Sega: Legend of Oasis
Sony: ICO or Colosus.
I think deep down people know Zelda is Zelda though, you can't just try to "mover over, Zelda" and come out victorious.
Maybe GoW? It's inspired by a lot of games, but the influence with the camera surveying the room to the player, puzzle solving and sometimes there's sort of "Ah-HA" sound when solved is very reminiscent to Zelda.
Also I'll take it a step further: >Doors blocked/locked during most combat scenarios >New item/weapon/spell are found in rooms they're used to test out in >Grogon Eyes/Phoenix Feathers work as as Heart Pieces, the former in particular
>Cloud
FFVII oddly gets a rivalry with Zelda despite them not even playing alike. In a sense it's an "answer to Zelda" because both games were the console's flagship title despite not being a Hyliade.
Has any series actually "dethroned" a previous popular game?
Sonic was a good rival to Mario during 4th gen, but Mario is still alive and better than Sonic.
Final Fantasy was a good rival to Dragon Quest, but while FF is now a joke, DQ still has its honour intact.
I guess Doom dethroned Wolf3D? but it was by the same devs, and Wolf3D didn't get to be a series, more like proto-Doom.
SoulCalibur dethroned Toshinden
FinalFight dethroned DoubleDragon
Streets of Rage dethroned Final Fight
Wario Land dethroned Mario Land
Persona dethroned Shin Megami Tensei
Every Shootemup dethrones the other one.
its not like underworld 1 + 2 were bad games. they arguably played a LOT better in many respects than DF.
its just that DF was the most swing-for-the-fences game in all of vidya and CRPG nerds of the time were willing to look past it being kinda busted because there wasnt (and still isnt) anything like it
then morrowind comes along and rips out as much D&D as possible and fills it in with some weird acid trip re-telling of the ghita. same kinda thing: there just really isnt anything like it
all the coolest shit imo is all the quests and factions and intrigue inbetween everyone so more rolston, goodall, nelson etc
kirkbride nailed it with the whole "literally go make a fricking religion" thing, and esp the incredibly inspired concept art; but no one would be playing the game if it was just a vidya version of the 36 lessons. it wouldnt make any fricking sense and would prolly end up as some arthouse garbage
i see what youre saying about half-life being the official cutoff date for the boomershooter, and i agree
but thats kinda forgetting that doom had been more or less replaced by quake and later UT99 by the end of the 90s
hell, the only reason i got to play doom was because my dad got hooked on UT99
of course there were still plenty of people playing doom, but it was more similar to how youll see modern FPS fans move on en masse to the newer game, with only the poorgays or people who really liked the older game staying
its funny how now, many years after the fact, its indisputable that doom won out over the games that initially "replaced" it.
>its funny how now, many years after the fact, its indisputable that doom won out over the games that initially "replaced" it.
It's like Street Fighter 2. New series came that became more popular for several years and those games became relics from the past.
Years later, people acknowleged that they had been hugely influential and hugely beloved. And I think that's fair.
It's also true that Id refused to make new Doom games for some reason. Quake could have been Doom 3 with some changes, it's an evolution of the formula. And Capcom had released too many versions of SF2 and their 3d games failed to compete against Tekken until SF4.
Like virtually all, whatever you want to call them, Alundra is much less focused on exploration than the Zelda games are and you end up basically locked out of half the game by the end of it as it's almost stupidly dungeon focused.
It depends on what you mean by dethroned. FF has been alive since forever and has fame in the west despite later games being bad af. Although it's subjective and anyway only recently has the fanbase truly shown their dislike for the games. Sonic really is kinda dead but now and then you get Mania.
By your definition I get that dethroned means the former franchise dies. But in many cases both franchises are alive- you get people who prefer sanic while others prefer mario. You simply made a different franchise.
>Zelda inspired Sega and Sony to make good games
I dunno, maybe Sony? but Sega was already doing good games before Zelda existed. Space Harrier came out 1 year before Zelda.
Nothing. Sony had Final Fantasy because Nintendo failed to have a proper expansion for the N64 to handle games requiring more space than a $80 cartridge could hold. Sega really didn't do anything. They had Shining Force, but I doubt they gave that IP much thought.
>PS2 era Sony was amazing
DMC and God of War sucked. Lets be real here PS2 was nothing more than a DVD normie game machine with GTA and THPS being their best games.
I liked DMC and God of War, but yeah. I had all three consoles and the PS2 was mostly relegated to being used as a Metal Gear/Silent Hill/Final Fantasy machine. I wasn’t a big fan of Sony’s first party stuff from that era.
anon, you clearly never owned a PS2 the real way. you didn't own one specifically to play the "Best Hits", you got one to see what niche obscure shitty game that Nintendo would never have approved of and you and 'you' only really really liking it.
>the incredibly popular Legend of Zelda franchise
after analyzing the video game sales, I came to the following conclusion: competitors didn't copy Zelda, because there was no real demand for it; people only want Zelda, not Zelda-like games. there's difference between "Zelda / Nintendo brand sells well" and "Zelda-like games sell well".
here's one simple thought. ask diehard zeldagays how many other games like Zelda they know. they likely won't name that many. I mean good and great ones like Dark Cloud, Quintet trilogy, or Landstalker. Objectively, if you really want "more like Zelda", there you have it. Yet these games are barely even talked about today. It is absurd when you compare it even to ALTTP.
This goes to show those people don't really care about games LIKE Zelda; they care about Zelda and Nintendo only, the brand itself, and won't buy anything else. imagine saying: "I want more games like 2D Mario"—but you can't name any game other than Mario. or, "I want more games like Final Fantasy"—and never play or care for anything but FF. it makes no sense. there's a whole genre of platformers, RPGs and so on. if you only play Mario and FF, you're just a Mario / FF fanboy, not a fan of the genre.
and this is the thing. no Zelda-like game ever sold that well—that's why no one remembers them. EVEN legitimately good, critically acclaimed ones. some literal slop sold more than them.
sales show Zelda never started a genre because there was no demand for games like it, not because its competitors weren't good. Japan mainly wanted their RPGs, fighters, VNs during SFC era, as well as Golf and Horse racing sims; their idea of action RPG wasn't Zelda, it was Tales series or Monster Hunter. The West mainly favored action / sports games; by 6th gen, shooters took over. neither regions wanted Zelda-likes THAT much.
if tomorrow a game would be made better than any recent Zelda, no one would care because it's not Zelda and not from Nintendo.
>the incredibly popular Legend of Zelda franchise
after analyzing the video game sales, I came to the following conclusion: competitors didn't copy Zelda, because there was no real demand for it; people only want Zelda, not Zelda-like games. there's difference between "Zelda / Nintendo brand sells well" and "Zelda-like games sell well".
here's one simple thought. ask diehard zeldagays how many other games like Zelda they know. they likely won't name that many. I mean good and great ones like Dark Cloud, Quintet trilogy, or Landstalker. Objectively, if you really want "more like Zelda", there you have it. Yet these games are barely even talked about today. It is absurd when you compare it even to ALTTP.
