
I read a very well written article about the first Zelda game and how the subsequent games in the franchise measured up (spoilers: they don’t, at least according to the article). The article ebbs and flows as far as my agreement with it. At times I felt myself nodding along but then he would push the idea too far and I was taken aback. Tevis has many solid points, but stripping everything back down to the model of the first game doesn’t strike me as a good idea even if it were possible.
I’m not going to lie, I think the best of Zelda games is pretty much when others do: A Link to the Past, Ocarina of Time, plus Wind Waker. I thought the Oracle games were a good throwback (except the Goron dancing which may have been made by the devil himself). So I guess I’d agree the best Zelda games are in the past, just not so far back as he goes. I think all of these games had great ideas but perhaps at times they have been pushed too far in one direction. I’m playing Spirit Tracks now and haven’t played Skyward Sword yet besides a demo so I can’t weigh in on his assertion that Skyward is the lowest point yet. But it is easy to sit down and see they’ve changed but that somehow it has all been for the worst, I can’t get on board.

