Post by: LUEshi on September 02, 2004, 10:24:27 AM
Post by: Bill Aurion on September 02, 2004, 10:27:42 AM
But yes, I do think a Zelda RPG should be constructed sometime down the line, but only if it's built around the same plane as the adventure games...(meaning, a game just like the 3d Zeldas, but when you attack an enemy you go into battle mode)
Post by: LUEshi on September 02, 2004, 10:30:01 AM
Post by: Rancid Planet on September 02, 2004, 01:43:59 PM
Post by: Chongman on September 02, 2004, 02:24:51 PM
No, I have a feeling it would butcher the franchise. While mario is able to go on it's own variants, I don't think the zelda franchise should ever have to. While the gameplay may evolve, I don't think the entire genre should be revamped.
Post by: Bill Aurion on September 02, 2004, 02:34:12 PM
Post by: Chongman on September 02, 2004, 03:23:43 PM
*didn't particularly enjoy kingdom hearts*
hmm...
Post by: KDR_11k on September 02, 2004, 08:43:56 PM
Post by: couchmonkey on September 03, 2004, 08:05:39 AM
Post by: Ian Sane on September 03, 2004, 08:32:47 AM
The problem with "wouldn't it be cool if they did this" regarding Nintendo games is that Nintendo nevers does what's expected. They always do something different. Sometimes that's a good thing (Metroid Prime), sometimes it isn't (Pokemon Colloseum). No matter what though they'll never make what you want them to make so it's best to not think about "dream games" and just let Nintendo do whatever. Otherwise you'll be like me and get pissed off every time they announce a new Mario RPG that isn't made by Square and plays and feels nothing like the original game.
Post by: Bill Aurion on September 03, 2004, 12:19:19 PM
Post by: Ian Sane on September 03, 2004, 12:28:59 PM
Only to you... and several other people. But not to me and that's what really matters.
Post by: PaLaDiN on September 03, 2004, 01:13:21 PM
NO. Never again. Never mention "Square" and "good" when discussing recent RPG's from now on.
Square died after FFVII... their only strong point now is eye candy. I don't want them anywhere NEAR Nintendo franchises.
Post by: Darc Requiem on September 03, 2004, 01:26:48 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: PaLaDiN
"Maybe if they got Square to do it it would be good."
NO. Never again. Never mention "Square" and "good" when discussing recent RPG's from now on.
Square died after FFVII... their only strong point now is eye candy. I don't want them anywhere NEAR Nintendo franchises.
Well IMO Square died with FF7. I really hated that game. I mean they finally made another FF game I like in FFX and then turn around put FFX-2....blech. The sad thing about FFX-2 was that it actually had a good battle system.
As far as a Zelda RPG, I've been thinking about this forever. I would love to see it come to fruition. I think a Zelda RPG, done by the Tales of Symphonia team would be excellent. No random battles and an action based battle system. Enough action for the RPG hating Zelda fans and an excellent system for those who like traditional RPGs.
Darc Requiem
Post by: PaLaDiN on September 03, 2004, 02:47:58 PM
Strangely enough, I was thinking the same thing.
Post by: Mario on September 03, 2004, 03:29:38 PM
The last thing Zelda needs is to be more boring, I hate (most) RPGs.
Post by: PaLaDiN on September 03, 2004, 03:38:26 PM
You say that like it's already boring.
Die.
Post by: Termin8Anakin on September 03, 2004, 04:08:03 PM
I wanted it to be a bigger, more epic kinda game like Final Fantasy is.
I just don't like the way the huge worlds are only for RPGs.
IN fact, I just wish that FF ditched the turn-based battle system and left everything else.
FF needs a real revolutionary direction. *wink wink*
Post by: seen33 on September 03, 2004, 06:05:48 PM
Post by: Deguello on September 03, 2004, 06:09:48 PM
Post by: BlkPaladin on September 03, 2004, 06:20:19 PM
Post by: Deguello on September 03, 2004, 06:25:53 PM
Post by: KDR_11k on September 03, 2004, 09:28:59 PM
Post by: Bill Aurion on September 04, 2004, 05:10:54 AM
NO...NO NO NO...Random battles are OUT of the question...
Post by: CHEN on September 04, 2004, 05:31:11 AM
Post by: Bartman3010 on September 04, 2004, 06:08:51 AM
Just.....no.
Post by: Chongman on September 04, 2004, 07:35:56 AM
I think they just need to make the sword battle system more complex, where fighting can become art like for those who want it to be and still just a hack and slash for those that dont. And perhaps a way to level up (or temper...hint hint) your sword and shield. Thats all the improvement I need, and even without those I'm fine.
:I didn't like kingdom heart's battle system, it got mundane and winning a fight lost its satisfaction after awhile.
Post by: KDR_11k on September 04, 2004, 08:12:07 AM
That sounds bad on paper already. Random battles... BAH. Zelda is about exploration, not being afraid to take one step too much because you constantly run into enemies.
Post by: Perfect Cell on September 04, 2004, 11:41:09 AM
Post by: ib2kool4u912 on September 04, 2004, 04:08:38 PM
Post by: KDR_11k on September 04, 2004, 08:22:31 PM
Post by: Mario on September 04, 2004, 09:28:46 PM
And yes, while I love Zelda games, they always start to bore me after playing for a while. Especially Wind Waker.
Post by: notic on September 05, 2004, 09:43:31 AM
Post by: Bill Aurion on September 05, 2004, 09:55:59 AM
Post by: Infernal Monkey on September 06, 2004, 01:15:03 AM
*Faded screen*
Zelda Quest: The Eternal Balance of Angst Sword Magic End of World-1
Zelda: LINK I AM SO ANNOYING AND DEPRESSED BECAUSE GANON WANTS TO TAKE OVER HYRULE
Link: I am ALWAYS annoyed at everything for NO REASON
Zelda: You must stop Ganon!