This goes to show those people don't really care about games LIKE Zelda; they care about Zelda and Nintendo only, the brand itself, and won't buy anything else. imagine saying: "I want more games like 2D Mario"—but you can't name any game other than Mario. or, "I want more games like Final Fantasy"—and never play or care for anything but FF. it makes no sense. there's a whole genre of platformers, RPGs and so on. if you only play Mario and FF, you're just a Mario / FF fanboy, not a fan of the genre.
and this is the thing. no Zelda-like game ever sold that well—that's why no one remembers them. EVEN legitimately good, critically acclaimed ones. some literal slop sold more than them.
sales show Zelda never started a genre because there was no demand for games like it, not because its competitors weren't good. Japan mainly wanted their RPGs, fighters, VNs during SFC era, as well as Golf and Horse racing sims; their idea of action RPG wasn't Zelda, it was Tales series or Monster Hunter. The West mainly favored action / sports games; by 6th gen, shooters took over. neither regions wanted Zelda-likes THAT much.
if tomorrow a game would be made better than any recent Zelda, no one would care because it's not Zelda and not from Nintendo.
Well, at least the popularity of Mario popularized a whole genre—platformer. platformers BESIDE Mario were clearly in demand and sold very well. same goes for, say, Dragon Quest—the JRPG genre was pretty much created by it. companies from Sega to Sony felt they needed an "answer" to these games.
or take Pokemon. at its peak, it raised the popularity of a whole genre of imitators. but then, the pokemania was over. guess what though—main Pokemon games continued to sell very well, routinely being the biggest sellers on their respective platforms or even gens, rivaling GTA and Halo (despite you might assume otherwise). the problem is, the hype around it died down, the imitators stopped being relevant, most series like Monster Rancher / Digimon / Neopets slowly faded away, and even Pokemon itself faded away a bit—but in side products like movies / branding / etc., NOT the main game.
Which brings me to my point: Zelda's MAIN game sells well. It's not indicative, however, of how much people actually want games LIKE Zelda—and how much they really care about Zelda to begin with. the OUTSIDERS likely don't care very much; Zelda appeals to the same "core" Nintendo / Zelda crowd it has appealed for years now.
And I guess companies understand there's no point in making "an answer to Zelda". Zelda fans will likely buy the Nintendo console anyway—much like they will with Pokemon.
I think some people have a mistaken sentiment that somehow, everyone desired a game like Zelda, that outsiders were obsessed with it and jealous Nintendo fans had it. But all evidence shows otherwise. I think Zelda fans have been sniffing their farts a bit too much.
The game that copies 3D Zelda in most aspects is Darksiders 1. >Z-targeting >OoT's Hookshot, TP's Boomerang, ALTTP's Titan Gauntlet, using bombs to blow up cracked walls/surfaces >Emphasis on puzzle solving in dungeons >Find keys in chests to unlock doors >Doors lock during scripted combat encounters >OC donut steel jingle after solving a puzzle >Dungeon item is used to progress through the rest of the dungeon and in the overworld to find secrets >Dungeon item is used to beat the dungeon's boss in some instances >Horse with stamina that acts like OoT's >Lifestone Shards act as Heart Pieces >WW Triforce piece-like quest for a knock-off Master Sword
Other than that you're right. Zelda has too much of an established identity in the industry for anyone, namely Nintendogays, to want anything else. Every game that's considered Zelda-like is only in a few aspects, like Dark Souls.
Its also a subpar game, with clear signs that whenever ambition ran out they chased a different design aspect.
Its a lot like Chakan the Forever Man in that aspect: A subpar game can't be carried by a cool idea and some art, even more so when the game is action focused.
It's why I say Nintendo fans don't like games, they like Nintendo
[...]
Well, at least the popularity of Mario popularized a whole genre—platformer. platformers BESIDE Mario were clearly in demand and sold very well. same goes for, say, Dragon Quest—the JRPG genre was pretty much created by it. companies from Sega to Sony felt they needed an "answer" to these games.
or take Pokemon. at its peak, it raised the popularity of a whole genre of imitators. but then, the pokemania was over. guess what though—main Pokemon games continued to sell very well, routinely being the biggest sellers on their respective platforms or even gens, rivaling GTA and Halo (despite you might assume otherwise). the problem is, the hype around it died down, the imitators stopped being relevant, most series like Monster Rancher / Digimon / Neopets slowly faded away, and even Pokemon itself faded away a bit—but in side products like movies / branding / etc., NOT the main game.
Which brings me to my point: Zelda's MAIN game sells well. It's not indicative, however, of how much people actually want games LIKE Zelda—and how much they really care about Zelda to begin with. the OUTSIDERS likely don't care very much; Zelda appeals to the same "core" Nintendo / Zelda crowd it has appealed for years now.
And I guess companies understand there's no point in making "an answer to Zelda". Zelda fans will likely buy the Nintendo console anyway—much like they will with Pokemon.
I think some people have a mistaken sentiment that somehow, everyone desired a game like Zelda, that outsiders were obsessed with it and jealous Nintendo fans had it. But all evidence shows otherwise. I think Zelda fans have been sniffing their farts a bit too much.
It's sort of amazing the way people like this think. They have to pigeonhole Nintendo fans as people who could only like their games so much due to ignorance of any alternatives, so that they imagine that, if only they were more open minded, they would see that there are others that are every bit as good.
This whole strategy is easy enough to poke through just by looking as the best examples these people come up with. Dark Cloud, Landstalker. Of course these games are 'Zeldas' that are just every bit as the good Zelda games, right?
I mean, do you seriously believe that no Zelda fans simply played these, and then rightly dismissed them as things that either were nothing like Zelda (which is true in Dark Cloud's case, despite how it was conceived) or just couldn't hope to live up to the series' classics? Like, do you really expect people to actually sit down, and play (otherwise nicely produced) games with close to nothing but randomly generated dungeon floors and lego towns to explore, in a set order, and minimal variety of equipment based progression or item interactivity beyond basic RPG elements and go "wow, damn I guess I was totally wrong, this really is just like Zelda and every bit as good, I so regret being a blind Nintendo fanboy".
Like, it pretty quickly becomes clear that these people just do not get what it at that people actually see and admire in Nintendo. They don't understand just how refined these games are or how much people genuinely value that and have to reach super hard to 'prove them wrong'. Dark Souls did a far better job of capturing the 'spirit' of Zelda than any of the Zelda 'clones'.
I never said "Zelda fans should see there are better alternatives". I said that most of them don't see ANY alternatives, and don't even look for them. I stand by this statement.
moreover, as usual, you say, "but nothing simply comes close to Zelda, period". yeah, right. then you know what people who say this do? they go and play Skyward Sword, or nu-Zelda like Phantom Hourglass / Link between worlds / etc., or at most ALTTP randomizer (peak game design). or—they make 62495th thread about how OoT was the GOAT on a Zelda subreddit, sitting in their triforce shirt with a triforce mug. or—they just go jerk off to Midna porn (that's like 90% of the fanbase; and yeah, I know—Zelda SIMPLY has the best waifus, totally). yeah, please tell me how "nothing simply comes close" to these activities, how other games ARE SIMPLY WORSE, really. I'm pretty sure most of "Zelda fans" don't even play the games most of time.
Anyway, "nothing simply comes close" perfectly encapsulates the state of the majority of Zelda fans. You don't even acknowledge any other game like this; you preemptively dismiss any game that is like Zelda if it has no Zelda name on the cover, while a priori concluding that Zelda is just superior by nature and everything else is literal shovelware. You'd rather tell yourself for the Nth time that your favorite franchise Zelda is the GOAT and everything else is trash to stroke your ego, than ever admit that other games may (MAY) be worth playing.
Game is called Zelda? It's good. Game is not called Zelda? It's bad. This is the definition of "bias" and "fanboyism".
You're exactly like Applegays who'd rather die than touch an Android device and will still insist that it's an inferior OS for inferior people, despite two OSes being the same shit for years now. Zelda is "just superior" same way as Apple "just werks". It's just a brand that is your identity. Zelda is a religion, Zeldagays are fanatics. Maybe get a triforce tattoo, homosexual.
