How we would change The Legend of Zelda games if it was up to us.
http://www.nintendoworldreport.com/feature/25916
In this special, Nintendo World Report staff discuss what they would change if they were in charge of a Legend of Zelda game. There are many things that people would like to see changed in Zelda, from structure to timelines, everyone has an opinion. In the following articles we discuss these and much more.
Since Aonuma took over the series there has been a lot less dungeons and a new emphasis on NPCs and too many side quests-- and that just doesn't work in a Zelda game. What recent Zeldas have really been lacking is an emphasis on dungeons. Don't get me wrong, I loved concept behind Majora's Mask. It was brilliant in its own right... but not as a Zelda game. They should have reworked it with original characters and made it its own franchise. Presenting it as a Zelda game doomed it to be a failure.
QuoteSince Aonuma took over the series there has been a lot less dungeons and a new emphasis on NPCs and too many side quests-- and that just doesn't work in a Zelda game. What recent Zeldas have really been lacking is an emphasis on dungeons. Don't get me wrong, I loved concept behind Majora's Mask. It was brilliant in its own right... but not as a Zelda game. They should have reworked it with original characters and made it its own franchise. Presenting it as a Zelda game doomed it to be a failure.
See this just demonstrates the tremendous task that Nintendo has before them. My attitude about Zelda is completely the opposite. I feel that Zelda has gotten better as more sidequests and NPCs are introduced. To me if you're just going to focus on dungeons it might as well be a linear action game with levels. I find it annoying when some Zelda games towards the end just start going dungeon-dungeon-dungeon with no breathing room in between and my favourite games are the ones that go back and forth.
Nintendo has to try to please both me and Bman. And they also have to try to please Nicholas who wants a more Metroid style design.
You kind of just proved my point. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that your first Zelda experience was probably with OoT or later. If that's the case then obviously you look as the series differently than myself, who has played every game in order from the time they were released.
There's no way to win, which seems to me to be the likeliest explanation for why they've stayed so close to the formula.
Some of the areas could be made in a similar way, so instead of, say, eight dungeons in the game, maybe the number could end up somewhere between 15-20
A dungeon is a room or cell in which prisoners (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/prisoner) are held, especially underground. Dungeons are generally associated with medieval (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval) castles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle), though their association with torture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture) probably belongs more to the Renaissance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renaissance) period. An oubliette is a form of dungeon which was accessible only from a hatch in a high ceiling.
See to me that's cowardly. That's Nintendo meek "we'll make it watered down so it offends no one" attitude that leaves no one happy. How about Nintendo just make the Zelda game THEY want to make instead of specifically calculating what will sell? That's what artists do.
The overworld would have to be a far larger place than any previous 3D Zelda game, in order to have many caves and other areas that the player would have to explore. I want the player to be able to go in pretty much any direction that they want right off the bat, like the original NES Zelda. I want to break away from a set path through the game, which is why I took the items out of the dungeons, it would allow people to go and get items in different orders.I agree there shouldn't be a set path through the game, but I also don't think it should be too open right away. For me, seeing an area I can't reach yet is one of the big reasons to go find new items. Without that I think you lose the whole reason to get items in the first place.
Considering Skyward Sword is going to be the very first Zelda in the timeline (I know, lol zelda timeline) that will tell the story of how the Master Sword was made, it's virtually impossible for Ganon to be the villain of this game. Unless of course they do a Terminator style storyline were Ganon has traveled back in time to prevent the Master Sword from ever being created.
Nintendo has to try to please both me and Bman. And they also have to try to please Nicholas who wants a more Metroid style design. There are so many directions to go in and so many different elements of Zelda that different fans prefer.
He got the Triforce by tricking Zelda and Link into opening the entrance to where the Triforce was kept. Link then experienced an alternate future where Ganondorf only obtained the Triforce of Power (whereas he had the full Triforce in ALttP) while the other two parts went to Zelda and Link, who battle and defeat him and ultimately seal him away in a confusingly similar way to how he was said to have been sealed away in ALttP's history, yet clearly not the same since here, there are only six sages instead of the seven, and they weren't all human either so they couldn't be the ancestors of the maidens from ALttP. This is soon proven to be the case as Zelda then sends Link back to the past where he closes the gate by returning the Master Sword while Ganondorf was still off in the Sacred Realm, thus preventing him from returning, instead allowing him to obtain the full Triforce but leaving him unable to return, which would lead up to the ALttP history instead, but apparently not before he ends up meeting some guy named Zant and causes more trouble.
Oh yeah, also:
Even though that other timeline was prevented, it still somehow existed and resulted in Hyrule being flooded generations later which apparently led to the Zoras somehow evolving into a birds and Ganondorf turning into a statue... But it's apparently not worth explaining, since it all takes place in a defunct timeline anyways, so we're apparently just supposed to ignore it for now and pretend it never happened (unless of course they change their minds and try to resurrect the idea in the future).
Before Wind Waker came out and I was in a typical "what would I want to see in a new Zelda" brainstorm I thought of the idea of the world being so vast that you would need to sail to different parts of it. But the important part was that I was thinking of going between a couple of large land masses. Wind Waker lacks that "huge" factor because it's just little islands everywhere.
I would love it if you had for example three areas, each the size of OoT's overworld, that you need to sail between, plus a couple little islands. But the important thing is that the game takes place primarily on land. Sailing it just a small chunk instead of a main focus.
I also think Nintendo should go for broke and make an new pirate themed IP that uses Wind Waker as an influence. There is a lot of potential in that.
words....Because Zelda would need to be a man?
So why do they all have to be male?