*Link busts out a moterbike and tears up the joint for five minutes of pointless FMV*
Ganon: I AM THE GANON
Zelda: OH NO I AM BEING KIDNAPPED BY THE GANON
Link: I hate everything badly
*20 minutes FMV of the sky*
Tingle: Link you should go rescue everybody
Link: I HATE YOU SO MUCH, I THINK I AM GOING TO NOT CARE SOME MORE
*70 hours of random battles with the same three enemies later, Link smiles when he rescues Zelda*
Link: Zelda I am a homosexual
Zelda: WHAT YOU SAY
*End credits*
There's your Zelda RPG.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on September 06, 2004, 01:57:08 AM
Post by: Plugabugz on September 06, 2004, 02:32:32 AM
Post by: DrZoidberg on September 06, 2004, 04:30:44 AM
Post by: Nephilim on September 07, 2004, 04:21:53 AM
Case closed
Zelda wouldnt work in a stats baised driven game (nu-school rpg) or a text baised game (real rpg)
Post by: Bill Aurion on September 07, 2004, 07:05:18 AM
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on September 07, 2004, 02:13:06 PM
Post by: Pale on September 07, 2004, 04:17:00 PM
Note: This is not a serious post.
Post by: Bill Aurion on September 07, 2004, 04:20:39 PM
Post by: Deguello on September 07, 2004, 05:24:15 PM
Post by: Flames_of_chaos on September 07, 2004, 06:12:10 PM
Post by: Deguello on September 07, 2004, 06:43:52 PM
Post by: MaleficentOgre on September 09, 2004, 10:01:30 AM
Post by: theRPGFreak on September 09, 2004, 10:17:37 AM
Post by: Ian Sane on September 09, 2004, 11:10:50 AM
I'll argee that Link should never talk (though I do know what he sounds like from all the "yah" stuff Nintendo loves so much they almost ruined the GBA port of LttP with it) but there's no reason to associate talking with an RPG. Mario didn't talk in Super Mario RPG or Paper Mario and it worked fine.
For those of you against the idea I think most of you are making two rather silly assumptions:
1. That regular Zelda games won't be made anymore if a Zelda RPG is made.
2. That a Zelda RPG, if it was made by Square or not, would become a boring FMV fest.
Neither of those are guarenteed to occur. Newsflash! It's possible to make an RPG that doesn't suck. There are RPGs that don't have any FMV, don't have random battles, and have enough real time interaction and puzzles that it feels like you're playing not watching. They're made by Nintendo and star Mario as the main character. Those not only are quite awesome (I greatly prefer Super Mario RPG but I do think Paper Mario and Superstar Saga are still good) but they're reasonably loyal to the atmosphere and feel of the original franchise.
The Legend of Zelda RPG could be amazing. Don't be so close-minded and think beyond Final Fantasy. Think of Ocarina of Time but with a world big enough to require an overworld map, menu fighting, a party, stats and exp, and upgradable weapons and equipment. Imagine that the dungeons still have real time puzzles as well as battles with non-random always-visible enemies that you battle with. Imagine full 3D with battles that take place where they are encountered like in Chrono Trigger. Imagine real time elements to the battles like timed hits, timed blocks, and pre-emptive strikes (Paper Mario style). Imagine spells and items aquired having real time usage outside of battles (ie: hookshot). Imagine each character having specific abilites like in Final Fantasy VI (Link can attack with his sword, arrows, boomerang, bombs, etc; Zelda uses magic and can change between Zelda and Sheik thus having different abilities in each form; a Goron character can use a rolling attack). It's not hard to think of how to make a good Zelda RPG.
Post by: Deguello on September 09, 2004, 01:47:34 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
Think of Ocarina of Time but with a world big enough to require an overworld map, menu fighting, a party, stats and exp, and upgradable weapons and equipment.
AAAHHH! Quit threatening me!
One advantage the Mario RPG games have over other RPGs is that their overworlds are something you actually PLAY. I mean you don't just move around in them and push blocks. you actually jump and hit things and some of them are downright difficult to do so in, especially in Superstar Saga. They aren't challenging because they are long and full of random/non-random monsters. They are challenging because the levels are made with a quasi-platform game frameset and mindset, with some rather fun (in Mario RPG's case) menu fights thrown in.
And forgive me Ian, but I don't see the difference between what Zelda already IS and what you propose for the RPG Zelda, except for "menu fighting, a party, stats and exp." Zelda already has an overworld. Hell i daresay it was the first game WITH an overworld. Does menu fighting make it an RPG? Stats? EXP? What makes an RPG?
And I will say this, every RPG I've had fun playing ever broke as many known rules about RPGS as they possibly could, whereby being irreverent (Earthbound, bit boring, but hilarious), action-y (Tales of Symphonia AKA Fighter in RPG clothes) or both (Mario RPGs). So please understand some of my apprehension toward a potential Zelda RPG that would follow those rules.
Post by: Ian Sane on September 09, 2004, 01:57:48 PM
Well realistically there isn't much a difference since Zelda traditionally has a lot of RPG elements to begin with. I just like the idea because it changes up the formula a little bit. It's like Tactics Ogre compared to Ogre Battle in that it's a different approach but ultimately plays very similarly. If you completely hate RPGs well then obviously you're not going to like a Zelda RPG.
"One advantage the Mario RPG games have over other RPGs is that their overworlds are something you actually PLAY."
Well I didn't say you couldn't play in this one. By overworld map I mean that instead of one huge world it would be like Skies of Arcadia in that it had large full 3D areas seperated by a map. That way you can create a much larger world and travel beyond Hyrule (compare the size of Zelda II's world to the original's).
I find it very odd that no one has a problem with Mario RPGs when the Mario series has less in common with RPGs than Zelda does. Zelda has tons in common with RPGs so it seems like an even better fit.
Post by: Deguello on September 09, 2004, 02:07:42 PM
nothing to do with RPGs. Zelda is about as close as you can get without making it turn-based. So the draw and the kicker and the coolness of the Mario RPG set is "Wow let's see how Mario tries on an RPG world" and you have genres to clash and gameplay designs to meld. Whereas a Zelda RPG would possibly just entail exactly what Link does all the time, but in a menu. Which, at least to me, seems pretty ho-hum.