Seems like you just autisticslly hate Zelda's popularity and think there's better alternatives that are just like it, if not better, when said alternatives are otherwise mediocre or share elements in Zelda's design, yet are few and superficial. There's nothing wrong with wanting a full-on clone, but it's reductive to be so stubborn and not try whatever aspects the clone closely resembles and play like. Also space out your sentences better.
Landstalker blows btw.
>think there's better alternatives
I'll spell it out for you again:
I never said "Zelda fans should see there are better alternatives". I said that most of them don't see ANY alternatives, and don't even look for them. I stand by this statement.
moreover, as usual, you say, "but nothing simply comes close to Zelda, period". yeah, right. then you know what people who say this do? they go and play Skyward Sword, or nu-Zelda like Phantom Hourglass / Link between worlds / etc., or at most ALTTP randomizer (peak game design). or—they make 62495th thread about how OoT was the GOAT on a Zelda subreddit, sitting in their triforce shirt with a triforce mug. or—they just go jerk off to Midna porn (that's like 90% of the fanbase; and yeah, I know—Zelda SIMPLY has the best waifus, totally). yeah, please tell me how "nothing simply comes close" to these activities, how other games ARE SIMPLY WORSE, really. I'm pretty sure most of "Zelda fans" don't even play the games most of time.
Anyway, "nothing simply comes close" perfectly encapsulates the state of the majority of Zelda fans. You don't even acknowledge any other game like this; you preemptively dismiss any game that is like Zelda if it has no Zelda name on the cover, while a priori concluding that Zelda is just superior by nature and everything else is literal shovelware. You'd rather tell yourself for the Nth time that your favorite franchise Zelda is the GOAT and everything else is trash to stroke your ego, than ever admit that other games may (MAY) be worth playing.
Game is called Zelda? It's good. Game is not called Zelda? It's bad. This is the definition of "bias" and "fanboyism".
You're exactly like Applegays who'd rather die than touch an Android device and will still insist that it's an inferior OS for inferior people, despite two OSes being the same shit for years now. Zelda is "just superior" same way as Apple "just werks". It's just a brand that is your identity. Zelda is a religion, Zeldagays are fanatics. Maybe get a triforce tattoo, homosexual.
>I never said "Zelda fans should see there are better alternatives". I said that most of them don't see ANY alternatives, and don't even look for them.
learn to read, holy shit.
even if the alternatives aren't AS good, the fact that people dismiss them outright means no one wants "more games like Zelda". and if no one wants that, no one will make them. that was my whole point. that was OP's question. >b-but nothing is on the same level
no game has come close to being same or better in a respective genre than SM64, or SMB3, or Diablo. and guess what? that didn't end their genres at all. but somehow, Zelda is an exception?
I never said "Zelda fans should see there are better alternatives". I said that most of them don't see ANY alternatives, and don't even look for them. I stand by this statement.
moreover, as usual, you say, "but nothing simply comes close to Zelda, period". yeah, right. then you know what people who say this do? they go and play Skyward Sword, or nu-Zelda like Phantom Hourglass / Link between worlds / etc., or at most ALTTP randomizer (peak game design). or—they make 62495th thread about how OoT was the GOAT on a Zelda subreddit, sitting in their triforce shirt with a triforce mug. or—they just go jerk off to Midna porn (that's like 90% of the fanbase; and yeah, I know—Zelda SIMPLY has the best waifus, totally). yeah, please tell me how "nothing simply comes close" to these activities, how other games ARE SIMPLY WORSE, really. I'm pretty sure most of "Zelda fans" don't even play the games most of time.
Anyway, "nothing simply comes close" perfectly encapsulates the state of the majority of Zelda fans. You don't even acknowledge any other game like this; you preemptively dismiss any game that is like Zelda if it has no Zelda name on the cover, while a priori concluding that Zelda is just superior by nature and everything else is literal shovelware. You'd rather tell yourself for the Nth time that your favorite franchise Zelda is the GOAT and everything else is trash to stroke your ego, than ever admit that other games may (MAY) be worth playing.
Game is called Zelda? It's good. Game is not called Zelda? It's bad. This is the definition of "bias" and "fanboyism".
You're exactly like Applegays who'd rather die than touch an Android device and will still insist that it's an inferior OS for inferior people, despite two OSes being the same shit for years now. Zelda is "just superior" same way as Apple "just werks". It's just a brand that is your identity. Zelda is a religion, Zeldagays are fanatics. Maybe get a triforce tattoo, homosexual.
oh and just to drive the point home. here's how average game fans typically think (source: me) >I like Street Fighter. are there other games like it? great, I'm gonna at least try them. I can play a lot of 2D and 3D fighters, I like some more than others but they're still fine. (yes, there are SF fanboys, but they're not frequent) >I like Final Fantasy. are there other games like it? great, I'm gonna at least try them. I can play a lot of different RPGs, I like some more than others but it's still fine. (yes, there are die hard FF fanboys, but they're a dying breed, a retro thing even) >I like SotN. are there other games like it? great, I'm gonna at least try them. I can play a lot of different metroidvanias, I like some more than others but it's still fine. >I like Mario… [same thing] >I like CoD… [same thing] >I like Gran Turismo… [same thing] >I like Zelda. are there other games like it? …no. they're not the same. they never get anything about Zelda, trust me. no, don't even try to put them in the same category as Zelda. you don't get it. get what?… well… the game design… it's just not the same. it's just bad games, that's it. oh, did I say OoT was the GOAT and never to be surpassed? yeah, critics agree. don't even try to imply otherwise.
oh and inb4—all those other games are not good. Zelda is just that good, period. only Zelda, nothing else. not closed minded and fanboyish at all, no.
other games are just bad, other consoles were just DVD players, every gen everyone only played on Nintendo consoles and Zelda was the only game that mattered.
i think people forget is that people like Zelda games for a different reason, and in some ways, out of fear that what they 'see' in the games don't exist anywhere else.
one could argue that this is the franchise's strong point; it captures trending fantasy tropes in a particular point in time and goes all the ways with it. Zelda fans have a tendency to like one Zelda game over another for one reason or another, but thats down to taste too, but the issue is that the hivemind of Nintendo (and a combination of upbringing, parents, friends etc) keep them in the bubble that nothing else compares to 'that' entry, when it isn't true.
the issue is that they're not taught to broaden their interests and perspectives, because they're afraid of what exists outside their walled garden's.
sure, it may not be "as good" as said game, but these people forget they have brains for a reason, and have preferences of their own.
it remains to be seen if more and more of them will ever realise this though. i hope they do, as I was one of them at one point in time. its worth stepping out of bubble sometimes.
Typical response from people who are fanboys themselves, disguising themselves as open minded individuals when they are even worse than the people they are accusing of being nintendrones.
what's wrong with the comment? he's just basically saying that every Zelda fan has a preference and should find games that suit their taste when they want to try other games like it.
It's easily the best one at least, I agree. It's unfortunate that it's so obviously unfinished and baits for a sequel that will never either exist or live up to what the first game set up, because if this hadn't been the case it would be one of the few things that I'd consider to be an equal to OoT.
i think people forget is that people like Zelda games for a different reason, and in some ways, out of fear that what they 'see' in the games don't exist anywhere else.
one could argue that this is the franchise's strong point; it captures trending fantasy tropes in a particular point in time and goes all the ways with it. Zelda fans have a tendency to like one Zelda game over another for one reason or another, but thats down to taste too, but the issue is that the hivemind of Nintendo (and a combination of upbringing, parents, friends etc) keep them in the bubble that nothing else compares to 'that' entry, when it isn't true.
the issue is that they're not taught to broaden their interests and perspectives, because they're afraid of what exists outside their walled garden's.
sure, it may not be "as good" as said game, but these people forget they have brains for a reason, and have preferences of their own.
it remains to be seen if more and more of them will ever realise this though. i hope they do, as I was one of them at one point in time. its worth stepping out of bubble sometimes.
