Gaming Forums => Nintendo Gaming => Topic started by: Stogi on January 02, 2009, 12:21:39 PM
Title: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: Stogi on January 02, 2009, 12:21:39 PM
Yes. Yes it does. /end thread
So where to start? How about at the core. For every Zelda game that came out after LTTP, the same formula has been applied. Link must travel to many different dungeons (water, fire, etc), gain an item, then use that item throughout the level and then eventually kill the boss with said item. It is because of this redundancy that Zelda hasn't felt fresh in a long time. The games themselves are beautifully crafted, but there are hardly any surprises. What I propose is that Zelda stray away from the "collect 8 pieces of the artifact" to something more sincere, something more worthy, something more random.
It is because we know the formula so well that it doesn't matter how interesting these new dungeons are, they all feel the same. It feels like a different version of the same game. Lately, Zelda games have put more and more emphasis on side quests, quests between the quest. IMO, this is where the adventure portion of the game comes in. This is where random comes in. And generally, all the quests have been great. This is the reason why MM is my favorite Zelda. But still, sooner or later, no matter how much you delay, you still have to go to a dungeon in order to progress through the game.
Now I applaud Miyamoto for his courage. He knows that Zelda has become too redundant and that's why he said TP will be the last of its kind. And I really think he's thinking what I'm thinking (well maybe not exactly). He's thinking that adventure isn't ordained. You don't tell someone where to go and what to do and call it an adventure. That's similar to telling someone to go to the store and buy some juice. That's an errand. An adventure is the unknown. An adventure is possibilities. And in order for Zelda to have the unknown, it needs to be changed from the ground up.
Now imagine starting the game and finding yourself abandoned out in the middle of the woods. It's dark and your hurt, but what is that? You hear something and it sounds like singing. As you draw nearer, the singing gets louder. Louder and louder still, until you see it. It's a cave; a Great Fairy spring in all it's glory. You have no items, no sense of direction, and no memory to speak of; she gladly takes pity on you and heals your wounds. But her kindness comes with a price. She entrusts you with something, something very precious. A creature; it looks like a mole but it's so tiny and furry, and it looks like it's hurt. But wait, what is this? It's faintly glowing, but it seems to be getting weaker. The Fairy tells you that she cannot heal this creature here, and that you must take it to whence it came. Conveniently, she has no idea where it came from, but knows that it cannot be allowed to die. So you are turned away, helpless. You exit the cave, riddled with questions. Then BAM! Goblins and there's a lot of them. You don't have anything to defend yourself with and they're getting closer! Closer and closer they come with their incessant laughter and disgusting slobber. Backed up against the wall, it looks like your done for. But just as they are about to come down on you, the creature sneezes and the land around you suddenly pops out into a hill, sending those goons flying. Then you realize....WTF is this thing? It sneezes once more and a path is formed. It's trying to lead you somewhere. So you follow.
You find that the path leads to a mountain. It's treacherous, but you still manage to follow the path and climb its summit. There you notice the creature is looking a lot brighter and healthier. It sneezes again and creates a giant hole deep into the mountain. You fall for what seems like forever. And screaming your longs out, you finally black out. When you come to, you see the creature running around joyfully. This is the creature's home and you brought him back safely. It notices you are awake and scurries over. What? What's it saying? It looks like it wants to reward you. It starts doing this hilarious little dance; back and forth and back and forth. You don't understand it until you see it turn into pure light. Like electricity, a bolt of energy strikes you and starts pouring power into you, but somethings wrong. There is so much pain. With light coming out of your eyes, ears and mouth, you scream in agony. And then, it's over. On all fours, you catch your breath and even spew out a mouthful of blood. You look around for the creature and find him lying on his side, with his glow slowly pulsating fainter and fainter until nothing.
The mountain starts to crumble all around you. Your going to die unless you figure something out. But the only way out is the way you came in. That's when the game prompts you to stand where the light shines in and tells you how to use your new found power. So you execute the move and a hill forms up under you launching you higher and higher. Your not going to make it. The hole is getting smaller and smaller. Your never going to make. That's when the game prompts you to use another one of your abilities and force the hole open. In a tremendous blast, the top of the mountain is turned into specks of dust. You've set yourself free but only to land in comical fashion right on your face and pass out.