Post by: Ian Sane on September 09, 2004, 02:43:20 PM
nothing to do with RPGs."
Fair enough. Doesn't bother me personally but I can see your point.
Now let's get to work on a Wave Race RPG.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on September 09, 2004, 03:09:01 PM
Post by: Guitar Smasher on September 09, 2004, 05:17:25 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: MaleficentOgre
Link doesn't need to talk. If Link talked he'd lose a lot of his charm, people have in their mind what link sounds like. We don't want to ruin that.
I figured I'd point out that Link has never in his entire history had dialogue. So forget Link talking, imagine how absurd Link saying something (through text) would be! That's what eerks me when people complain that Link doesn't have voicing. What's wrong with that? It's not like you have to resort to reading, even though it'd do some of you good.
And can you even imagine an FMV of Link? That just sounds wrong to me. Although I suppose it could be done correctly, I'm still a little worried. But forget this stuff, I think Ian's got a winning idea. It sounds actually fun, and really joins the Zelda theme and the RPG genre together.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on September 09, 2004, 05:49:25 PM
Post by: Ian Sane on September 09, 2004, 06:04:32 PM
Yes. There was one in Super Smash Bros Melee and another in Soul Calibur II. Both of them rocked.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on September 09, 2004, 06:46:31 PM
Post by: MaleficentOgre on September 09, 2004, 08:03:21 PM
Post by: KDR_11k on September 10, 2004, 08:59:04 AM
Ogre: As evidenced in Al Qadim, an RPG doesn't need a party. It could be just Link alone. Since Link is pretty much a blank canvas character, adding a character creation system would be possible (i.e. you don't start out with "Link the swordsman", but can choose your skills yourself and choose the pathz you're going to take)
Post by: Draygaia on September 10, 2004, 02:19:00 PM
Link fits pretty well in that kind of RPG. Its like direct/indirect control. You're not so much going to worry about getting your finger movements right to get something accomplished but then you won't just think the whole thing and then watch what happens after.
Post by: nemo_83 on September 12, 2004, 04:41:13 PM
But as for a Zelda RPG; it could become one of the best selling Zeldas ever. Actually its not a matter of making an RPG Zelda as much as it is finding that balance between Zelda and RPGs that feels like a comfortable evolution in the series. I mean the last time we got any real advancement in Zelda was Oot and MM time systems. I see Zeldas in the future having seasons as a standard. This is something that does not occur yet in our 3d Zeldas.
The purpose of the 3d graphics in the console games is to present with polygons the level and world layout in 3d without interfering in the oldschool game mechanics of being able to see in every direction of the character with a 3/4 view. The reason for using 3d instead of just keeping them 2d is because of how flexible 3d is in comparison. With 2d you are not going to be able to present a world where you can change the camera for example or have snow come to rest and collect on a house top. The purpose of 3d is not to simulate reality to its finest detail. I like how they are exentuating the new Zelda's skies so much for example. The toon shading engine in the new realistic Zelda allows for some spectacular color and atmospheric effects. I hope that in future Zeldas despite whether they decide to use realistic style or not that they will persue lighting more. Fable on the other hand looks rather bland despite its beautiful graphics. It looks like a pretty videogame while Zelda just looks pretty period. I guess I'm trying to say that despite all of the little details in Fable it looks and moves like a video game. Zelda just seems more real even though it is still using more supper deformed characters.
Despite whether the next next Zelda has supper deformed characters or not, or if it is realistic or cartoon; the next next Zelda has to make killing things more realistic. Ever since we got to 3d games like Soul Calibur and Zelda have stayed away from bring the character damage into reality. Instead we get sparks and flashes. I know that is not what happens when you swing to chop something's head off. I think that Zelda needs blood. The blood and realistic character models would contrast really well with the whole cartoon theme. Japanimation proved a long time ago that mature content can sell just as well if not better in cartoon presentation.
As for the play mechanics of the next next Zelda and how to make it more of a RPG I would start by having the game automaticly record and develop the actions that you repeat over and over again. You will get better at running if you run a lot. If you swing your sword a lot, you will get stronger and faster. This doesn't affect how well you control things, that is still left up to the player as always in Zelda. For example you may be able to become a faster bowman if you use the bow a lot, but developing that speed won't help you aim any better. These are the kinds of the things that the game needs to develop automaticly so that the soft core gamers can easilly play without worrying about whether their horse is getting faster because they ride it a lot. Nintendo would never go so far as to put in random battles or battles using spells or menus. They like to make a game that is played straight through your hands. I wouldn't want the focus of the game to become leveling up. Recent Zeldas have focused on the same old items too much. I want new items that make the quest new and exciting. I don't want anymore spells or music playing, it slows down the autonamy of the game. Some say I want a RPG Zelda because I want spells. No I want fewer spells and more adventuring, character building, sword fighting, exploring, and puzzle solving.
Post by: KDR_11k on September 12, 2004, 10:59:00 PM
Why do we need increasing abilities to make Zelda more Zelda like? Without the stats you know what abilities the player has and how you can test him, with stats you have to guess and make sure you're not going too far for the people who didn't spend time slaughtering random stuff or riding in circles. The RPG you're proposing adds nothing to the elements you want it for.
Post by: MaleficentOgre on September 13, 2004, 06:01:11 AM
Post by: nemo_83 on September 13, 2004, 10:41:43 AM
I fear that they will go in the direction of custom towns, houses, and other stuff that needs to stay in games like Animal Crossing for now.
Post by: Ian Sane on September 13, 2004, 10:56:39 AM
That is absolutely ridiculous. You are complaining about a lack of realism in a Zelda game. In Zelda bombs are big black balls with wicks on the end like some prop in a Road Runner short. Realism isn't a concern. In fact I would consider the absense of realism (within limits of course) as part of the Zelda charm. It adds to the fantasy. Adding blood, particularly in the gruesome "spray on tunic" manner you have suggested, would ruin the game.
