next »

[AnotherPlace]

I follow IGN and obviously with that comes a general amount of respect. I must say that I do enjoy many of Mr. Thomas's reviews and he is an excellent critic, among others on the website.

However;


"-- By Lucas M. Thomas --

 The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past is the only Zelda game ever made. It firmly established a formula of adventure game design that balanced out overworld exploration, item acquisition and storyline progression, a formula still followed today. Twilight Princess, Wind Waker, even Ocarina of Time &#Array; all just copies of the structure seen here. A Link to the Past is the only true Zelda, and Miyamoto and team simply keep remaking it, over and over. "


They always say this about Zelda.

ANd they often call  games where you need items to progress and navigate open, often platform based environments "Zelda Clones."


I have the perfect argument for this. Every first person shooter ever made stems from Doom.

Hand - Gun - Crosshair- Shoot Waves of Baddies - Open Doors - Progress

So why doesn't every first person shooter get the description "Doom Clone" ?

Why isn't COD given this style of review?

Or why isn't every strategy game called a "Command and Conquer Clone" ? (Assuming C&C was the first legitimate strategy game).

I think it's a testament of how an idea can be carried by an industry but not fully thought out.

I say simply, Zelda invented a genre. Games which follow that genre are not clones. Or if they are, we must call everything which follow a genre a clone. If Zelda carries those genre tropes to it's sequels, DUH! What else would it do? Be a completely different game? If building on the existing structure is needed, I believe they achieved this enough in their sequels.

Besides this, there is so much more to Zelda than it's gameplay. The story, the style, the puzzles, the characters, the environment. Without these important and very general video game elements, it would not have been the successful game it is today. I just think it doesn't get enough credit like Doom or any other genre defining titles.

What are your thoughts? And yes, I am a bit of a Z fanboy but I believe I have an interesting, kind of objective point regardless of this bias...

[Superb Joe]

So why doesn't every first person shooter get the description "Doom Clone" ?

they did. for like a decade at least

[AnotherPlace]

So why doesn't every first person shooter get the description "Doom Clone" ?

they did. for like a decade at least

Did /

I said "doesn't" though, implying now. I see what you're saying but that still doesn't offer a good enough reason to continue the trend with puzzle platform games where items help you progress.

[Shine Klevit]

I simply suggest quit indulging in the masochistic activity of reading IGN reviews.

[AnotherPlace]

I simply suggest quit indulging in the masochistic activity of reading IGN reviews.

Hahah I hear you.

However, IGN isn't entirely subject to this phenomenon

[Schoq]

You must be peeing yourself with rage at "roguelike"

[AnotherPlace]

You must be peeing yourself with rage at "roguelike"

Haha. Not really, as "roguelike" is a genre title that seems fairly appropriate.

I'm more talking about using "Zelda-Clone" AS a genre title and lambasting any project that fits that mould. Imagine if they called Half-Life a "Doom-Clone" and dismissed it as such.

Or said COD 1 was the only COD ever made ect.

[ProgramGamer]

It IS a running joke that not much changes between CODs though. But I get your point.

[AnotherPlace]

It IS a running joke that not much changes between CODs though. But I get your point.

Yeah and just to explain where I'm coming from a bit more. If you compare the game industry to any other artform industry like music or movies, you have stuff like Thrillers, Romcoms, Horrors, Dubstep, House, Rock.. all which use terribly similar tropes to portray vastly different ideas and concepts.

I just think video games should be seen in the same (mature?) perspective.
Or maybe it's just too unique an industry to be able to do this.

[Sir Raptor]

There's a large variety of first-person shooters, though, and not a lot of variety for puzzle-based action RPG/adventure games. I don't know the exact genre Zelda falls under, but that sounds pretty fair. It fits in a very particular niche, one with the adventure/rpg aspects of exploration and storytelling, active combat, and a small focus on puzzle solving (light all the torches, hit these switches, etc.). And because Zelda's one of the few games that fills that niche, games tend to be compared to it.

Games like Doom and CoD, they're simple. They're linear, have little going on besides shooting, moving forward, and if you're lucky moving sideways to find weapons to shoot more. You have variations now and then, like with Fallout 3 or Far Cry 2 with their open worlds, or Portal or Half-Life their puzzle solving.