>keep them in the bubble that nothing else compares to 'that' entry, when it isn't true.
No dude, it really is true. I didn't even 'grow up' with Nintendo, I always had Sega and PlayStation before I actually got a Nintendo system, but all the while it was just plain to me that Nintendo offered the highest quality games, and that when playing their best I was experiencing something better than even the best the other systems would actually offer. Like, I loved Tomb Raider, Spyro, Baldur's Gate etc. but when I got around to play OoT it was just clearly on a level beyond anything else out there. There are other very good games that are absolutely worth experiencing, but all the best Zeldas has a certain 'knack' to them, they do things that other games just don't do nearly as well and don't pull off the same.
. Silent Hill has the foggy overworld, which is separate from the big interior 'dungeons' where you fight a boss and collect a key item at the end of them.
surprised nobody responded.
this is pretty much the answer to the whole thread, cringy as the games might be sometimes. they're worth a try imo (ideally not the HD remasters though, with the exception of 2).
Well there was nothing like it on the Saturn in polygonal 3d really. Action RPGs were on the system but not in 3d. Virtua Hydlide was released before Ocarina of Time and it famously didn’t go well. I suppose the closest the Saturn came was Baroque. It has 3d movement with scaling enemy sprites but polygonal environments in an action RPG. Its actually a great roguelike game but its not quite OOT. On the 2d overhead side of things there was Shining Wisdom, Legend of Oasis, Magic Knight Rayearth (I think thats the one with the three girls). Powerslave is more like Metroid but theres some similarities to Zelda dungeons there as well. Getting items to progress, recent items being useful for bosses, secret corridors, exploration based gameplay and puzzles in dungeons.
On PSX there’s Alundra, that game with the fox, and Legacy of Kain: Soul Reaver. Plenty more overhead 2d stuff but I’m not as familiar. The original Legacy of Kane game probably counts.
Dreamcast had Soul Reaver too and EGG for 2d overhead (with 3d bosses!)
Really Nintendo was the system for this type of game at the time. Zelda Ocarina of Time and Majora’s Mask are probably better than any of the games I listed. Mystical Ninja Starring Goemon is probably as good as anything I listed and plays a lot more like Zelda than most of them. It actually predated Ocarina. The dinosaur planet Rom was gonna be Rare’s answer, and its a fun playthrough today. Starfox Adventures felt a bit rushed. There’s a Hercules on N64 thats janky as hell but kinda decent otherwise and its a genuine attempt to answer Zelda at the time, even though it didn’t quite hit the mark I’ve had fun woth it.
you guys know not everybody was interested in trying to imitate Zelda right? people were inspired by tropes in movies and in the real world too when coming up with game design.
its not like Zelda invented the idea of swinging a sword and shield, or Mario inventing go-karting when that was a thing as far back as the 70s and continued all the ways into the 80s.
There's plenty of "Zelda-likes" or "clones" out there but not a single one I've tried thats hit the same for me.
I'm really not a Nintendie, I don't know why its such a sin to say you like Nintendo on this board, but I do like a lot of their games 6th gen and previous especially Zelda, so I'm more than open to finding something that can do the Zelda formula justice either 2D or 3D. Especially these days, Im thirstier for it than ever with how Nintendo isn't interested in making real Zelda games anymore and are now committed to repacking the same garbage open world game with no content over and over, but thats not retro so I'll save it for Ganker.
I feel like I've tried them all, picrel being the only one that I genuinely enjoyed but only on technicality it was just really cute and charming more than it was an actually good and well designed game. Ive swung with them all, Crusader of Centy, the Mana games, Beyond Oasis, Golden Axe Warrior, Alundra, etc etc. I can't even put my finger on what exactly they lack because on paper they should be just as good if not better but I don't know, maybe its the pacing or feel of the controls, something is just missing for me that makes me not enjoy them.
For 3D Zelda its even more difficult, I don't feel like anythings even attempted to be like a 3D Zelda other than Okami which blows chunks so hard I can't believe anyone even likes it. Ive heard Darksiders 1 is close but I don't really like the look of the game enough to try it just yet.
Theres just some intangible element of Zelda that only Nintendo seems to understand, and even then theres a number of them I dont like, I hate Wind Waker, all of the handheld entries besides Links Awakening, and the BotW games. But there has to have been at least one game that gets it right? Something Ive overlooked? I refuse to believe nobody has cracked the code after all these years.
If anyone gets what Im talking about and knows an actually good Zelda clone please let me know.
I understand perfectly what you're talking about. The problem is that video games are not like UFOs or Bigfoot. We have access to literally all of them (except for some very rare Japanese PC games that still haven't been uploaded but obviously I doubt there are any quality Zelda-likes among them) so if there was a game similar to Zelda people would already know about it. So basically Zelda is Zelda and there are no games that are EXACTLY like it, especially in 3D. There are 3D games that have a similar feel to it like SotC, Nier 1 and Pandora's Tower. Also as funny as it sounds, as already mentioned by some people in this thread, gameplay-wise the first two Silent Hill games really are somewhat similar to Zelda. >maybe its the pacing or feel of the controls, something is just missing for me that makes me not enjoy them.
As much as people like to shit on Nintendo here they really are the masters of their craft. You have to understand that even though Zelda games feel pretty simple and 'vanilla' (by that I mean that to the action-adventure genre it is what Dragon Quest is to JRPGs) the formula itself is really hard to execute. Wind Waker may not be all that great but even this game was hard to make, same for Skyward Sword
>Ive heard Darksiders 1 is close but I don't really like the look of the game enough to try it just yet.
Darksiders 1 is a really solid action game with good quality Zelda style dungeons. But it really lacks in the free exploration, NPCs and questing that makes Zelda stand out from everything else, so like most of Zelda's 'clones' there isn't much there to discover outside of the also very very linear main quest. What it does well it's quite good at, but like everything else it's just not Zelda. It's basically the 3D equivalent of Alundra.
>think there's better alternatives
I'll spell it out for you again: [...] >I never said "Zelda fans should see there are better alternatives". I said that most of them don't see ANY alternatives, and don't even look for them.
learn to read, holy shit.
even if the alternatives aren't AS good, the fact that people dismiss them outright means no one wants "more games like Zelda". and if no one wants that, no one will make them. that was my whole point. that was OP's question. >b-but nothing is on the same level
no game has come close to being same or better in a respective genre than SM64, or SMB3, or Diablo. and guess what? that didn't end their genres at all. but somehow, Zelda is an exception?
I feel like you're actually making a really good point here in spite of yourself. Like, really, how many actual 'Mario clones' are there? I mean, games that actually, really play like Mario and have the same physics based platforming and design philosophy Mario has? Despite there being tons of platformers, there's actually barely anything much like it is there? But in a sense this doesn't matter too much, because "being a good platformer" is something tons of games manage to pull off in their own way anyway, so even if there's nothing else quite like Mario 64, which would be hard to do well, there are plenty of 'good enough' things, because being a decent platformer isn't necessarily that hard and can be done simply enough.
