Topic: If I Were in Charge of Zelda

[Bman87301]

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.

Actually I was referring to the proposed by idea in the article, not Skyward Sword which wasn't part of discussion. We can't really make any assumptions on Skyward Sword plot-wise until it's out. Sure, it's supposedly going to be the first game chronologically, but then again we were also told that Wind Waker would take place exactly 100 years after OoT. We were also told TP would have more dungeons than OoT and would have fully orchestrated music. With Aonuma's lack of understanding of the story, along with Nintendo's apparent  refusal to allow to let things stray too far from OoT, we can't make any assumptions... especially any based on logic. Sadly, based on the current path the series has been going, that whole "Terminator" premise seems frighteningly all too likely. That's why I'm not at all getting my hopes up for this game... I'm just going to assume for the worse, then if it's not I'll be pleasantly surprised.

[Bman87301]

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.

That thinking is part of the problem in the first place. It's not possible to please all the people all the time... and trying to cater everybody usually just alienates the majority. Nintendo needs to focus on the mainstream Zelda audience and ignore the fringe ideas... at least for use in Zelda games...  but one of Nintendo's biggest issues is that they don't embrace new franchises enough. They usually just try to capitalize on the name recognition of established franchises and too often try to incorporate new ideas into franchises where they don't belong, rather than using them in new franchises where they'd work better. They need to build upon the structures what work in established series, not make something completely different with old characters thrown-in to connect it for name recognition (Majora's Mask). Of course, they also need to make sure the people recreating that structure understands what exactly makes it work in the first place, otherwise you're just going to get an incomplete idea that brings a lot back, but fails to fully hit the mark (Twilight Princess).

Aonuma has great ideas, they just don't fit in Zeldas, and he doesn't understand what makes old Zeldas work well enough to recreate them.

[Ceric]

I do have to say the #1 thing I think that should stay from Twilight Princess is....  The Ball and Chain.  The rest can be chucked for all I care.  Fact of the matter I think Wind Waker was a better direction but it was killed by all the stupid water (If they remade it with 70% less travel I be there)...  This will be blashpemy but I think that OoT was a good game but, honestly don't think it really holds up to original Zelda or LTP.  TP I found somewhat disjointed and it was only the jarring on these forums that made me finish it once I had the enemy contained to the castle.

In general I think the inability to take another true step away from OoT after WW is whats really holding the series back on console.

[ThePerm]

i would imagine redundant/alternate items and redundant/alternate dungeons would be kinda cool. That way you could get to different places and not always have to follow the same order.

the key to breaking the monotony of gated access is making gates that can be unlocked in multiple ways.

[King of Twitch]

Gated access ? Is Zelda held hostage in a country club?

[NWR_pap64]

Pardon to interrupt the discussion, but part two of the feature (written by yours truly) is here:
http://www.nintendoworldreport.com/feature/25970


Yes, I tackle the timeline...


I'll just be over here...where I can be safe from all the comments...and all the rage this might create.


*Hides in a corner

[Bman87301]

LOL... I can't say I blame you for hiding in a corner. It's true that the Zelda canon has gotten pretty complicated and confusing over the years, and it's far from straightforward and full of gaps, but there actually is an official order to the timeline that has been confirmed by Aonuma and Miyamoto. You said "A common belief is that Majora’s Mask takes place in an alternate timeline that starts right after the end of Ocarina of Time".  It's hardly just "a common belief", because that part is official canon. If you took the time to do a little more research before posting this you'd know Aonuma and Miyamoto have established the following order at one point or the other:


ALttP> LA
^
TP
^
OoT (past)>MM       

---
WW> PH
^
OoT (future)

Where the other games fit in is anyone's guess, but at least that much is established.

I actually already summarized how they all fit together in a previous post:

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).

As convoluted as it sounds, it does fit together (aside from the Wind Waker timeline which clearly wasn't at all thought out.)

It's really not up for debate over when MM takes place. The official story puts it after the events of OoT (which ends with Link returning to the past and averting everything that would have happened in the future). OoT Link's only contribution to the main timeline was up to when he lifted the Master Sword, allowing Ganondorf to enter Sacred Realm. After that, the timeline changed since Young Link closed the seal by returning the sword locking Ganondorf inside (allowing Link to move on with his life and somehow wander into a land called Termina located in an other dimension, as so many young boys do).  Besides, the plot to WW is that Link never returned to save Hyrule which is why it flooded, so even if Link did die during MM, nothing would affect those events anyways.