You wake up to a beautiful girl tending to your needs. Shes was worried you'd never awaken. She tells you her name and asks yours (game prompt).....
I'm sorry that was so long, but I felt it necessary (and kinda fun). But you can see the setup of this game and how it can be much different than in the past. There could be many of those special creatures with many different powers. They could be huge beasts while others tiny little bugs. There doesn't have to be a predetermined limit. But best of all, they don't have to be locked away in some Temple either. Also, the powers they grant you can make for some interesting puzzles.
The way you find these creatures could be by listening to crazy town folk talk about "legends" and taking the hints and setting out to look for them. And you can even be given a choice, to capture them by using their weakness and doing them harm, or by helping them.
These creatures can also have personalities themselves. For instance, you find a giant dragon perched atop a cliff. She warns you that she has done away with the others that tried to capture her, and if you don't leave now, she will kill you. You end up fighting her but during the struggle she runs the risk of dieing, so you save her life. In gratitude, she grants you the power to tame her young (giving you the ability to fly!).
The story could allow for many unique possibilities. Such as Ganondorf is searching high and low for these creatures (the one you helped barely escaped his grasp) and he will stop at nothing to find them; not after he knows their true power. The more he captures and the more powerful he becomes, but something noticeable starts to happen. The world becomes more dull, the animals more angry and the sky more dark. But the same thing happens as you find creatures and use there power. Your a detriment to the world, just like Ganon. The further you advance, the more you step on each others toes. And as you both obtain more and more power, the laws of the world finally become unhinged when you face each other; providing an epic setting for a climax.
That is just a simple idea. The point I am trying to make is that Zelda will receive a great push in the right direction with the Wiimote and Motion+, but to truly feel completely new, it'll need to shed its now archaic structure and employ something more flexible, something more random. The problem with Temples and Dungeons is that you know where they are and you know generally the challenges you face. With a system similar to mine, you have no idea where to go and have no idea what you will face; and that is what exploration is all about. The unknown.
Thanks for reading!
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: AV on January 02, 2009, 12:32:59 PM
make it se in the future and use claymation as the graphics engine. Now that sounds like a big leap in imagination for zelda.
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: KDR_11k on January 02, 2009, 01:02:11 PM
What you're describing there sounds like a linear game. There are many ways to make an adventure game but few of them are right for a Zelda game. Catching creatures to gain powers sounds definitely out of place for a Zelda game, if you want to make a new IP then say so.
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: Stogi on January 02, 2009, 01:26:58 PM
It was just an example to prove a point. The point being, that you don't need the conventional Zelda mantra to make a Zelda game. Zelda is about exploration first and foremost.
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: Ian Sane on January 02, 2009, 01:31:43 PM
Zelda doesn't need to change in a drastic way, Nintendo just has to not be so conservative about it.
Twilight Princess was a pretty weak Zelda but it wasn't because it the was the usual formula of dungeons. For me it was because there was nothing to explore. It was the same world as Ocarina of Time. Typically with Zelda I see the darkened portions of the map and I'm excited as all hell to found out what it is. With TP, once I figured out it was practically the same Hyrule as OoT I could GUESS what was where. That removed a big thrill out of the exploration. "Well this will be Lake Hylia. Yep, I was right." *Yawn*
My favourite Zelda are the ones that are away from Hyrule. What does Koholint, Termina, Holodrum or Labrynna have around the corner? Who knows? That's what's so cool about it. Other Zelda games also have multiple variations of the environment like time travel or parallel dimensions which adds to exploration.
And the best Zelda game, to me anyway, are the ones with clear sidequests in between dungeons. MM takes it to an extreme level that I adore but I can understand why others wouldn't. Link's Awakening however usually had something between each dungeon, usually a side-quest to find the dungeon key. Some Zelda games fall into a trap where in the last half of the game it's just dungeon-dungeon-dungeon. I think the balance is important. Otherwise it might as well be a series of levels if I'm just going through dungeons one after another.