Being a good Zelda style game, on the other hand, really is that hard, because there's no way to pull off a simplified Zelda that's close to what makes Zelda. Zelda depends on its intricacy and clever structure to be good, and any game that tries to be like it but skimps on this will rightly be regarded as inferior, to the point that there's not much point in bothering unless you can pull off something completely radical that's good in a different way, like Souls did.
We see the alternatives, but recognize that they aren't proper substitutes for the desired thing and so just see little point in discussing them much. Zelda IS an exception because there's not much point in 'lite-Zelda'.
>Zelda depends on its intricacy and clever structure to be good, and any game that tries to be like it but skimps on this will rightly be regarded as inferior, to the point that there's not much point in bothering unless you can pull off something completely radical that's good in a different way, like Souls did. >We see the alternatives, but recognize that they aren't proper substitutes for the desired thing and so just see little point in discussing them much. Zelda IS an exception because there's not much point in 'lite-Zelda'.
so… basically from your words t follows that the bare concept / style of Zelda isn't so great, it's the execution that makes it?
well, then that's your answer to OP's question. Zelda didn't make a genre because the base concept isn't all that exciting. People play Zelda for the world / brand / childhood memories / etc..
I guess it may be similar to Pokemon. after you get enough of the game once, the bare concept of "gotta ketchum all" stops being exciting. people don't want OTHER games like Pokemon. the bare concept of Pokemon got old after 2000s. people come to it for the same world, familiar monsters like Pikachu, childhood memories, etc. Even refined balance would mean frick all to most people. A game like Pokemon but with more "refined balance / better gameplay" would gather dust.
I'm currently playing Alundra, only 5 hours in but I really like it so far. Already had a few puzzles that took real effort to figure out.
And frick you to all those autistic homosexuals that said it's a bad game, made me almost skip this one.
>sega answer to LOZ
well if it can be resumed to a game it would be "breath of the wild" before it even existed Story of Thor - A Successor of The Light
Sega: Landstalker, Beyond Oasis, Crusader of Centy, others I can't remember
Sony: Alundra, idk what else
Soul Reaver is remarkably Zelda-esque
if not Brave Fencer Musashi
Sega: Legend of Oasis
Sony: ICO or Colosus.
I think deep down people know Zelda is Zelda though, you can't just try to "mover over, Zelda" and come out victorious.
you could do it and it would be fun, but no one is about it
ICO does feel kinda like one huge Zelda dungeon.
Ico was inspired by cinematic platformers. It's not supposed to be like Zelda at all.
Maybe GoW? It's inspired by a lot of games, but the influence with the camera surveying the room to the player, puzzle solving and sometimes there's sort of "Ah-HA" sound when solved is very reminiscent to Zelda.
Also I'll take it a step further:
>Doors blocked/locked during most combat scenarios
>New item/weapon/spell are found in rooms they're used to test out in
>Grogon Eyes/Phoenix Feathers work as as Heart Pieces, the former in particular
Gears of War is nothing like Zelda, moron.
>sega/sony
>haha I'm going to pretend to be moronic aren't I funny 🙂
No.
Ico and SotC are the only /vr/ games that feel as magical as Zelda. Tomba and MML come close
Sega: Beyond Oasis
Sony: Legend of Dragoon
Resident Evil is one big Zelda dungeon.
Probably something like this
?feature=shared&t=3
Silent Hill 1-3 roughly follow the Zelda structure.
Chrck out this Zelda killer
It's basically sim city meets zelda
Did people compare this game to Zelda literally just because the protagonist looks vaguely like Link?
>Can wield a sword
>Never talks, only occasional grunting and shouting
The same way people call Battle Network a Pokemon clone because it had versions and a trading system .
Zelda killer AHAHHHAHHAHAHAAGGAGAAGAAAA!
Literally phone game-tier. Feels like I got it from the app store.
That’s every Sony game before they gave up and decided to make movie games
Good thing there was no such thing as an app store in 2002.
>Cloud
FFVII oddly gets a rivalry with Zelda despite them not even playing alike. In a sense it's an "answer to Zelda" because both games were the console's flagship title despite not being a Hyliade.
Sega: Golden Axe Warrior
Sony: Monkey Hero
Has any series actually "dethroned" a previous popular game?
Sonic was a good rival to Mario during 4th gen, but Mario is still alive and better than Sonic.
Final Fantasy was a good rival to Dragon Quest, but while FF is now a joke, DQ still has its honour intact.
I guess Doom dethroned Wolf3D? but it was by the same devs, and Wolf3D didn't get to be a series, more like proto-Doom.
CoD dethroned Medal of Honor
Tekken dethroned Virtua Fighter
SoulCalibur dethroned Toshinden
FinalFight dethroned DoubleDragon
Streets of Rage dethroned Final Fight
Wario Land dethroned Mario Land
Persona dethroned Shin Megami Tensei
Every Shootemup dethrones the other one.
>SoulCalibur dethroned Toshinden
You mean Tekken.
Tes dethroned Ultima with daggerfall and Morrowind, but that's a touchy subject.
its not like underworld 1 + 2 were bad games. they arguably played a LOT better in many respects than DF.
its just that DF was the most swing-for-the-fences game in all of vidya and CRPG nerds of the time were willing to look past it being kinda busted because there wasnt (and still isnt) anything like it
then morrowind comes along and rips out as much D&D as possible and fills it in with some weird acid trip re-telling of the ghita. same kinda thing: there just really isnt anything like it
All hail Kirkbride
all the coolest shit imo is all the quests and factions and intrigue inbetween everyone so more rolston, goodall, nelson etc
kirkbride nailed it with the whole "literally go make a fricking religion" thing, and esp the incredibly inspired concept art; but no one would be playing the game if it was just a vidya version of the 36 lessons. it wouldnt make any fricking sense and would prolly end up as some arthouse garbage
Half-Life dethroned Doom, in a way.
i see what youre saying about half-life being the official cutoff date for the boomershooter, and i agree
but thats kinda forgetting that doom had been more or less replaced by quake and later UT99 by the end of the 90s
hell, the only reason i got to play doom was because my dad got hooked on UT99
of course there were still plenty of people playing doom, but it was more similar to how youll see modern FPS fans move on en masse to the newer game, with only the poorgays or people who really liked the older game staying
its funny how now, many years after the fact, its indisputable that doom won out over the games that initially "replaced" it.
>its funny how now, many years after the fact, its indisputable that doom won out over the games that initially "replaced" it.
It's like Street Fighter 2. New series came that became more popular for several years and those games became relics from the past.
Years later, people acknowleged that they had been hugely influential and hugely beloved. And I think that's fair.
It's also true that Id refused to make new Doom games for some reason. Quake could have been Doom 3 with some changes, it's an evolution of the formula. And Capcom had released too many versions of SF2 and their 3d games failed to compete against Tekken until SF4.
Persona/smt dethroned wizardry
World of Warcraft made EverQuest totally irrelevant.
Popularity aside, Alundra is a very strong contender for the title of best clone of Hydlide ever made.
Sonic is also very different from Mario.
Like virtually all, whatever you want to call them, Alundra is much less focused on exploration than the Zelda games are and you end up basically locked out of half the game by the end of it as it's almost stupidly dungeon focused.
>and better than Sonic
I'm afraid that's where you're wrong.
It depends on what you mean by dethroned. FF has been alive since forever and has fame in the west despite later games being bad af. Although it's subjective and anyway only recently has the fanbase truly shown their dislike for the games. Sonic really is kinda dead but now and then you get Mania.
