from its predecessors a bit too much and sacrificed the big dungeons to explore for smaller ones and a larger volume. I think that less is more and ultimately I'd love to see the large world with larger dungeons within them while also having some small offshoot dungeons as well. Like, I want areas that take a few hours to complete, then others that would take about a half hour or so.

And most studios aren't going to jump into making a game that might not sell well. Immortals looks like trash, but not really a surprise considering it's Ubisoft. But games like the older Zelda titles aren't common either because I guess the people pulling the strings think they won't sell as well. And a lot of developers these days have proven they can't write a good, compelling story with the kind of world building scale that the Zelda series has.

[Endus]

The problem I had with Breath of the Wild was the world felt empty. To make matters worse there was a lot of copy and paste quests in the game, which is a feature UbiSolft likes to exploit and I hate them for it. It was good but not as good as some other open world games.

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.

Get over yourself dude. I played the game through UltraHLE back in 1999. I had a Voodoo Rush at the time. It's the same problem with Goldeneye 007, in that it was amazing for the time, but was it amazing for graphics or gameplay?

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.

- - - Updated - - -

Hot take: Resident Evil was a Zelda rip off, but with zombies and blood

The best hot take in that sense is that the first Darksiders game, the one following War, is a perfect Zelda game, in everything but aesthetics.

[ZazuuPriest]

because zelda is a niche, garbage, franchise that is aimless and boring?