The problem is that Zelda has a big fanbase that is going to be vocal about things and there are going to be a lot of different opinions being voiced. Nintendo has to know what to pay attention to and what not to.
"Wind Waker is TEH KITTIE" - minor complaint as it's largely superficial. "Wind Waker's world is a big blue ocean and that's dull" - important complaint as it relates to gameplay and is a game design issue. "Majora's Mask doesn't have Zelda in it" - superficial complaint "Majora's Mask's time limit, while fun in the overworld, adds frustration to dungeons" - very valid complaint
There's an important distinction between complaining that the gameplay is too different and complaining that each sequel doesn't play exactly the same. I think with Zelda II it was a pretty valid complaint. I think with Majora's Mask it was close-mindedness from people that just want to play Ocarina of Time again and again (or at least think they do, fans that want this often later dislike cookie cutter sequels but fail to understand why). Nintendo just has to know how to filter through the criticism. It's knowing the difference between the guy who hates a car because it's the wrong colour and the guy who hates it because it doesn't handle well on sharp turns.
Deep down though I think the core gameplay design of Zelda is that you have a world to explore in a manner that is not linear level-by-level progression and that you interact with the world in real time. It's like an RPG without menu battles or an action game with one big world. Other than that I think they should feel free to experiment. They should hopefully know how far they can go before it ceases to feel like Zelda.
Unless Nintendo wants to dumb it down for non-gamers of course. ;)
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: Chozo Ghost on January 02, 2009, 01:50:29 PM
I remember reading some quote by Miyamoto a long while back about him explaining that Link's Crossbow Training came about as a result of experiments for what to do with the Zelda franchise in the future. If that really is the case, then I think it is very possible that what he means is the next Zelda game will probably be an FPS shooter game similar to what they did with Metroid, except it will involve the medieval weapons of Hyrule instead of space age stuff.
So if you ever wonder what is in store for the next Zelda, take a look at Crossbow Training. Its the test bed for the next major Zelda game.
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: King of Twitch on January 02, 2009, 01:53:18 PM
Zelda doesn't need to change in a drastic way, Nintendo just has to not be so conservative about it.
Twilight Princess was a pretty weak Zelda but it wasn't because it the was the usual formula of dungeons. For me it was because there was nothing to explore. It was the same world as Ocarina of Time. Typically with Zelda I see the darkened portions of the map and I'm excited as all hell to found out what it is. With TP, once I figured out it was practically the same Hyrule as OoT I could GUESS what was where. That removed a big thrill out of the exploration. "Well this will be Lake Hylia. Yep, I was right." *Yawn*
My favourite Zelda are the ones that are away from Hyrule. What does Koholint, Termina, Holodrum or Labrynna have around the corner? Who knows? That's what's so cool about it. Other Zelda games also have multiple variations of the environment like time travel or parallel dimensions which adds to exploration.
And the best Zelda game, to me anyway, are the ones with clear sidequests in between dungeons. MM takes it to an extreme level that I adore but I can understand why others wouldn't. Link's Awakening however usually had something between each dungeon, usually a side-quest to find the dungeon key. Some Zelda games fall into a trap where in the last half of the game it's just dungeon-dungeon-dungeon. I think the balance is important. Otherwise it might as well be a series of levels if I'm just going through dungeons one after another.
The problem is that Zelda has a big fanbase that is going to be vocal about things and there are going to be a lot of different opinions being voiced. Nintendo has to know what to pay attention to and what not to.
"Wind Waker is TEH KITTIE" - minor complaint as it's largely superficial. "Wind Waker's world is a big blue ocean and that's dull" - important complaint as it relates to gameplay and is a game design issue. "Majora's Mask doesn't have Zelda in it" - superficial complaint "Majora's Mask's time limit, while fun in the overworld, adds frustration to dungeons" - very valid complaint
There's an important distinction between complaining that the gameplay is too different and complaining that each sequel doesn't play exactly the same. I think with Zelda II it was a pretty valid complaint. I think with Majora's Mask it was close-mindedness from people that just want to play Ocarina of Time again and again (or at least think they do, fans that want this often later dislike cookie cutter sequels but fail to understand why). Nintendo just has to know how to filter through the criticism. It's knowing the difference between the guy who hates a car because it's the wrong colour and the guy who hates it because it doesn't handle well on sharp turns.