By your definition I get that dethroned means the former franchise dies. But in many cases both franchises are alive- you get people who prefer sanic while others prefer mario. You simply made a different franchise.
for all their marketing, I never really saw Sonic as a contender against Mario. They're way too different imo.
I kind of feel atm Digimon is dethroning Pokemon on quality alone, because of how awful the franchise has become since the 3DS era, gameplay aside.
Making actual good games.
>Zelda inspired Sega and Sony to make good games
I dunno, maybe Sony? but Sega was already doing good games before Zelda existed. Space Harrier came out 1 year before Zelda.
What th...
Everybody forgot Arc The Lad by Sony...
Nothing. Sony had Final Fantasy because Nintendo failed to have a proper expansion for the N64 to handle games requiring more space than a $80 cartridge could hold. Sega really didn't do anything. They had Shining Force, but I doubt they gave that IP much thought.
Sony? Fromsoftware is the closest thing I can think of.
I think Sony's answer was selling a shitton of PS1 and PS2
PSX and PS2 era Sony was amazing, really stirred things up for the better.
Too bad they went to complete shit afterwards. The PS5 is a joke.
>PS2 era Sony was amazing
DMC and God of War sucked. Lets be real here PS2 was nothing more than a DVD normie game machine with GTA and THPS being their best games.
I liked DMC and God of War, but yeah. I had all three consoles and the PS2 was mostly relegated to being used as a Metal Gear/Silent Hill/Final Fantasy machine. I wasn’t a big fan of Sony’s first party stuff from that era.
anon, you clearly never owned a PS2 the real way. you didn't own one specifically to play the "Best Hits", you got one to see what niche obscure shitty game that Nintendo would never have approved of and you and 'you' only really really liking it.
Whatever you want to call the ps2, it was still the best console of that generation when looking at its game library.
nintendo manchildren on suicide watch
The first 2 Harry potter games.
Turns out the real zelda killer, was zelda itself.
this game sucks so much what were they thinking
You’re thinking of Skyward Sword.
and* Skyward Sword.
Growing up I never understood why Z3lda was even popular as it sucked compared to master system games.
>the incredibly popular Legend of Zelda franchise
after analyzing the video game sales, I came to the following conclusion: competitors didn't copy Zelda, because there was no real demand for it; people only want Zelda, not Zelda-like games. there's difference between "Zelda / Nintendo brand sells well" and "Zelda-like games sell well".
here's one simple thought. ask diehard zeldagays how many other games like Zelda they know. they likely won't name that many. I mean good and great ones like Dark Cloud, Quintet trilogy, or Landstalker. Objectively, if you really want "more like Zelda", there you have it. Yet these games are barely even talked about today. It is absurd when you compare it even to ALTTP.
This goes to show those people don't really care about games LIKE Zelda; they care about Zelda and Nintendo only, the brand itself, and won't buy anything else. imagine saying: "I want more games like 2D Mario"—but you can't name any game other than Mario. or, "I want more games like Final Fantasy"—and never play or care for anything but FF. it makes no sense. there's a whole genre of platformers, RPGs and so on. if you only play Mario and FF, you're just a Mario / FF fanboy, not a fan of the genre.
and this is the thing. no Zelda-like game ever sold that well—that's why no one remembers them. EVEN legitimately good, critically acclaimed ones. some literal slop sold more than them.
sales show Zelda never started a genre because there was no demand for games like it, not because its competitors weren't good. Japan mainly wanted their RPGs, fighters, VNs during SFC era, as well as Golf and Horse racing sims; their idea of action RPG wasn't Zelda, it was Tales series or Monster Hunter. The West mainly favored action / sports games; by 6th gen, shooters took over. neither regions wanted Zelda-likes THAT much.
if tomorrow a game would be made better than any recent Zelda, no one would care because it's not Zelda and not from Nintendo.
It's why I say Nintendo fans don't like games, they like Nintendo
Well, at least the popularity of Mario popularized a whole genre—platformer. platformers BESIDE Mario were clearly in demand and sold very well. same goes for, say, Dragon Quest—the JRPG genre was pretty much created by it. companies from Sega to Sony felt they needed an "answer" to these games.
or take Pokemon. at its peak, it raised the popularity of a whole genre of imitators. but then, the pokemania was over. guess what though—main Pokemon games continued to sell very well, routinely being the biggest sellers on their respective platforms or even gens, rivaling GTA and Halo (despite you might assume otherwise). the problem is, the hype around it died down, the imitators stopped being relevant, most series like Monster Rancher / Digimon / Neopets slowly faded away, and even Pokemon itself faded away a bit—but in side products like movies / branding / etc., NOT the main game.
Which brings me to my point: Zelda's MAIN game sells well. It's not indicative, however, of how much people actually want games LIKE Zelda—and how much they really care about Zelda to begin with. the OUTSIDERS likely don't care very much; Zelda appeals to the same "core" Nintendo / Zelda crowd it has appealed for years now.
And I guess companies understand there's no point in making "an answer to Zelda". Zelda fans will likely buy the Nintendo console anyway—much like they will with Pokemon.
I think some people have a mistaken sentiment that somehow, everyone desired a game like Zelda, that outsiders were obsessed with it and jealous Nintendo fans had it. But all evidence shows otherwise. I think Zelda fans have been sniffing their farts a bit too much.
I don't know of a single person who likes Nintendo, and refuses to play games from other publishers.
first day here?
The game that copies 3D Zelda in most aspects is Darksiders 1.
>Z-targeting
>OoT's Hookshot, TP's Boomerang, ALTTP's Titan Gauntlet, using bombs to blow up cracked walls/surfaces
>Emphasis on puzzle solving in dungeons
>Find keys in chests to unlock doors
>Doors lock during scripted combat encounters
>OC donut steel jingle after solving a puzzle
>Dungeon item is used to progress through the rest of the dungeon and in the overworld to find secrets
>Dungeon item is used to beat the dungeon's boss in some instances
>Horse with stamina that acts like OoT's
>Lifestone Shards act as Heart Pieces
>WW Triforce piece-like quest for a knock-off Master Sword
Other than that you're right. Zelda has too much of an established identity in the industry for anyone, namely Nintendogays, to want anything else. Every game that's considered Zelda-like is only in a few aspects, like Dark Souls.
Its also a subpar game, with clear signs that whenever ambition ran out they chased a different design aspect.
Its a lot like Chakan the Forever Man in that aspect: A subpar game can't be carried by a cool idea and some art, even more so when the game is action focused.
It's sort of amazing the way people like this think. They have to pigeonhole Nintendo fans as people who could only like their games so much due to ignorance of any alternatives, so that they imagine that, if only they were more open minded, they would see that there are others that are every bit as good.
This whole strategy is easy enough to poke through just by looking as the best examples these people come up with. Dark Cloud, Landstalker. Of course these games are 'Zeldas' that are just every bit as the good Zelda games, right?
I mean, do you seriously believe that no Zelda fans simply played these, and then rightly dismissed them as things that either were nothing like Zelda (which is true in Dark Cloud's case, despite how it was conceived) or just couldn't hope to live up to the series' classics? Like, do you really expect people to actually sit down, and play (otherwise nicely produced) games with close to nothing but randomly generated dungeon floors and lego towns to explore, in a set order, and minimal variety of equipment based progression or item interactivity beyond basic RPG elements and go "wow, damn I guess I was totally wrong, this really is just like Zelda and every bit as good, I so regret being a blind Nintendo fanboy".
Like, it pretty quickly becomes clear that these people just do not get what it at that people actually see and admire in Nintendo. They don't understand just how refined these games are or how much people genuinely value that and have to reach super hard to 'prove them wrong'. Dark Souls did a far better job of capturing the 'spirit' of Zelda than any of the Zelda 'clones'.
