Topic: The legend of zelda remake for wii?

[Shecky]

I hate these types of threads.  The "Oh man LttP and LoZ ruled, they should remake them in 3D because 3D makes everything better!"

Well guess what, never going to happen.  Game mechanics and level design would not translate, hence you cannot have the same game. QED

KDR: Note that WW islands were spaced they way they were for the sake of system resources.  As you pass the grid boundaries you can see one island disapear and the other "load"

[NeoThunder]

Quote
Originally posted by: Infernal Monkey
The boring blur-fest toilet themed TP engine can burn in hell. Wind Waker engine.

AHHHHH, cell shaded sucks.  If I never have to buy a cell shaded game again it will be too soon, realism is the way to go

[Nick DiMola]

I wouldn't mind a remake of an old LoZ if it was doen right. This is really the trouble though. Remaking these games and having it feel right would be immensely hard to do. Everyone thinks it's a simple transition, but it really isn't. Major thinking has to be done for alot of the camera work and a way to maintain the real feel of the originals. If Nintendo wanted to undertake the task, I would be more than happy to support them with a purchase, but it is very doubtful that they would ever even consider it. Zelda gameplay has been fundamentally changed, whether we realize it or not, by adding in a 3rd dimension. If anyone takes this project on, I hope it is a 3rd party who Nintendo just bankrolls and overlooks to make sure they are staying true to the original. This keeps another team on something new and someone else on the side taking care of the remake.  

[ShreddersDojo]

That's why I dont' give most 3D games a replay, and go back to the side scrolling classics.  There's just too much damned roaming going on with nothing to do!   I mean, who wants to spend time talking to townspeople who say worthless things(Did Angry Nintendo nerd hit apon this in a Zelda session?) When I could be fighting those arrow shooting enemies, or the Blue and Red ones that shoot pebbles at you every screen through their nose??  (Can't remember the names.)

I think I remember reading somwhere a Nintendo game developer mentioned that more people find this to  be a problem, and they where working on toning down the wandering, but I can't remember where I Read that.

[Artimus]

I don't think this is necessary. The 2D games are all great and the 3D games are very faithful recreations of those games. You'd be hard pressed to have a 3D Zelda game more faithful to the spirit of the series' gameplay than those we currently have.

[Chiller]

Perhaps I am just a nostalgic fool, but I just can't see a 3D remake that would work.  I remember playing TLoZ when it first came out, and I was so amazed at how the game felt.  The mechanics, the theme, and the design all came together to create a game that seemed much more epic, and engrossing, than nearly any other game one the NES at the time.  When the second installment, The Adventure of Link, came out, I was so eager to have another game like the first that I just couldn't stand the second.  To this day, I have beaten TLoZ perhaps 10 times; yet, I haven't picked up the second since I first beat it.  When A Link to the Past came out, it, too, had the same "magic" as the first.  It is another game that I have played, and beaten, numerous times.  So, when OoT came out, I kind of had the same feeling as with TAoL. Despite being relatively similar in theme, the mechanics introduced with a 3-D environment, and the somewhat empty nature of the fields (which some people actually prefer over the 2-D styling), just seemed like such a letdown.  Now, when I got into playing it, I finally ended up liking it, and I have since played and beaten all of the 3-D installments (although I still prefer the original, and A Link to the Past).

In any case, preferences aside, I think that the 3-D versions, and the 2-D version have such an overall disparity in feel and mechanics, that, aside from characters, they almost seem like two different franchises (but not quite).  To transmute 2-D to 3-D would lead, in my opinion, to a game that feels so fundamentally different, that the intended purpose is lost.  I am not saying that 3-D doesn't work with the franchise, since I have enjoyed those offerings.  It is just, as a strict remake, I don't think it will work.  As other have suggested, you might as well start from scratch since, for the most part, the game will no longer seem enough like the original to really have the intended effect.  To sum it up, I just don't think that the elements that made the original such a great game will translate, and what you will be left with will be too different.  You will either have to add, or subtract too much from the game to get it to work, and thus, it really wouldn't be a remake.

I even wonder if the 2-D styled build of OoT could have worked.
 

[KDR_11k]

AoL is a game I'd like to see remade to fix many of its annoyances. Especially the restart system is annoying but there's other stuff that needs fixing as well. Okay, make that a Zero Mission style remake.

[GoldenPhoenix]

AoL needs to be forever buried in the desert like ET before it.

[vudu]

LoZ in 3-D would be cool.  OoT in 2-D would be better.  

[Ceric]

Quote
Originally posted by: VGrevolution
AoL needs to be forever buried in the desert like ET before it.

I strongly disagree there.  Fixed not dumped...

[GoldenPhoenix]

Quote
Originally posted by: Ceric

Quote
Originally posted by: VGrevolution
AoL needs to be forever buried in the desert like ET before it.

I strongly disagree there.  Fixed not dumped...

Well, I really don't like rushed out sequels of one of the greatest gaming franchises of all time. AoL was a terrible game, that didn't have any idea what it wanted to be.

[Caliban]

Quote
Originally posted by: VGrevolution
AoL needs to be forever buried in the desert like ET before it.