I have to say I'm a little disappointed to see a staff writer make this kind of mistake in an official article. When we want to read hastily written, uninformed rants filled with biased ideas and misinformation we'll just read the forums! :-P

[Ian Sane]

If I was in charge of Zelda for the timeline I would try to make it so my game fit pretty much anywhere before Wind Waker's flood.  I wouldn't put it in Hyrule anyway and Link would already be established as a hero in some form or fashion and then I can just ignore it all.  And if I made sequels to my Zelda I would only make direct references to my own titles.  Nintendo can't keep an even remotely credible timeline straight so I would just make my own within a self-contained pocket and then Nintendo or the fans or whoever can then decide where they want to put that pocket.

When the N64 games came out I never for a second thought about any alternate timeline issues.  I just assumed that when Ocarina of Time was done everything was cool and then Link goes on some other adventure that ends up being Majora's Mask.  That is so incredible straightforward and logical so complicating it further with floods and Link not returning (why does he NEED to return when he already defeated Ganon?) is just idiotic storytelling.  Wind Waker basically fucked everything up with it's stupid flood.  It was just a really dumb plot idea.  Why introduce any of this timeline stuff when it works perfectly fine without it?

[Ceric]

I agree the WW Flooding was the worst part of the game.  Never understood Fish to Bird when its mostly water...

[Stogi]

Am I the only one that would love to see another boat? Even if it's only like TP's?

[Ian Sane]

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.

[Traveller]

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.

I also thought that before Wind Waker came out. I was expecting some fairly large islands, was disappointed when the game didnt feature any really.

[Stogi]

A pirate themed IP would kickass. Especially if I was able to see underwater.

[4-D]

If it was all laid out for us where would the thrill of piecing it together on our own be? Theorizing and speculation? Another thing that has actually been hinted at is that Miyamoto doesn't want to limit himself by setting anything in concrete. He wants to leave options open for future titles to fit in a given place on the timeline

[TheBlackCat]

And now we're back to "make Zelda more like Metroid".


I should add that the Link's Awakening and the Oracle games did have some basic platforming elements to them, especially in the side-scrolling areas.

[Crimm]

Let me just say, the one that went live is going to be contentioooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooous

[KDR_11k]

The power of girl Link claims another victim!

[King Bowser Koopa]

Oh, absolutely. I almost titled it "Andrew plans mass controversy, incites flame war". Still, I think it's a valid point.

[Bman87301]

I think you should guys should consider renaming this feature from "If I Were in Charge of Zelda" to "How to completely destroy the series even more so".

[Ceric]

words....
So why do they all have to be male?
...More Words

Because Zelda would need to be a man?
 
Which might be interesting to see being saved.  I guess it could be a girl power thing and she could stille be a girl.
 
Ok now to actually read the latter parts of the article.
 
Latter part read.

 When you get to reading the part where you explain the more agile Miss Link, lets face it Mister Link has never been the hulking tank either, what popped in my head was this reminds me of a game.  Prince of Persia... No... Sonic and the Secret Rings (great game when you get used to it shame on the sequel.)  Which as I said was a fantastic game in its own right.   Though it was fast pace by the need of that type of game play.
 
This is going to sound weird but being more God of War like with the mini-game system and slight events where she perform the scripted move is what I'm sure you where probably going for.  Maybe you were going for wiggly like in PN03 but I figure not.  Which I think would be very cool to the mini-game thing like GoW. In moderation.
 
I disagree about the Boomerang I believe it is as core to the series as the Master Sword itself.  While we're talking item change I think going through the multiple sword upgrades from the original where you had to grow in power and find them should make a come back as well.  Also I did enjoy the Grapple line from WW.  Fact there is a lot from WW that should be brought back like taking downed creatures weapons.  Though not the water... lord no...
 
Link being a girl would fit well into the established mytho.  It is a different hero being called each time so why not?  For that matter Zelda taking place in a world much like are own wouldn't really mess with the mytho just the flavor.

[Stogi]

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.

[Ceric]

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.

Your right.  Its not extreme enough.  It shall be...

Blob Link the ooziest link.

[KDR_11k]

Link already got voted hottest video game character by gay magazines, why not give us straights something hot to adore too?

[ThePerm]

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)

[Ceric]

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)

Like using the Magic wand instead of the Candle in the original game?
 
Oh and yes its a very evil Country Club with no Horses.