You're going to take your subpar Zelda clone and you're going to LIKE IT, MISTER.
Zelda itself is subpar boring and almost all of them are easy cept for 2.
I never said "Zelda fans should see there are better alternatives". I said that most of them don't see ANY alternatives, and don't even look for them. I stand by this statement.
moreover, as usual, you say, "but nothing simply comes close to Zelda, period". yeah, right. then you know what people who say this do? they go and play Skyward Sword, or nu-Zelda like Phantom Hourglass / Link between worlds / etc., or at most ALTTP randomizer (peak game design). or—they make 62495th thread about how OoT was the GOAT on a Zelda subreddit, sitting in their triforce shirt with a triforce mug. or—they just go jerk off to Midna porn (that's like 90% of the fanbase; and yeah, I know—Zelda SIMPLY has the best waifus, totally). yeah, please tell me how "nothing simply comes close" to these activities, how other games ARE SIMPLY WORSE, really. I'm pretty sure most of "Zelda fans" don't even play the games most of time.
Anyway, "nothing simply comes close" perfectly encapsulates the state of the majority of Zelda fans. You don't even acknowledge any other game like this; you preemptively dismiss any game that is like Zelda if it has no Zelda name on the cover, while a priori concluding that Zelda is just superior by nature and everything else is literal shovelware. You'd rather tell yourself for the Nth time that your favorite franchise Zelda is the GOAT and everything else is trash to stroke your ego, than ever admit that other games may (MAY) be worth playing.
Game is called Zelda? It's good. Game is not called Zelda? It's bad. This is the definition of "bias" and "fanboyism".
You're exactly like Applegays who'd rather die than touch an Android device and will still insist that it's an inferior OS for inferior people, despite two OSes being the same shit for years now. Zelda is "just superior" same way as Apple "just werks". It's just a brand that is your identity. Zelda is a religion, Zeldagays are fanatics. Maybe get a triforce tattoo, homosexual.
>I said that most of them don't see ANY alternatives, and don't even look for them. I stand by this statement.
How pretentious.
Seems like you just autisticslly hate Zelda's popularity and think there's better alternatives that are just like it, if not better, when said alternatives are otherwise mediocre or share elements in Zelda's design, yet are few and superficial. There's nothing wrong with wanting a full-on clone, but it's reductive to be so stubborn and not try whatever aspects the clone closely resembles and play like. Also space out your sentences better.
Landstalker blows btw.
>think there's better alternatives
I'll spell it out for you again:
>I never said "Zelda fans should see there are better alternatives". I said that most of them don't see ANY alternatives, and don't even look for them.
learn to read, holy shit.
even if the alternatives aren't AS good, the fact that people dismiss them outright means no one wants "more games like Zelda". and if no one wants that, no one will make them. that was my whole point. that was OP's question.
>b-but nothing is on the same level
no game has come close to being same or better in a respective genre than SM64, or SMB3, or Diablo. and guess what? that didn't end their genres at all. but somehow, Zelda is an exception?
oh and just to drive the point home. here's how average game fans typically think (source: me)
>I like Street Fighter. are there other games like it? great, I'm gonna at least try them. I can play a lot of 2D and 3D fighters, I like some more than others but they're still fine. (yes, there are SF fanboys, but they're not frequent)
>I like Final Fantasy. are there other games like it? great, I'm gonna at least try them. I can play a lot of different RPGs, I like some more than others but it's still fine. (yes, there are die hard FF fanboys, but they're a dying breed, a retro thing even)
>I like SotN. are there other games like it? great, I'm gonna at least try them. I can play a lot of different metroidvanias, I like some more than others but it's still fine.
>I like Mario… [same thing]
>I like CoD… [same thing]
>I like Gran Turismo… [same thing]
>I like Zelda. are there other games like it? …no. they're not the same. they never get anything about Zelda, trust me. no, don't even try to put them in the same category as Zelda. you don't get it. get what?… well… the game design… it's just not the same. it's just bad games, that's it. oh, did I say OoT was the GOAT and never to be surpassed? yeah, critics agree. don't even try to imply otherwise.
oh and inb4—all those other games are not good. Zelda is just that good, period. only Zelda, nothing else. not closed minded and fanboyish at all, no.
other games are just bad, other consoles were just DVD players, every gen everyone only played on Nintendo consoles and Zelda was the only game that mattered.
>just do not get what it at that people actually see and admire in Nintendo
Do you realize how pathetic of a sentence that is?
i think people forget is that people like Zelda games for a different reason, and in some ways, out of fear that what they 'see' in the games don't exist anywhere else.
one could argue that this is the franchise's strong point; it captures trending fantasy tropes in a particular point in time and goes all the ways with it. Zelda fans have a tendency to like one Zelda game over another for one reason or another, but thats down to taste too, but the issue is that the hivemind of Nintendo (and a combination of upbringing, parents, friends etc) keep them in the bubble that nothing else compares to 'that' entry, when it isn't true.
the issue is that they're not taught to broaden their interests and perspectives, because they're afraid of what exists outside their walled garden's.
sure, it may not be "as good" as said game, but these people forget they have brains for a reason, and have preferences of their own.
it remains to be seen if more and more of them will ever realise this though. i hope they do, as I was one of them at one point in time. its worth stepping out of bubble sometimes.
Typical response from people who are fanboys themselves, disguising themselves as open minded individuals when they are even worse than the people they are accusing of being nintendrones.
what's wrong with the comment? he's just basically saying that every Zelda fan has a preference and should find games that suit their taste when they want to try other games like it.
>competitors didn't copy Zelda
Beyond Good and Evil is a straightforward OoT clone.
It's easily the best one at least, I agree. It's unfortunate that it's so obviously unfinished and baits for a sequel that will never either exist or live up to what the first game set up, because if this hadn't been the case it would be one of the few things that I'd consider to be an equal to OoT.
>keep them in the bubble that nothing else compares to 'that' entry, when it isn't true.
No dude, it really is true. I didn't even 'grow up' with Nintendo, I always had Sega and PlayStation before I actually got a Nintendo system, but all the while it was just plain to me that Nintendo offered the highest quality games, and that when playing their best I was experiencing something better than even the best the other systems would actually offer. Like, I loved Tomb Raider, Spyro, Baldur's Gate etc. but when I got around to play OoT it was just clearly on a level beyond anything else out there. There are other very good games that are absolutely worth experiencing, but all the best Zeldas has a certain 'knack' to them, they do things that other games just don't do nearly as well and don't pull off the same.
Okami.
This?
And this...
And this
Silent Hill is the only game you posted that fits the bill. And the only Sony exclusive by the way lmao, still made by a 3rd party studio
Silent Hill 2 got an Xbox port along with MGS2. The sixth gen was weird like that.
Playstation had a sane arrangement with exclusives.
Yeah that's what I was talking about, I meant only the first game in the series. 2,3 and 4 were multiplats
Disagree with these, but agree with
. Silent Hill has the foggy overworld, which is separate from the big interior 'dungeons' where you fight a boss and collect a key item at the end of them.
surprised nobody responded.
this is pretty much the answer to the whole thread, cringy as the games might be sometimes. they're worth a try imo (ideally not the HD remasters though, with the exception of 2).
Tomb Raider
Sony's "answer" was a console that mopped the floor with Nintendo's toy in sales.