...More Words
I don't think a Girl Link would change anything. If they wanted link to be more nimble, they would just make him so; for instance, they would use child Link. Making him a girl wouldn't change anything but his figure, but Link is already the girliest man ever and I would just see it as a poor attempt to grab attention.
Gated access ? Is Zelda held hostage in a country club?
Gated access ? Is Zelda held hostage in a country club?
Gated Access is the fundamental game design philosophy of both Zelda, Metroid, Banjo Kazooie and Mario 64. To move on in the game you have to find the key. They key could be either an actual key or achieving a new item or learning a new move. You can't get into most Zelda dungeons unless you have the next item. Or even if you can get into them, you can't get far. This works really well and is why people feel like they've achieved so much after playing Zelda. However, after playing a few Zelda games it becomes painfully obvious what you have to do next. The other thing I noticed Nintendo does is they play with your choice making. Every once in a while you think your straying from the path when in fact they've tricked you and your actually doing exactly what they wanted you to do. Anyways, once you perceive all of this it feels like you can't make any choices in a game and it ruins your sense of accomplishment. To change this we still need to have an end goal, but we need to change the method on how you get to it. Thats why i'm in favor of redundancy. This allows you to make choices, and not only that it will make each persons individual game fit into a set of combinations. It would also be cool that by doing the game in multiple orders you got different endings(good endings)
Eugh, scripted moves are horrible. The whole "press button to not die" thing was fun in its RE4 debut, simply from the fact that even cutscenes were no longer safe. Then it just got silly. What I imagined with the extra moves was simply being able to do stuff like the backflip/sideflip/walljump type thing in Mario 64, just adding a few more nimble battle-evasion controls other than Link's current 4-jump list. I kind of agree that the character could be both male or female without changing the fundamentals at all - it still fits into the world, and I even contemplated the choice of player gender at the start like in Pokémon. For the purpose of the article, though, I had to think of ways it could change and/or improve the formula. Eye candy is not a valid reasoning :P
And now we're back to "make Zelda more like Metroid".Isn't that what Zelda II is?
I thought about it, and I used to think Zelda was about adventure, but I think Discovery fits better. Metroid is about isolation, but I may revise that.
Alone in a group? Look at Olimar from Pikmin. Strange planet, nothing but enemies and dumb plant people he can't talk to.I still put that in a different category because "...dumb plant people he can't talk to." More akin to isolation by no choice. Though I need to play through that game more to get a true feel.
Nobody wants to see Link a female, or Mario or Megaman or Donkey Kong or Fox, etc. I love Zelda games but I would never play one with Link being female. A female main character in Zelda maybe but not Link!Jumping in late, but who says Mario or Mega Man or Donkey Kong or Fox should be female? We all know they're male and there's no denying it. My prime reasoning behind the theory is that every game besides Majora's Mask, Phantom hourglass and Spirit Tracks has featured an entirely different person performing the role of "Link". If one is to believe that there is a timeline between games, that means there has to have been girls and babies and some kind of lineage passed down. Were the girls all just useless NPCs who never amounted to anything and thus weren't worth making a game about? That's kind of biased..
Nobody wants to see Link a female, or Mario or Megaman or Donkey Kong or Fox, etc. I love Zelda games but I would never play one with Link being female. A female main character in Zelda maybe but not Link!Jumping in late, but who says Mario or Mega Man or Donkey Kong or Fox should be female? We all know they're male and there's no denying it. My prime reasoning behind the theory is that every game besides Majora's Mask, Phantom hourglass and Spirit Tracks has featured an entirely different person performing the role of "Link". If one is to believe that there is a timeline between games, that means there has to have been girls and babies and some kind of lineage passed down. Were the girls all just useless NPCs who never amounted to anything and thus weren't worth making a game about? That's kind of biased..
Jumping in late, but who says Mario or Mega Man or Donkey Kong or Fox should be female? We all know they're male and there's no denying it. My prime reasoning behind the theory is that every game besides Majora's Mask, Phantom hourglass and Spirit Tracks has featured an entirely different person performing the role of "Link". If one is to believe that there is a timeline between games, that means there has to have been girls and babies and some kind of lineage passed down. Were the girls all just useless NPCs who never amounted to anything and thus weren't worth making a game about? That's kind of biased..
I would welcome a small, concise story line like MM. Anything bigger would probably get Nintendo in trouble like TP or WW.
In terms of story line though, the most important element to me is how the story effects the world. It seems like you are always doing something in secret that no civilian knows about. You defeat Ganon before anyone knows they were in danger.
I would like to see an almost vampire like situation, where people are so scared at night, they are hostile. Or as the game develops they become noticeably more afraid, weary, or frightened.
iv been playing minecraft..and if only zelda had randomized levelsNo. Just no. Maybe one dungeon sub area but, No.
It works fine in Diablo II. Of course, Diablo II is all about running through the level and killing stuff. It's harder to have randomized puzzles.
I'd consider it an improvement to have more randomization, so long as it's in the right amount and in the right places.
Some rooms in dungeons that have random types/amounts of enemies? Could be an improvement.
A smaller mini-dungeon (or cave, etc.) with random rooms, where your only goal is to get to the end to get some item? That would be fine.
A Zelda game where everything is random and it lacks cleverly designed puzzles? Not good.
A smaller mini-dungeon (or cave, etc.) with random rooms, where your only goal is to get to the end to get some item? That would be fine.I can see randomizing working for the "cave of 100 enemies/trials" thing that Nintendo used to do during the GameCube era. For anything else in Zelda, it's a terrible idea.
Would anyone else like to see herds of non-aggressive animals carpeting open fields? Or maybe flocks of birds flying overhead?
What about a large number of non-agressive animals in general?