Is the constant infighting over which games are good or bad...

Is the constant infighting over which games are good or bad, and the widely differing opinions on which the favorites are indicative of a very solid series or an inconsistent one?

Attached: zeld.png (1200x489, 92K)

people like the series for different reasons

It's indicative of how varied the series is despite how much it relies on series-wide conventions. Some games are very similar mechanically but not aesthetically, some games are very similar aesthetically but not mechanically, and the fanbase is splintered along these various intersections.

Would anyone suggest playing the DS games?

So are games like WW objectively bad games, or is it objectively good but it doesn't jive with some people

objectively it's 'good' but some people might love the art style and nautical shit which makes it their favorite, if they're not into dark stuff they won't like MM or TP for example

Inconsistent in my opinion, but also
fpbp

It's indicative of two things. One, a seeming refusal to stagnate. Two, considerable and consistent success in the realization of its goals. To that end, I'd say it's more solid than inconsistent.

It's fine but it depends on one's disposition. For me, WW doesn't do a lot to appeal to my sensibilities so I'll argue up and down that it's underwhelming, but people that aren't me and have different tastes and values might be able to appreciate some of its aspects that I can't, and as such they'll be much fonder of the game. Insofar as objectivity, WW is objectively unfinished but despite that what is present is also objectively quite polished. Really, the former point can be dismissed as something to be lamented rather than condemned if you're fond enough of the game that we got but the inverse can be true as well. It all just depends on what you value.

TL;DR: It's fine but it doesn't jive with some people.

WW is amazing. The haters are just brainlets. Of course when you play a game a million times you are going to think it's easy.

>WW is amazing.
It isn't compared to what has been and what was done before it.

It's indicative of a franchise that does different things while still maintaining it's core fanbase over all these decades due to these individual tastes in quality. It's like Dragon Quest but in the opposite direction.

It means people like different things you autist. The point is that the different things people like are still considered good to enough people that it's not a shitshow

WW is all style and very little substance.

WW is exactly like Okami, for example. Beautiful games artistically, extremely easy in actual gameplay, but I love both regardless

No it's indicative of varying gameplay mechanics?

It's indicative that there's a divide in the fanabase. Which there is. Multiple actually. You have the old school fans, the Aonuma fans and the people who only like certain games.

This happens to almost every series when it gets large enough. The fanbase is quite similar to Final Fantasy and Metroid.

>Metroid

Isn't there a more clear divide there between what the good and bad games are?

Yes, the old school fans and the 3D only fans. Same as Zelda.

Other M and Federation Force are the only firmly bad Metroid games. Everything else comes down to opinion.

Solid series. Soulsbornekiro has the same level of infighting for the same reasons. Different games appeal to people looking for different things

>comfiness
Wind Waker
>world and atmosphere
Majora's Mask
>gameplay/controls
Twilight Princess
>open-endedness
BotW
>simple, well-rounded
OoT

The answer is "inconsistent". None of the 3D Zeldas are good for this reason.

>OoT was great for its time, but that time has passed and other games have improved on its various aspects. Still the most "balanced" of the games, but it doesn't particularly excel in anything by current standards which makes it pretty boring to play.
>MM focuses on sidequests and time management at the expense of compelling dungeons, save for maybe Stone Tower Temple. Overworld feels more like a segmented theme park than a world. The sidequests themselves are narratively interesting, but not all that mechnically fun. Generally feels more like running errands than having an adventure.
>WW has some of the easiest dungeons in the series and its overworld reeks of copypaste content. Tries to come across as a more "open" Zelda, but doesn't truly become nonlinear until near the end of the game. Not quite the worst 3D title, but perhaps the most disappointing.
>TP focuses on dungeons at the expense of a good overworld, having a map bereft of content and barely any sidequests. Even its dungeons aren't that well-designed and only appeal due to surface level setpiece aesthetics. Awful prologue. All style, zero substance.
>SS also focuses on dungeons at the expense of a good overworld, but this time on steroids. Dungeons are better than TP's, but the overworld is somehow even worse. Simon says combat gets old after a short while. More handholding than any other 3D adventure.
>BotW focuses on its overworld at the expense of compelling dungeons. Divine beasts are half-baked. Shrines are isolated puzzle chambles without any of the navigational fun of previous dungeons. Bad enemy variety. Probably the closest thing to a truly good 3D Zelda game so far, but still needs improvement.

50 bucks says BotW2 will overcorrect again and we'll go back to having good dungeons and story but barely anything else.

your criticisms of MM make no sense. also
>SS dungeons are better than TP
HAHAHA no. TP's are the best in the series, SS some of the most mediocre ones.

At least one of them, ideally Spirit Tracks.

You're literally the first person on Yea Forums I've ever seen talk positively about Spirit Tracks, I've heard people say it's an utter disgrace to the series. I haven't played it but I have a feeling people that feel so strongly against it also haven't played it.

TP's dungeons are mostly on rails and really don't even touch the highs of Ancient Cistern or Sandship. Play the fucking game.

This

At this point I'm not sure it's even possible to make a zelda that pleases more than 70% of the fanbase

Arguing means people care.

Not him but I've seen plenty of people talk positively about Spirit Tracks. I disagree and think Phantom Hourglass is the far better DS game, but they exist.

This is a pretty good description of most games, I would say. I don't quite agree with some points here and there, and can't speak for SS since I haven't played it, but overall you nailed it.

Wut? Twilight Princess has some really damn good dungeons. Ancient Cistern and Sandship are both really damn good dungeons yeah, but many dungeons are good for different reasons. Lakebed Temple, Arbiter’s Grounds, Snowpeak Ruins, and City in the Sky are all pretty great even if they aren’t complicated puzzle dungeons.

I understand your criticisms of each game but I highly disagree with them aside from Wind Waker.

? I’ve never heard people talk that badly about spirit tracks. Tbh both DS titles are serviceable and good in their own rights with a decent amount of content to go through.

>Play the fucking game.
Not him I played both and I still put TP over SS because the latter is just a big 'Why?' after all is said and done.

The DS games are fairly good handheld titles. So are the GB/GBC games like Link's Awakening and Oracle of Seasons/Ages.

Minish Cap is overrated garbage.