Post by: Bill Aurion on September 13, 2004, 11:48:28 AM
Ahahahaha!
Post by: MaleficentOgre on September 13, 2004, 12:43:23 PM
Post by: couchmonkey on September 13, 2004, 01:18:45 PM
It's like the old story about the monkeys who knocked over a banana tree. The greedy monkey took the top half with the bananas, and the other one planted the bottom in the ground and had bananas for the rest of her life.
I stand by my argument that a Zelda RPG isn't a great idea, but how about a Nintendo RPG along the lines of Kingdom Hearts? I'm not saying it would look, play, or be anything like Kingdom Hearts, I'm just talking about stealing the basic concept of a game that takes place in a Disney (or in this case Nintendo) universe.
Post by: Ocarina_Jedi on September 13, 2004, 02:21:38 PM
As for the RPG thought, it's just wishful thinking, for those of you who actually think that that would be a good idea. But Myamoto wants to keep Zelda fresh, not give it an extreme makeover. Turning one of the most successful action-adventure games into an RPG would alienate even more fans than adding blood I would think. I say that because most of the hardcore gamers that grew up with Zelda are just that now, grown up. If a little gore bugs you, come on guys. You like it in GTA and Manhunt. I don't want the blood and guts either, but I think I could live with it, just as I came to like cel-shading. The graphical presentation isn't what makes the game, its just a new medium.
Post by: MaleficentOgre on September 13, 2004, 06:34:49 PM
Post by: KDR_11k on September 13, 2004, 08:51:24 PM
Post by: Pikkcuber on September 14, 2004, 03:12:30 PM
Post by: KDR_11k on September 15, 2004, 12:05:46 AM
Post by: Tael on September 15, 2004, 03:34:16 AM
Post by: KDR_11k on September 15, 2004, 07:17:20 AM
Post by: Draygaia on September 15, 2004, 07:24:46 AM
Post by: KDR_11k on September 15, 2004, 08:35:38 PM
Post by: nemo_83 on September 15, 2004, 09:32:30 PM
I was surprised by the way Gannon died at the end of WW. It was nice, but for them to have put blood in that scene after defering from it the whole game would have been distracting. I cant wait to see the sword get pulled out.
Another thing brought up is the issue of bombs, which I think should play a greater role in future Zelda games. The original was based so heavily on searching for bushes to burn and passages to blow open. Zelda's today seem to have lost that difficulty. But the bombs definetly dont fit into any kind of reality scenerio the way they are. They have to be redesigned at least. This little kid in a skirt is carrying around a hundred bombs the size of his head. Where? Up his rear? It is obvious to me that if they dont address these little issues then the whole realism thing will have been pointless. I liked how in WW they were able to bring back enemies the way they once looked. Like the jellies and the moblins. I liked how they stuck to the whole cloud of smoke and really developed it as a special effect. In a WW type game the boomerang and bombs are possible. This is odd that we are discussing the abscence of realism in WW as a plus, while Myamato says he was concerned with portraying realism in the game so much that the characters actually act like concerned citizens in the game when they see this little kid at night.
I think that if they are going to go with the whole cel shading/child Link scenerio again then they need to take advantage of Link being a child and make the game a much scarier world. A child should be fearful when he makes his first kill. A child should be cautious when sneaking around monsters in dark halls. Imagine cel shading with doom3 level lighting effects. You wont be able to see the beast making the noise ahead in the dark dungeon.
The way WW sold reflects the duality of gamers. They are too insecure to enjoy a game that plays on the fact that it is fantacy and is a game. But they are afraid of games functioning like reality. So really gamers like to pretend the game is real even though it obviously still functions as a game.
Its like how everytime they try to translate Castlevania to 3d they f' it up. From the beginning they are messing up thinking that they can put the perspective behind the character in a game whose primary gameplay focus is jumping. Then they design all of the levels in the Castle flat. We all remember that the Castlevanias in 2d had a lot of vertical rooms. Also a lot of rooms that were open or long in the 2d games. While the 3d one is just a bunch of square boring rooms focused on combat. Then on top of that they cant make up their minds in either 2d or 3d whether they want all of their enemies to burst into flames or fall apart bleeding. Castlevania is about monsters and vampires, and vampires drink blood. My point is that they should either focus making the 3d games more like the art or make it more like reality. Either way they will have taken a stance on the look of the game and thus the rules of the world it takes place in. I dont want a realistic game in which the enemy bursts into flames when I hit him with an axe. Think of it like this, if they were making a 2d Castlevania on GameCube, would you want it to look like a) Zelda Four Swords or b) Diablo 2. In an age when we can have 2d graphics that look better than most 3d graphics do you prefer those that focus on the original watercolor 2d character designs or would you want photo realism. There is no wrong answer, but my point is I dont want a game that rides the fence like a spineless democrat. I want a liberal or a conservative, in the middle doesnt exist.
Post by: Link_Up on September 16, 2004, 11:06:49 PM
Post by: MaleficentOgre on September 16, 2004, 11:08:50 PM
Post by: KDR_11k on September 17, 2004, 02:19:45 AM
Post by: MaleficentOgre on September 17, 2004, 06:24:27 AM
Post by: Ian Sane on September 17, 2004, 07:33:55 AM
NOTHING from the cartoon series should be referenced in a Zelda game EVER. The cartoon and Nintendo Power comics aren't canon and they suck. If Link gets a magic purse I won't be giving Nintendo money from my magic wallet.
Who cares if it's unrealistic for Link to pull items out of thin air? That's such a stupid thing to dwell on. There are RPGs with serious moods and plotlines that allow you to carry all sorts of heavy armour and weapons in some indefined inventory. It's convenient for the game design so let it be.