Deep down though I think the core gameplay design of Zelda is that you have a world to explore in a manner that is not linear level-by-level progression and that you interact with the world in real time. It's like an RPG without menu battles or an action game with one big world. Other than that I think they should feel free to experiment. They should hopefully know how far they can go before it ceases to feel like Zelda.
Unless Nintendo wants to dumb it down for non-gamers of course. ;)
Oh sure, easy for YOU to say
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on January 02, 2009, 02:00:38 PM
"Yes. Yes it does. /end thread."
That's one of the best opening sentences I've EVER seen on this site.
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: Ian Sane on January 02, 2009, 02:15:31 PM
Quote
If that really is the case, then I think it is very possible that what he means is the next Zelda game will probably be an FPS shooter game similar to what they did with Metroid, except it will involve the medieval weapons of Hyrule instead of space age stuff.
That would seem so redundant to me. Metroid Prime already fills the role. Metroid and Zelda are actually REALLY similar. The only real differences are:
- settings - Metroid doesn't really have any NPCs, it's more like one huge dungeon - projectile attacking vs. mostly melee attacking - viewpoint: side-scrolling vs. top down or first person vs third person
You make top down Metroid or first person Zelda and you're kind of making the two series too similar. I find Zelda II feels a lot like Metroid and that's entirely because it's using the same viewpoint.
I think an FPA Zelda would be pretty good. I would certainly still buy it. But it would make the two series too similar and that would make BOTH of them get stale quicker.
Unless they made third person 3D Metroid to balance it out. That would be kind of funny actually. Swap all the differences I just mentioned except the settings. :)
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: KDR_11k on January 02, 2009, 02:23:00 PM
So, what does everyone here think about the changes that were in Phantom Hourglass?
I think I said before that I'd like to see the removal of the context sensitive actions. Optimally you'd use the Wiimote to move the item in your hand and if you want to e.g. use a deku stick as a lever grip then you pull one out and move it so one end goes into the lever base rather than walking up with the item and hitting use. A secret switch would have to be found by looking at the wall and then moving something to touch it rather than walking along the wall and looking for the "you can use this" icon that pops up whenever you're near anything usable. It kinda loses the secret button part when the button is just a trigger area with no graphical representation, no? That would probably require a very close camera though (possibly FPV) so you actually see what you interact with.
I think that's a big part of what was so good with 2d Zelda, items acted mostly the same in any context, e.g. the boomerang didn't lock onto hittable targets, it just flew where you threw it and if that happened to be a target something happened. The grapple attached to anything grabbable when shot there rather than showing where it could attach and behaving completely different when pulled out in combat. Also in 3D the interactable points for most items stood out and made it too easy to figure out what to do (grapple point? Just grab it and see what happens, in TP it'd usually be a grapple sequence that got you where you need to go).
Anyway, that's mechanics, the other part that Zelda needs to be fresh is new content and with content I mean the underlying ideas. New mechanisms to deal with instead of simply arranging the old ones into new shapes (ugh, block pushing puzzles...). When people complain about not enough innovation in a sequel and then complain about new mechanics it means they didn't want new mechanics, they wanted new ideas in the content.
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: NWR_pap64 on January 02, 2009, 02:35:48 PM
I agree that the next Zelda game should change the formula, but I think Nintendo will have a hard time doing it.
After Ocarina of Time pretty much became the definite Zelda for some players Nintendo dared to take the basic concept and alter it almost drastically, creating "Majora's Mask" in the process.