Well there was nothing like it on the Saturn in polygonal 3d really. Action RPGs were on the system but not in 3d. Virtua Hydlide was released before Ocarina of Time and it famously didn’t go well. I suppose the closest the Saturn came was Baroque. It has 3d movement with scaling enemy sprites but polygonal environments in an action RPG. Its actually a great roguelike game but its not quite OOT. On the 2d overhead side of things there was Shining Wisdom, Legend of Oasis, Magic Knight Rayearth (I think thats the one with the three girls). Powerslave is more like Metroid but theres some similarities to Zelda dungeons there as well. Getting items to progress, recent items being useful for bosses, secret corridors, exploration based gameplay and puzzles in dungeons.
On PSX there’s Alundra, that game with the fox, and Legacy of Kain: Soul Reaver. Plenty more overhead 2d stuff but I’m not as familiar. The original Legacy of Kane game probably counts.
Dreamcast had Soul Reaver too and EGG for 2d overhead (with 3d bosses!)
Really Nintendo was the system for this type of game at the time. Zelda Ocarina of Time and Majora’s Mask are probably better than any of the games I listed. Mystical Ninja Starring Goemon is probably as good as anything I listed and plays a lot more like Zelda than most of them. It actually predated Ocarina. The dinosaur planet Rom was gonna be Rare’s answer, and its a fun playthrough today. Starfox Adventures felt a bit rushed. There’s a Hercules on N64 thats janky as hell but kinda decent otherwise and its a genuine attempt to answer Zelda at the time, even though it didn’t quite hit the mark I’ve had fun woth it.
>Dreamcast had Soul Reaver too and EGG for 2d overhead
Just looked up EGG, thanks for the suggestion.
you guys know not everybody was interested in trying to imitate Zelda right? people were inspired by tropes in movies and in the real world too when coming up with game design.
its not like Zelda invented the idea of swinging a sword and shield, or Mario inventing go-karting when that was a thing as far back as the 70s and continued all the ways into the 80s.
There's plenty of "Zelda-likes" or "clones" out there but not a single one I've tried thats hit the same for me.
I'm really not a Nintendie, I don't know why its such a sin to say you like Nintendo on this board, but I do like a lot of their games 6th gen and previous especially Zelda, so I'm more than open to finding something that can do the Zelda formula justice either 2D or 3D. Especially these days, Im thirstier for it than ever with how Nintendo isn't interested in making real Zelda games anymore and are now committed to repacking the same garbage open world game with no content over and over, but thats not retro so I'll save it for Ganker.
I feel like I've tried them all, picrel being the only one that I genuinely enjoyed but only on technicality it was just really cute and charming more than it was an actually good and well designed game. Ive swung with them all, Crusader of Centy, the Mana games, Beyond Oasis, Golden Axe Warrior, Alundra, etc etc. I can't even put my finger on what exactly they lack because on paper they should be just as good if not better but I don't know, maybe its the pacing or feel of the controls, something is just missing for me that makes me not enjoy them.
For 3D Zelda its even more difficult, I don't feel like anythings even attempted to be like a 3D Zelda other than Okami which blows chunks so hard I can't believe anyone even likes it. Ive heard Darksiders 1 is close but I don't really like the look of the game enough to try it just yet.
Theres just some intangible element of Zelda that only Nintendo seems to understand, and even then theres a number of them I dont like, I hate Wind Waker, all of the handheld entries besides Links Awakening, and the BotW games. But there has to have been at least one game that gets it right? Something Ive overlooked? I refuse to believe nobody has cracked the code after all these years.
If anyone gets what Im talking about and knows an actually good Zelda clone please let me know.
I understand perfectly what you're talking about. The problem is that video games are not like UFOs or Bigfoot. We have access to literally all of them (except for some very rare Japanese PC games that still haven't been uploaded but obviously I doubt there are any quality Zelda-likes among them) so if there was a game similar to Zelda people would already know about it. So basically Zelda is Zelda and there are no games that are EXACTLY like it, especially in 3D. There are 3D games that have a similar feel to it like SotC, Nier 1 and Pandora's Tower. Also as funny as it sounds, as already mentioned by some people in this thread, gameplay-wise the first two Silent Hill games really are somewhat similar to Zelda.
>maybe its the pacing or feel of the controls, something is just missing for me that makes me not enjoy them.
As much as people like to shit on Nintendo here they really are the masters of their craft. You have to understand that even though Zelda games feel pretty simple and 'vanilla' (by that I mean that to the action-adventure genre it is what Dragon Quest is to JRPGs) the formula itself is really hard to execute. Wind Waker may not be all that great but even this game was hard to make, same for Skyward Sword
>Ive heard Darksiders 1 is close but I don't really like the look of the game enough to try it just yet.
Darksiders 1 is a really solid action game with good quality Zelda style dungeons. But it really lacks in the free exploration, NPCs and questing that makes Zelda stand out from everything else, so like most of Zelda's 'clones' there isn't much there to discover outside of the also very very linear main quest. What it does well it's quite good at, but like everything else it's just not Zelda. It's basically the 3D equivalent of Alundra.
I feel like you're actually making a really good point here in spite of yourself. Like, really, how many actual 'Mario clones' are there? I mean, games that actually, really play like Mario and have the same physics based platforming and design philosophy Mario has? Despite there being tons of platformers, there's actually barely anything much like it is there? But in a sense this doesn't matter too much, because "being a good platformer" is something tons of games manage to pull off in their own way anyway, so even if there's nothing else quite like Mario 64, which would be hard to do well, there are plenty of 'good enough' things, because being a decent platformer isn't necessarily that hard and can be done simply enough.
Being a good Zelda style game, on the other hand, really is that hard, because there's no way to pull off a simplified Zelda that's close to what makes Zelda. Zelda depends on its intricacy and clever structure to be good, and any game that tries to be like it but skimps on this will rightly be regarded as inferior, to the point that there's not much point in bothering unless you can pull off something completely radical that's good in a different way, like Souls did.
We see the alternatives, but recognize that they aren't proper substitutes for the desired thing and so just see little point in discussing them much. Zelda IS an exception because there's not much point in 'lite-Zelda'.
>Zelda depends on its intricacy and clever structure to be good, and any game that tries to be like it but skimps on this will rightly be regarded as inferior, to the point that there's not much point in bothering unless you can pull off something completely radical that's good in a different way, like Souls did.
>We see the alternatives, but recognize that they aren't proper substitutes for the desired thing and so just see little point in discussing them much. Zelda IS an exception because there's not much point in 'lite-Zelda'.
so… basically from your words t follows that the bare concept / style of Zelda isn't so great, it's the execution that makes it?
well, then that's your answer to OP's question. Zelda didn't make a genre because the base concept isn't all that exciting. People play Zelda for the world / brand / childhood memories / etc..
I guess it may be similar to Pokemon. after you get enough of the game once, the bare concept of "gotta ketchum all" stops being exciting. people don't want OTHER games like Pokemon. the bare concept of Pokemon got old after 2000s. people come to it for the same world, familiar monsters like Pikachu, childhood memories, etc. Even refined balance would mean frick all to most people. A game like Pokemon but with more "refined balance / better gameplay" would gather dust.
panzer dragoon saga/shenmue
>turnbased-rpg/investigative-cutscene-fighting-simulator
what did anon mean by this?
They make you feel like you are on an adventure
I'm currently playing Alundra, only 5 hours in but I really like it so far. Already had a few puzzles that took real effort to figure out.
And frick you to all those autistic homosexuals that said it's a bad game, made me almost skip this one.
>sega answer to LOZ
well if it can be resumed to a game it would be "breath of the wild" before it even existed Story of Thor - A Successor of The Light