Post by: nemo_83 on September 17, 2004, 11:40:40 AM
I heard of Tim Burton talking about people that complained about the technicalities of, where did Edward get the ice at the end of Edward Scissor Hands. The movie takes place in its own world. What mattered was the story, the acting, the presentation, the music, the lighting, the camera work, the editing, and the plot. It is sort of like one of the themes in Tim Burton's other movie Big Fish. What mattered wasnt what happened. What mattered was the way he told him that it happened and how he chose to remember it. You can begin a story with the ending revealed for example because what matters isnt how complexly twisted your ending is, what matters is how it happens. The story itself, the adventure, is much more valuable than the final destination.
I just think that if a game is going into a realism scenerio that it should opperate with some kind of real life consequences to actions. Im not complaining about the ice at the end of Tim Burton's movie. But imagine if at the end Edward had stabed the jock and the jock fell over and faded away and they all just lived happily ever after. Johny Depp saves the day, kills the baddy, no consequences, and gets the girl. But that would ruin a great movie.
In Resident Evil noone complains because the whole virus zombie stuff is impossible. They get caught up in the experience. Resident Evil is like playing in one big Zelda dungeon. RE differs from Zelda though in the fact that there is blood and there is also a limit on how much junk you can carry. Why do they do this in RE? Both games have brutal weapons, unbelievable monsters, and great production value. RE is always trying to present itself as a realistic game. It strives like no other series for realism and movie like qualities in the face of often the most commical of enemies (giant frogs and scorpions?). Zelda has always gone in a different direction. But now we see Zelda becoming a more realistic series. I would like to see Zelda opperate realisticly if they are going to say blades will bleed. This would mean that the health system could stay heart based but it would mean that damage taken will be damage shown. It would mean that when you are outside you hear the wind and birds. It would mean that you would be able to sneak not just based on programs operating on whether the enemies see you, but also whether they hear you crunching leaves as you sneak up behind them.
This is a bit unrelated, but I was just thinking how my cousin always brings up how he wants to be able to change what Link is wearing like in other RPGs and I always tell him that it will take away from the charm of the character. Sure Mickey Mouse for example can change cloths, but Mickey Mouse doesnt have his anatomy redone every time there is a new cartoon. We must have something about Link that says Link.
Post by: MaleficentOgre on September 17, 2004, 02:12:18 PM
Post by: nemo_83 on September 17, 2004, 07:37:17 PM
Seriously though, Link has always had a green tunic in every game. I didnt like the multiple tunics in OoT.
Plus the green will always make blood stains show up really well.
I want to add to my idea for a new child Link Legend of Zelda. When he is sneaking past enemies he should not only automaticly look at them in fear, but he should also tremble. His knees should get weak and shake as he clumsily sneaks by.
Post by: KDR_11k on September 17, 2004, 09:30:14 PM
Post by: nemo_83 on September 18, 2004, 09:27:04 AM
Legend of Zelda is based on Arthurian lore. Farm boy finds a magic sword and becomes a hero.
You're exactly right KDR_11k the game does take place in its own world and it needs to follow that world's set of rules. I like how the enemies turned into exstravagent clouds of swirling smoke in WW. It took me back to the old days of 2d gaming in which there wasnt a splatter of blood but instead a puff of smoke with a treasure left behind. Now days developers throw in all the buckets of blood and then still have the character's fade away when you turn your back on their bodies. That's not realistic. WW took advantage of its nostalgic look. Now that the look is changing I want Nintendo to put the same effort into making the game seem real as they did into making WW seem like an old school game brought to life. The games may never look photo realistic but it cannot be denied what they are trying to imply with the look of the game. I'll tell you another thing that distracted me from playing WW was how the Zora's turned into bird people in the face of a world covered in water, and in only a couple of hundred years. I was never into the whole races thing to begin with but I recall in LttP there were still some Zoras left. What the hell?
Most of the characters in the game bugged the crap out of me. I think in reality they wouldn't have been worried about the little kid running around at night, they should have been trying to take advantage of him(not sexually). I liked how Gannon wasnt as flattly drawn as in the past. He almost seemed right as any good vilain should, because who wants a vilain who doesnt have an interesting motivation that though evil seems just. You finally get to sympathize with him which makes him so much more threatening. But Link was so flat it was bad. I appreciate that they allow you to take control of Link as always and do what you want with him but there is nothing 'bad' that you can do. You aren't really given any options like in KOTOR or GTA to terrorize the in game characters. But what really bothered me about the portrayl of Link was that in the story your actions whether, lazy, mediocre, triumphant, or evil did not change the way he was percieved as a flat perfect hero to the other characters. I believe that Link should develop a reputation so that the depth of the character you portray in your playing comes across in the story. This way the developer doesnt have to worry about writting a character that is complex because you will do it for them. In case you're still wondering why I don't want nonwavering heros in games then continue reading this paragraph. When writing fiction one should never write a flat character. If the character never makes mistakes then the character's life is going to be pretty boring. Perfect characters just are not any fun. Link is already, not perfect. He is a weak hopeless child. What is great about the story isnt how great Link is, it is how far he comes from what he was. It is the character development that charms people when they play Zelda. This is why I want the game to start off with a weak cowarding Link. These complaints are not things that ruined WW, they are just things that I either expected from a Zelda game this generation or were made obvious to me by WW that they needed to be in any new Zelda games. Zelda has always been at the forfront of character development in videogames until this generation. OoT and LttP where standard setting games in which the character is supposed to grow up and become the hero before our eyes. Where did the ambition go? Did it sneak away from Nintendo and find its way into Microsoft's Fable? Well Fable is not at the same level of refined quality as WW, but I respect its ambitious nature.