MM was, in my honest opinion, a brilliant title, one that doesn't get the recognition it deserves. It does some things that OoT only dreams to do, like creation an emotional connection with its NPCs. But perhaps the biggest addition was a threat that NEVER stopped for you. It didn't matter if you were still in a dungeon fighting a boss, if time was up, it was up. The moon wasn't patiently waiting for you to reach it, it was going to destroy the world and enjoy doing it.
Then there were the masks which played heavily into both the story and the gameplay. The three race masks really did alter how the game was played, right down to the music.
All of this made for a masterful follow up that truly wasn't afraid of experimenting with the formula.
...Yet, fans weren't too keen on the idea and grew frustrated by it. They preferred OoT over MM, and it seems Nintendo took it to heart. The only major change in Wind Waker was the style, which alienated many fans, but many forgot about it by the time it was released. Despite some changes it played A LOT like OoT, except it felt rushed and missing some dungeons.
Now comes Twilight Princess, which offers realistic graphics, more dungeons, more quests and just plain more stuff to do, and fans complain its TOO similar to OoT, that the bosses were easy and the story didn't make sense.
So now Nintendo faces a dilemma with Zelda Wii. They know that the game needs to be changed drastically in order for it to leave a mark in players, in the same way that "Mario Galaxy" impressed many with its story, presentation and controls. But how can they do that WITHOUT alienating anyone?
Do they try to replicate the OoT experience except with more in-depth, masterful controls? Do they do the MM route and alter the game greatly while keeping some core concepts intact? Or will they just focus on a graphical change like WW and TP did?
It seems that after OoT the 3D Zeldas have failed to impress people. Yes, they get great reviews at launch, and sales records are shattered. But the fans seem split as to what they think of the games. They don't want the formula to be drastically changed like in MM, but they don't want yet another OoT wannabe.
So again, Nintendo faces a dilemma and I KNOW Zelda Wii will be heavily debated as more and more info surfaces.
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: King of Twitch on January 02, 2009, 02:41:01 PM
Since the mask thing is played out, they should bring Minish Cap's kinstones to 3D to improve NPC interaction instead of goofy TP cutscene drama
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: DAaaMan64 on January 02, 2009, 02:42:36 PM
Zelda is the series that it's system right, we have nothing to worry about. Except when it comes out.
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: Ian Sane on January 02, 2009, 03:08:33 PM
Quote
So, what does everyone here think about the changes that were in Phantom Hourglass?
I found the controls very awkward. It felt like forced touchscreen usage, the sort of type that third parties stopped doing years ago. It was like Nintendo desperately trying to "prove" the concept of the touchscreen years after it was established as a gimmick at worst and a decent portable replacement for a mouse at best. There was a bit of analog movement but a console Zelda game would have access to an analog stick and wouldn't need such a workaround. And PH had that annoying dungeon you had to return to each time. Eh, that design was pretty annoying. Other than that it's a solid game but not one I would want Nintendo to use as inspiration for the rest of the series.
If the big change to Wii Zelda is just waggle controls that would be lame. Waggle sucks, plain and simple. It just takes an otherwise decent game and makes the controls less precise. Nintendo should try to make a good Zelda game and use whatever control method works best for that. With the DS and, especially with the Wii, they so often design a game with the specific goal to "sell" the concept of their controllers. That just results in lousy controls. They have to drop that habbit. Make a great Zelda game, come up with some new ideas to make a great Zelda game and then decide what controls are the best way to achieve it. Nintendo criticizes games that try to use every single button on the Dualshock but specifically TRYING to use motion control is the same sin. Make a great game. That's all you should care about.
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: Chozo Ghost on January 02, 2009, 03:47:16 PM
If that really is the case, then I think it is very possible that what he means is the next Zelda game will probably be an FPS shooter game similar to what they did with Metroid, except it will involve the medieval weapons of Hyrule instead of space age stuff.
That would seem so redundant to me. Metroid Prime already fills the role. Metroid and Zelda are actually REALLY similar. The only real differences are:
- settings - Metroid doesn't really have any NPCs, it's more like one huge dungeon - projectile attacking vs. mostly melee attacking - viewpoint: side-scrolling vs. top down or first person vs third person
You make top down Metroid or first person Zelda and you're kind of making the two series too similar. I find Zelda II feels a lot like Metroid and that's entirely because it's using the same viewpoint.