Is this the game you were talking about?

I don't get why so many people honestly don't like or only hate on this game. Is it because it was hard? Awwwwwwww, poor you, couldn't even get to the first palace, maybe you can blame the game mechanics instead of yourself. Seriously, any other game that came out on the NES, even if it was/is highly praised, still has huge flaws or something else to blame and hate at.

Quote
Originally posted by: VGrevolutionWell, I really don't like rushed out sequels of one of the greatest gaming franchises of all time. AoL was a terrible game, that didn't have any idea what it wanted to be.

It had no idea what it wanted to be, how so?

[Nick DiMola]

AoL definitely decided that it wanted to be similar to an RPG in the vein of Dragon Warrior. I didn't think the game was too hard, I just don't care for it. It doesn't feel like Zelda to me, and obviously didn't for many others either. If that style of play was so fantastic I am pretty certain you would've seen it carried over in later iterations of the game, clearly it wasn't so that must mean something. I agree with Ceric and KDR though, a remake of some sort that fixed some of the annoyances of the game might be very interesting. Until then, AoL still sits with me as the worst "true" Zelda game.

[KDR_11k]

The thing that needs to be buried in the desert is AOL, not AoL.

[GoldenPhoenix]

Quote
Originally posted by: Caliban

Quote
Originally posted by: VGrevolution
AoL needs to be forever buried in the desert like ET before it.

Is this the game you were talking about?

I don't get why so many people honestly don't like or only hate on this game. Is it because it was hard? Awwwwwwww, poor you, couldn't even get to the first palace, maybe you can blame the game mechanics instead of yourself. Seriously, any other game that came out on the NES, even if it was/is highly praised, still has huge flaws or something else to blame and hate at.

Quote
Originally posted by: VGrevolutionWell, I really don't like rushed out sequels of one of the greatest gaming franchises of all time. AoL was a terrible game, that didn't have any idea what it wanted to be.

It had no idea what it wanted to be, how so?

The game felt like a mish mash of ideas, none executed very well. it wanted to be an RPG, yet had tons of platforming elements, it had its own form of RPG battles where you get sucked into goofy "mini-game" levels where you run into a bad guy. It mixed magic, but it seemed poorly implemented and out of place. It wanted to be like the old Zelda with an overhead view, but tried to mix it with overworld map in the FF games, while still integrating those, once again, lame and repetitive side scrolling game.

To this day I have no idea what the game was trying to be, it felt rushed which did not mesh well with so many genres mixed into one. It didn't feel like a Zelda game, it didn't feel like an RPG, it didn't feel like a platformer, it felt like the development team took a shotgun and scattershot all their ideas onto a game design board, then rushed to complete it. So yes, I stick by my thoughts that I can't stand the game and feel it should be forgotten, or completely overhauled because nothing worked well. The only really positive thing I can say about the game is that some of its ideas were implemented in later Zelda's, but with much more polish.

[Ian Sane]

My problem with Adventure of Link is more based on the general limitations that a lot of NES games have that give the game an unfair difficulty.  Link's sword has no range.  It's like trying to kill a goblin with a fountain pen.  The game also has that annoying bullsh!t with LIVES and forcing you back to the begining of the game after a game over (makes sense in Mario but not in Zelda).  That sort of crap was in all sorts of 8-bit games and it wasn't until the 16-bit era that developers realized that unfair challenges that made no sense weren't a part of good game design.  I wonder if the concept was expanded on in a 16 bit game if it would turn out better.

I don't care much for the original Zelda either because again Link's sword has no range at all and the game gives no indication of where to go or what to do and the game requires you to spend money but makes rupees scarce.  However when that formula was expanded on on the SNES it resulted in something really fun that kept the same formula but removed all the annoying crap.  Super Metroid is the same way.  I love that game.  I hate Metroid with it's no map, no diagonal shooting, and no health refill after dying.  Once all the stupid crap that made the game unfair was removed it was awesome.

[GoldenPhoenix]

Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
My problem with Adventure of Link is more based on the general limitations that a lot of NES games have that give the game an unfair difficulty.  Link's sword has no range.  It's like trying to kill a goblin with a fountain pen.  The game also has that annoying bullsh!t with LIVES and forcing you back to the begining of the game after a game over (makes sense in Mario but not in Zelda).  That sort of crap was in all sorts of 8-bit games and it wasn't until the 16-bit era that developers realized that unfair challenges that made no sense weren't a part of good game design.  I wonder if the concept was expanded on in a 16 bit game if it would turn out better.

I don't care much for the original Zelda either because again Link's sword has no range at all and the game gives no indication of where to go or what to do and the game requires you to spend money but makes rupees scarce.  However when that formula was expanded on on the SNES it resulted in something really fun that kept the same formula but removed all the annoying crap.  Super Metroid is the same way.  I love that game.  I hate Metroid with it's no map, no diagonal shooting, and no health refill after dying.  Once all the stupid crap that made the game unfair was removed it was awesome.

Well in a way I guess AoL was good as an experiment to adjust the formula, still doesn't discount my belief that it didn't do anything very well.