Post by: KDR_11k on September 18, 2004, 10:26:36 AM
Link is a non-character, merely a vessel for the player to interact with the world (which is why his name is never enforced in any game). Same goes for Gordon Freeman. Link isn't supposed to develop any real character, he's supposed to be the avatar of the player. The less defined his role is, the more you can project into him. It is said that any form of art a human creates is indirectly a self-portrait (I REALLY hope this isn't true), with Link you're given the opportunity to make him your self portrait. I remember how angry I got when in an RPG the character I was supposed to identify with made a decision I fundamentally disagreed with. Link never does this, he never decides on his own.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on September 18, 2004, 11:05:52 AM
I DON'T KNOW
EDIT: Whoa, kdr sorta beat me to it.
Post by: nemo_83 on September 21, 2004, 01:07:20 PM
I liked how in LttP you were deamed a criminal.
Post by: Nephilim on September 21, 2004, 06:06:19 PM
Link is a @sshole, zelda is a Innocent girl. Link kills ppl from some village, Zelda is turned on by his bad image
Zelda's dad is against them, but then Zelda is kidnapped by Ganon
Link normally wouldnt care but he has a "soft" spot for zelda
he beats ganon, Zelda kisses him. Zelda's dad says he will always be against them but accepts it
Link becomes a good guy, 3 weeks later cheats with some other chick
they make movies every year with that story line
Post by: Deguello on September 21, 2004, 06:38:14 PM
Even worse with the mention of KOTOR. THAT'S what you want? Why don't they go ahead and just make a movie that you prompt with the A Button?
And obviously Link must be a shallow character since text-choice trees never pop up.
You know like
Will you save Zelda from THE GANNON?
[]Yes
[]Option that produces the same results as yes, just with different wording.
[]No.
[]Maybe, but I need monies.
[]Stupid ass pop culture reference that feels out of place.
I heard that Link is left handed because he is supposed to be the mirror image of the player, who is generally right-handed. And Since Link is the avater of the player... well, I think he's a deep character whose actions and atmoshere define him more than words and multiple choices ever can. And if you think Link is shallow, I think that says more about you than it does Link.
And also against Zelda RPGs. It takes Zelda long enough to come out over here without a plethora of text to translate.
Post by: nemo_83 on September 21, 2004, 06:57:55 PM
I think it would be cool in Zelda if there were more battles involving greater numbers. Sort of like Dynasty Warriors or Warcraft but involving armies of characters from the Legend of Zelda operating on the Zelda engine. I like the new abilities in the new Zelda to fight on horseback.
I would like to see the four sword in a console Zelda.
Post by: Deguello on September 22, 2004, 12:22:25 AM
And then they fight each other with lazers. And Then Goku shows up and goes "GRRAAAH KamehameCHEESE." He doesn't actually use the kamehameha because he is actually Cyborg Goku in disguise.
"I think it would be cool in Zelda if there were more battles involving greater numbers. Sort of like Dynasty Warriors or Warcraft but involving armies of characters from the Legend of Zelda operating on the Zelda engine."
You mean like in Four Swords Adventures?
"I would like to see the four sword in a console Zelda."
You mean like in...
Post by: Wesisapie on September 22, 2004, 05:22:07 AM
WW just felt 100% better to me. One day i will finish OoT though... one day.
blood in zelda - no thanks. i've been soaked in blood from 1000 different other games ive played, it really doesnt do anything special for me.
stats and turne based battles wouldnt be zelda either. zelda, to me, was always about simplicity and grace.
one thing i cant help thinking though is that zelda rpg would turn into a golden sun clone.
Post by: Bill Aurion on September 22, 2004, 06:20:39 AM
If you are dissing Golden Sun I will have to hurt you... -_-
(And if there was a Zelda RPG, I'd definitely want it in WW-style to separate it from other RPGs)
Post by: nemo_83 on September 26, 2004, 10:55:28 AM
I've been reading about Fable and it seems like it is lacking the things I love most about Zelda. Combat, camera, puzzles, bosses, and Link.
Post by: RABicle on September 29, 2004, 10:12:59 PM
First of all, no Link. I mean the series is called the Legend of Zelda, why should Link be involved everytime?
Secondly, game is not called Legend of Zelda. To make it comepletely clear that this game is not part of the regular Zelda games we won't give it the same title as the rest of the games. This game can be called Hyrule Story or something.
So here's how we make my Zelda RPG, we just make a regular RPG and set the whole thing in Hyrule. Your party will consist of Zoras, Gorons, Hylians and the like. No one will be related to any heros of time, or royal families. The whole game could exist simply as a device for Nintendo to expand the world of Zelda and provide some backstory. Flesh out their universe. The game could tell the story of the great war referred to in OOT/LttP. Or the flooding of Hyrule and your party are a just bunch of characters that are involved and go about kicking some arse and maybe accomplish something in the process.
You see this way, Nintendo create their own mainstream RPG franchise to compete with the Final Fantasys or whatever, create a deeper Zelda universe that might make the timeline conprehesible to stop people making fools of themselves theorising about it and it wont pissoff fanboys who argue over wethor or not NPCs should bleed when Link attacks them. Everyone happy?
Post by: KDR_11k on September 30, 2004, 06:26:00 AM
Seriously, if Ninty needed a deep RPG franchise they should make one, not adapt an old one that doesn't really fit the bill to it.
Post by: Ocarina_Jedi on September 30, 2004, 01:51:45 PM
Post by: startswithx on September 30, 2004, 05:10:10 PM
Post by: RABicle on October 01, 2004, 04:39:32 AM
Startswithx: I suggest you read what everyone has had to say in this thread.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on October 01, 2004, 01:27:42 PM
People can soooo take that root word the wrong way *_*
Post by: nemo_83 on October 01, 2004, 03:10:18 PM
I know what you're thinking, Nintendo was feeding the media BS with the whole interlinking storyline. That is what I have been thinking too.
By the way, what the hell is the point of making fiction if there is nothing but plot and no story. By brushing off criticism's of Nintendo not being good at story by saying that Nintendo doesn't care about story, Nintendo is only making themselves look horrible. The F'N game is called The LEGEND of Zelda. The game isnt called The Link Simulator. The games cannot stand on gameplay alone. Each game must progressively have more story, better written story, and better woven story with the gameplay.