I think an FPA Zelda would be pretty good. I would certainly still buy it. But it would make the two series too similar and that would make BOTH of them get stale quicker.
Unless they made third person 3D Metroid to balance it out. That would be kind of funny actually. Swap all the differences I just mentioned except the settings. :)
Wouldn't that make everyone happy? People who say the Zelda format can't be improved on would get something completely different; and then the 2D Metroid crowd would get what they want as well. Wouldn't this be the best of both worlds for everyone?
Although, I do happen to think a Zelda FPA game would still be very different than the Metroid Prime games, if nothing else because of the different worlds, characters, equipment, weapons, etc. Zelda is more about interacting with characters, and I'm sure even as an FPS game that still wouldn't change. Or maybe what Nintendo could do is make the game be First person some times, and the regular overhead way the rest? For example, maybe the dungeons would be FPA but in the overworld it would revert back to the usual format? I could see that working. I recall in Metroid this would happen whenever Samus went into ball-mode.
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on January 02, 2009, 03:59:43 PM
ZeldaPersonShooter would be like Red Steel but fun.
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: EasyCure on January 02, 2009, 04:06:36 PM
I wouldn't mind seeing something similar to Wind Waker that didn't have a bunch of tiny islands, but instead of a ton of small islands to explore, we should have a few continents to explore with small islands strewn about.
Picture starting off in Hyrule and seeing some of the familiar places like Kakariko Village and Lake Hylia, only to discover theres so much more beyond that. Hyrule could have a lively harbor with NPCs showing up from differnet land to give clues to troubles going on in their homeland, either leading to small quests or full out (and maybe even optional) dungeon crawling. As mentioned before, small islands with a one time treasure could still exist but maybe also serve another purpose. What if they house entrances to nearby dungeons allowing you to take a shortcut to the dungeons item or even the boss (thus skipping the item and making that fight a challange, but you'd still have to go back and complete the dungeon at some point to retrieve the item because its needed down the line).
I maybe alone in this but i liked those giant caves in Twilight Princess. Sure they ended up being NOTHING but everytime I found one I had hope that something great was waiting for me (miniboss battle/treasure/etc). The other awesome part about it was it connected Hyrule; you'd go in one end, go thru what felt like an eternity of twist and turns and you'd end up clear across the land. Something like that with underground caverns, maybe leading to islands otherwise inaccessible, would be pretty sweet in my book.
Edit: blah busy at work and it took over an hour to finish that post so i have no idea what the 7 post before me were.
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on January 02, 2009, 04:11:59 PM
Please get rid of the boats. Give Link a Dolphin so we can just Wave Race our way around the seas. Transitions between modes of travel should be seamless.
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: Chozo Ghost on January 02, 2009, 04:14:39 PM
Yeah, the problem with Wind Waker wasn't the graphical style that many complain about, but because it was too much like a certain 1995 major motion picture that starred Kevin Costner (which was also a flop). The graphical style of Wind Waker was fine, but give me LAND, LOTS OF LAND!
Quote
Oh, give me land, lots of land under starry skies, Don't fence me in. Let me ride through the wide open country that I love, Don't fence me in. Let me be by myself in the evenin' breeze And listen to the murmur of the cottonwood trees Send me off forever but I ask you please, Don't fence me in
Just turn me loose, let me straddle my old saddle Underneath the western skies On my Cayuse, let me wander over yonder Till I see the mountains rise. Ba boo ba ba boo.
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: Smash_Brother on January 02, 2009, 04:15:17 PM
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: Adrock on January 02, 2009, 04:18:27 PM
Yes.
Specifically? Start with the difficulty level and a coherent, less predictable, less cliche story. Then, more exploration, fewer set paths, more varied enemies in larger numbers, no fetch quests, no empty overworld and more secrets (like an extra dungeon), so on.