I went and wrote up this entire introspective, but in the process I realized something entirely different: Doom fills a very small, very particular niche (sci-fi pseudo-horror first person shooter), and Zelda covers a much larger area (puzzle-based open map fantasy action adventure/rpg). The more niches a particular game might fill, the more it could be compared to a more popular game that fills the same niches, but while Doom's niches are more specific, Zelda's are more open and general. You'd have to make a game that explicitly involves sci-fi, supernatural horror and shooting to be compared to Doom (I imagine Dead Space was compared to it in its early days), but if you meet even just three of Zelda's niches, you'll have a Zelda clone in the journalists' eyes.

[AnotherPlace]

sci-fi, supernatural horror and shooting

Half-Life? Halo?

You raised excellent points but still...

Isn't about time we just excepted there is a puzzle platforming genre where you have to collect items to progress through the game?

Simply for more terrific games which fall under such descriptions :D

[Mark Mayers]

So why doesn't every first person shooter get the description "Doom Clone" ?

sci-fi, supernatural horror and shooting

Half-Life? Halo?

The Master Chief from Halo is pretty much just 'Doom Guy' with a new coat of paint.

[AnotherPlace]

The Master Chief from Halo is pretty much just 'Doom Guy' with a new coat of paint.

Precisely 

[Pfotegeist]

Someone can write a parody. Someone can write an honest review.  Between that is improperly labeling a parody so it is accepted as criticism and never apologizing.

[s0]

There's a large variety of first-person shooters, though, and not a lot of variety for puzzle-based action RPG/adventure games. I don't know the exact genre Zelda falls under, but that sounds pretty fair. It fits in a very particular niche, one with the adventure/rpg aspects of exploration and storytelling, active combat, and a small focus on puzzle solving (light all the torches, hit these switches, etc.). And because Zelda's one of the few games that fills that niche, games tend to be compared to it.

Games like Doom and CoD, they're simple. They're linear, have little going on besides shooting, moving forward, and if you're lucky moving sideways to find weapons to shoot more. You have variations now and then, like with Fallout 3 or Far Cry 2 with their open worlds, or Portal or Half-Life their puzzle solving.

I went and wrote up this entire introspective, but in the process I realized something entirely different: Doom fills a very small, very particular niche (sci-fi pseudo-horror first person shooter), and Zelda covers a much larger area (puzzle-based open map fantasy action adventure/rpg). The more niches a particular game might fill, the more it could be compared to a more popular game that fills the same niches, but while Doom's niches are more specific, Zelda's are more open and general. You'd have to make a game that explicitly involves sci-fi, supernatural horror and shooting to be compared to Doom (I imagine Dead Space was compared to it in its early days), but if you meet even just three of Zelda's niches, you'll have a Zelda clone in the journalists' eyes.

the crossed out part is actually correct imo. there are not really enough "zelda like" games for it to be a genre.

zelda didn't actually start a genre, but it did influence subsequent action/adventure and action/rpg games. generally you don't see games like secret of mana, dark souls, monster hunter, super mario 64, banjo kazooie, system shock etc that are probably influenced by LoZ in some measure called "zelda clones". the only games that get called that are games that do actually copy the zelda formula, like okami.

[gimymblert]

technically assassin's creed is a zelda clone

[AnotherPlace]

Great points. All things to consider.

This all leaves me to a side then. I'd be keen for more Zelda-like games so we can call it a genre and nullify the 'clone' label.  It's really an excellent formula and I think is yet to be fully explored.

[chances_r]

Re: Are you tired of Zelda being described this way? - IGN Review

I don't follow IGN Reviews.  Are claims like this really that common?  In this case, it sounds like the reviewer is just criticizing the franchise for not being more imaginative.   He's not really saying all adventure games are Zelda clones.

[starsrift]

IDK, I think of Zelda as a top-down arcade (melee) shoot-em-up. Gone to 3rd person in the newer sequels, of course.

But, IGN and their ilk have a specific audience in mind: idiot brogamers who think they're "hardcore" because they play a lot of competitive online games. So to that state of mind... yeah, they're absolutely right.

[s0]

IDK, I think of Zelda as a top-down arcade (melee) shoot-em-up. Gone to 3rd person in the newer sequels, of course.

what.