Example: The plot is farm boy finds sword and saves the princess.
The story is...???
Let me put it another way. The plot consists of events and actions you take in the game. In other words every swing you make and stone you throw is a part of a series of events that take place in the plot. The story would be what seperates each game keeping them from being the same game over and over just remade with prettier graphics or a gimmick. Eventually in gaming graphics will get to where they can go no farther. Example: LttP. It didnt take long for 2d to reach its pinacle. So when faced with the situation of no new graphical advances then one must actually sit down and come up with something that differentiates the new from the old besides the look and sound. You cant just come up with a new plot line. You cant change what characters are in the plot. You cant switch the gameplay from one weapon to another(gimmicky masks or time consuming musical instruments anyone?). You cant just add multiplayer (didnt Super Mario Bros make it a standard?). You also cant just flood the world and redo the same plot line with the new set. If they just intend on giving us the same game with more dungeons and weapons then why dont they just do an expansion?
The question of should Nintendo worry about story is like asking should Nintendo worry about doing another Zelda?
Post by: Deguello on October 01, 2004, 04:20:40 PM
Post by: KDR_11k on October 01, 2004, 09:43:33 PM
The way Nintendo makes a Zelda game is to make the game first. After the game is good they start thinking about a storyline. The games can stand by themselves, they don't need a story to be fun. They're not Final Fantasy. I'd rate the story of Wind Waker about on par with Doom or Quake, a bit of explaination between levels what you're doing that stuff for but nothing really important. Did you ever wonder what was going to happen next when playing Wind Waker? Were there any plot turns that really surprised you?
Yes, seen by themselves the changes between games aren't major, but the games are good enough that there's no reason to complain, right?
Post by: nemo_83 on October 01, 2004, 10:43:34 PM
A similar example would be like trying to put story into Gran Turismo or Mario Kart.
You also do not want a game like RS2. In the situation of most Star Wars games like RS2 everything is broken up into stages. The game comes off as a Star Wars simulator with accessable controls and gameplay. I loved the game though. It was the reason I got a Cube when the system came out. But I want an adventure game. I want the story to flow through the gameplay.
A parasite has attached itself to many games in the past two generations. That parasite is the cinema. I am tired of games taking hours to really get started in the game. I want the story to be minimal at the beginning. An obvious example of a long beginning would be FF11. The character is reasonably easy to control in FF11. But then there is a keyboard of comands to go with that. The glory of Zelda is that it has in depth real time character control. Though in the state it is in now using analog sticks it is half way between accessable and true. It is merely developed. The game control is stuck in pergatory. The game controls are based on the gameplay which is run, hit, pick up, and throw. With the advent of 3d we get jumping and camera. What Zelda needs to make its controls more accessable and do away with the tutorials it has developed (aside from voluntary ones like advanced sword play) is a revolution in game control. Zelda needs its action (sword fighting) to be simulative in scheme. Rather than pushing buttons and doing combinations you have to learn, your sword control should be just as your character and camera control are; literal. So you would be like a child swinging a sword for the first time and you would learn by doing it more rather than having to sit through instructions that should be read in the booklet.
WW is very easy to get into compared to FF11. FF11 takes things to an extreme compared to WW. But WW has far too many story pieces at the begining of the game for a Zelda game. I like the story pieces in WW but I don't want so many at the beginning. The thing you find whe you are learning to write fiction is that you usually need to throw out the first couple of pages because all of that getting started and narrative on the character is boring. The character is expressed through actions and images. You show, you don't tell.
All of the tutorial stuff got in the way. If you find yourself as I did trying to get into new games on WW and finding it difficult to sit through all the boring Pirate Ship *insert word containing alliteration and rhyme whith ship here* then you know now what I mean by a slow beginning. One can jump straight into the old 2d ones (particulary the original). There is very little story in the original game. But far more than any previous game. LttP incorporated the characters' stories into the gameplay (mostly through the characters speaking rather than narrative animations).
When we got to OoT suddenly we had to watch Link watch Gannondorf and Zelda ride out of the castle. In LttP I believe they would have ridden out while you walked up to the castle in real time. This is definatly something they tackled with MM.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on October 01, 2004, 11:53:59 PM
Easy! It's how the Legend of Zelda series has always been. The development process has always started with the development of core gameplay mechanics and concepts -- the interactive element(s). Story/cinema/non-interactive stuff can be trashed and re-written during development much more easily than gameplay mechanics. The story element in Nintendo games, I've perceived, is generally used to present the different gameplay elements with some coherency or sense of progression.
Mario64 is another example. It's experience is defined by its gameplay, since there was very little story to take in. A fungus telling you "good job you got blah blah stars!" every once in a while doesn't tell you a whole lot. In any case, fun game. You can easily lose sight of whatever story there was and still enjoy it. Rather than "what will happen next" I become eager to find out "what can I do next". This is similar to the original Legend of Zelda. And let us not forget Miyamoto's explanation of the conceptualization of Pikmin.
On the flip side, Eternal Darkness did a remarkable job of tying the story into the gameplay (or miami vice versa). The gameplay WAS the story, or the other way around. Who cares. Well done. But it had a rediculously long development time. 'Dog' knows how long the story was re-written, how many characters and scenarios were thrown out or transformed, in addition to the task of moving the project from N64 to GCN. But I don't believe the game mechanics changed a whole lot throughout its development from what I remember. Mainly the story went thru near-drastic changes (which would somewhat dictate the level design). A ha. Game first, story second.
WHAT THE HECK AM I TALKING ABOUT
HELP ME SOMEONE
EDIT: oh, and Majora's Mask is another Zelda example of developing gameplay before applying story. It's not an explicity black & white case like F-Zero GX where the game is still intact after removing any story it has, but you see what we're trying to say. Nintendo games don't begin with a story idea, they begin with a gameplay idea. MM was born out of the masks and time-cycling/chronology ideas that were originally intended for Ocarina of Time. Wind Waker is in a similar boat (hah) since its concept of utilizing wind physics was also originally planned for Ocarina. We can see that Ocarina has a couple children, regardless of their stories. AM I ON A TANGENT AGAIN. DAMN YOU SINE AND COSINE.