I could go on and on about what I'd like to see gameplay wise, but I trust Nintendo with offering engaging gameplay. I'd prefer they change it up a little though I'd be okay with the existing core gameplay if Nintendo would take into account most if not all of the things I mentioned above. That'd at least make for a more interesting and fun game than Twilight Princess.
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on January 02, 2009, 04:22:45 PM
Hmm RE4 would be preferrable. Some camera views in No More Heroes went up-close over-the-shoulder as well, with no problems.
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: Stogi on January 02, 2009, 04:29:21 PM
Wiggles, I couldn't agree more. Having a few giant continents with other islands of all sizes strewn about would make for a gorgeous overworld. But what's even more critical is the feeling that the overworld must exude as the world comes closer to certain destruction. The changes can be subtle, but as time goes on, the world and it's inhabitants should respond to the impending doom.
Oh, I think it would be neat if enemies EVERYWHERE became more difficult as you progressed through the game.
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: NWR_pap64 on January 02, 2009, 04:36:12 PM
You know, this sort of thing might be crazy enough to work.
Some might say "Oh noes Link went Halo!" but think about it. The Metroid Prime series was never seen as a traditional FPS franchise but as an adventure game that took take through a first person perspective and people loved it. It really added to the atmosphere and moodiness of the Metroid franchise.
I think having a Zelda game through a first person perspective would do wonders to the franchise. Yes, fans will be alienated but considering that Nintendo hasn't a true Zelda hit since OoT they really need to shake things up.
Can you imagine face to face battles were you get to see a swarm of enemies from a first person perspective, and see their expressions and attacks? Can you imagine how epic a Ganondorf/Ganon would be? With the Motion Plus for sword attacks you could literally immense yourself into the game's world, something that could complement the graphical style they opt to choose.
Again, a crazy idea but it might be crazy enough to revitalize the franchise in the same way that OoT did back in 1998.
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: KDR_11k on January 02, 2009, 04:41:52 PM
Remember, "more" means more dev work.
People here talk too much about the combat in first person view. Leaving aside that Zelda is interesting mostly for the environments instead of the fights first person melee doesn't work well.
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: EasyCure on January 02, 2009, 04:44:09 PM
Wiggles, I couldn't agree more. Having a few giant continents with other islands of all sizes strewn about would make for a gorgeous overworld. But what's even more critical is the feeling that the overworld must exude as the world comes closer to certain destruction. The changes can be subtle, but as time goes on, the world and it's inhabitants should respond to the impending doom.
Oh, I think it would be neat if enemies EVERYWHERE became more difficult as you progressed through the game.
Thanks for not saying "NO BOAT". Sailing would be minimal since you'd have something the size of Twilight Princess' Hyrule to explore once you stepped foot on land. Personally I picture 3 or 4 continents the size of TPs Hyrule and a couple of islands and underground areas in between. Sailing would NOT be a major part of the game and dungeons would not follor the same old themes. If they do use the same old themes (which i really dont have THAT big of a problem with), I don't see why we can't mix it up a little. Why not have water in a Fire temple or fire in a Forest temple?
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: Ian Sane on January 02, 2009, 04:48:02 PM
Quote
Wouldn't that make everyone happy? People who say the Zelda format can't be improved on would get something completely different; and then the 2D Metroid crowd would get what they want as well. Wouldn't this be the best of both worlds for everyone?
I figure the Metroid crowd would be content but Zelda would then get complaints from people that wanted it to play like Halo because it has a first person view.
I meant that as a joke but the sad thing is that probably is EXACTLY what would happen. I think Nintendo needs to make a very obvious FPS to shut everyone up and then no one will want to transform any other first person game Nintendo makes into an FPS.
I love the idea of going to different islands and thus different lands aside from Hyrule. Before Wind Waker came out and everyone would brainstorm about the next Zelda I thought having a world so big that you need a boat to cross the sea to get to parts of it would be an awesome idea. And then Nintendo does it but makes each island the size of a gas station. It is such an awesome concept, it just needs to be done in a way that is not so obviously lame. Did Nintendo honestly think having most of WW's world be ocean was an exciting idea? While on the topic let's crap on Hyrule Field as well. There's no need to have a big area of nothing in a Zelda game. Majora's Mask solved the issue by putting a big ass town in the middle of the field. I know in real life there are plains and desserts and fields and oceans that are devoid of notable landmarks. The thing is the Earth is really big. A videogame world is like the size of a Disney Land so don't eat up that small space with a vacant lot.