Post by: Deguello on October 02, 2004, 12:58:59 PM
F-Zero GX is a better GAME than every RPG I've ever played and that includes some fan favorites. Can I have more games like those, please?
Does F-Zero GX have a better story than, say, Vagrant Story? Probably not. But I think Les Miserables has a better story than both of them. I'll paraphrase somebody's post I read on this here internet: Stories in games are like stories in pornos. They're there, but that's not the point.
Post by: nemo_83 on October 02, 2004, 03:33:04 PM
I like for a Mario game to have some story, but as of yet they haven't tackled any stories outside the RPG series. I always wanted a Mario game story that revolved around explaining the pipes and the dinosaurs in the game. Im not talking about that bad movie that came out in 93. I want a story that propels the gameplay. The pipes go everywhere in the Mushroom Kingdom and have to connect together. They act as worm holes. Someone built them and someone can control them. What if Mario and the looney cast of characters from the games crossed over and came Earth for the last world of the game? Most Mario games have been about plot. Save the princess. The story is just like that of Mario Kart; the story is the story of you playing the game. At the end of Mario 64 you got to watch these awesome credits that showed all of the places you had played with cinematic camera work.
So Deguello you only play games for the thrill of gaming? Or do you play games for unique imaginative experiences?
Post by: Deguello on October 02, 2004, 04:01:16 PM
Like what? Hovering inches over a magnetic track at ludicrous speeds on a planet that is 99% water?
Post by: Koopa Troopa on October 02, 2004, 05:12:29 PM
Quote
So Deguello you only play games for the thrill of gaming? Or do you play games for unique imaginative experiences?
Save the world. Get the girl. Maybe die just to switch things up. Boom, every RPG ever created. I like a nifty story, but there are so few unique stories you may as well not game at all.
Great gameplay IS my unique and/or imaginitive experience.
Post by: Switchblade Cross on October 02, 2004, 09:23:53 PM
Story is simply a means to progress the game play, and not vica versa, where the gameplay is simply a means to progress a story.
Also...
We typically create games by taking a basic object, like a cube and get it to do something, just has jumping on other blocks. We build and expand on this untill a game is created. The story is an afterthough and simply sprinkled over top to give you a reason why you are doing these things.
I must say though, that the newer a Zelda games are getting progressivly better and better in story. And I was particularly taken by ther reffrence to OoT in Wind Waker. I think this shows a possible start of an actual continuium and linking of storys. We'll see with Zelda in '05...
Post by: KDR_11k on October 02, 2004, 09:55:25 PM
What I'd like to see would be game development, Miyamoto versus Sakaguchi on one game. Those two wouldn't get along. Miyamoto wants a game to be about gameplay and doesn't care how ridiculous the story ends up (a carpenter that attempts to rescue his girl from the clutches of a large gorilla throwing barrels at him?!?), whereas Sakaguchi went on the record saying that story is the most important part of a game...
Post by: Nephilim on October 04, 2004, 03:32:09 AM
Games like Lufia 1 and 2:
Simple story line, 10hours + of play the first time and really enjoyable
Post by: PaLaDiN on October 04, 2004, 08:12:30 AM
a) Entertainment
b) Food for thought
Gameplay satisfies the first one. Story provides for the second one, same as in movies and books.
Neither is better than the other. It depends on the people playing the games. Personally, either one is fine by me, but I generally play games to have fun... leave the food for thought for my slavemasters/college teachers to provide.
Post by: MaleficentOgre on October 04, 2004, 08:31:31 AM
Post by: Truthliesn1seyes on October 04, 2004, 10:28:40 AM
EDIT: on a side note, you dont play the zelda games for a good story, people play the zelda games for the sence of exploration, the freedom you have to travel across the land. You dont look back at A Link to the Past and say, wow that was a great story, you replay the game cuase its an overal fun game of exploration and discovery.
Post by: nemo_83 on October 04, 2004, 09:38:02 PM
If you take out the characters of Link, Zelda, and Gannon then it is nolonger The Legend of Zelda so what is the point of making it a Zelda game. Just throw everything out the window and create something fresh preserving the gameplay philosophies.
I think we need to ask ourselves what percent is Zelda a world driven game? To what extent is Zelda a character driven game? How much is story driven? How much is action driven?
Post by: Truthliesn1seyes on October 05, 2004, 12:00:04 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: nemo_83
If you take out the characters of Link, Zelda, and Gannon then it is nolonger The Legend of Zelda so what is the point of making it a Zelda game. Just throw everything out the window and create something fresh preserving the gameplay philosophies.
If they were to make a zelda game with a totally different style of gameplay, they'd have to take out all the main characters and not have it associated directly with zelda as to not get the purists and hard core fans mad. In my post I said if they were to go with a totally different direction. Use Hyrule as the setting and the legend of link and his adventures as a part of that world's history. As for the title, they cant use the standard "legend of zelda" or anything of the sort, again, just to keep the purists and hardcore fans happy. The only thing I can compare to this idea is Final Fantasy 11 in the sence that it uses the history and typical setting of the majority of FF games but doesnt include any major characters in it. Its a loose comparison, but thats as close I can can think of to my idea.
Post by: Deguello on October 05, 2004, 02:17:03 PM
I honestly don't hope that is what you had in mind for Zelda.
Post by: nemo_83 on October 05, 2004, 02:57:38 PM
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on October 05, 2004, 03:09:35 PM
Kokiri Vs. Goron.
Zora Vs. Rito.
Man Vs. Wife.
"Aid the Hylians as they fight THE GANNON and help restore teh Reggie's REAL ULTIMATE POWER and bring peace to the irrate Summon Sages! Comes with free 5-pack battle card set."
Post by: RABicle on October 10, 2004, 01:47:02 AM