Zelda II has East and West Hyrule seperated by... a sea! There's a way to have:
A. A boat B. Hyrule as the setting
You make the normal landmarks on one Hyrule and new stuff on the next. It isn't even hard to think of these ideas. This shuts up anyone who wants Karkariko Village to be in every game while also providing tons of new areas. Pokemon Gold/Silver has both a new world and the entire world from Red/Blue in the same game. Nintendo has done it before, they can do it with Zelda.
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: KDR_11k on January 02, 2009, 04:50:34 PM
3-4x TP's hyrule plus secondary islands is going to be a whole lot of emptyness. Or do you think they can magically fill that much area with interesting stuff? The content amount is going to remain roughly the same on the budget, more area means the density goes down. You'd probably see a lot of copypasta then, not very interesting to explore things that aren't special and don't contain anything interesting (yet another rupee chest...).
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: NWR_pap64 on January 02, 2009, 05:09:15 PM
People here talk too much about the combat in first person view. Leaving aside that Zelda is interesting mostly for the environments instead of the fights first person melee doesn't work well.
I think it could be done as an optional element to the game. Like I said, a move like this would be very jarring for many fans so having the option of turning it off would be appreciated while still leaving the experimental factor of the game intact.
Besides, I think it would be stunning to see all of the world's details through a first person perspective, especially if they offer a beautiful world that contrast the grayness of FPS greatly.
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: Luigi Dude on January 02, 2009, 05:14:28 PM
Considering Miyamoto has already said the next Zelda will be different from Twilight Princess, we already know that the series is about to change. So there's no real point in asking people if the series needs to change, since Nintendo has already stated that it will change.
The real question is, what kind of change exactly can we expect? Will it be smaller changes here and there, that end up making the final project feel different, even though the main gameplay is still similar? Or are we looking at a full blown change like Resident Evil 4 that pretty much turns the game into a whole new series?
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on January 02, 2009, 05:39:21 PM
Link dies.
Play as Zelda.
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: Ian Sane on January 02, 2009, 05:55:50 PM
Quote
Besides, I think it would be stunning to see all of the world's details through a first person perspective, especially if they offer a beautiful world that contrast the grayness of FPS greatly.
Can't you already do this? Don't all the 3D Zeldas allow you to look around in the first person just by pushing a button? I know I specifically seek out ideal viewpoints in the games just to look around.
Quote
Considering Miyamoto has already said the next Zelda will be different from Twilight Princess, we already know that the series is about to change. So there's no real point in asking people if the series needs to change, since Nintendo has already stated that it will change.
While we know it will change I think it's still a valid point of discussion about whether it SHOULD. That's standard topic stuff on this forum. Should Nintendo do this? Should they continue to do this? Is what they're doing a good idea? What if they did this?
What kind of change should we expect? Something not nearly as cool as what we're proposing. With Zelda the fan brainstorms just get nuts to the point that Nintendo could never match them.
Quote
3-4x TP's hyrule plus secondary islands is going to be a whole lot of emptyness. Or do you think they can magically fill that much area with interesting stuff? The content amount is going to remain roughly the same on the budget, more area means the density goes down.
What, sequels can't be bigger anymore? We've hit a wall now? Considering Nintendo already has an engine for Twilight Princess and could in theory reuse a lot of that I think that would remove a lot of the development time. If they used my East & West Hyrule suggestion one of the Hyrules could be lifted right from TP and then they just have to go and tweak the area to show the passage of time. 3-4x is likely too much but double? Unless Nintendo completely starts development from scratch with the next Zelda I think it's perfectly doable.
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on January 02, 2009, 06:00:35 PM
yay another 5 yr game. AUGH
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: King of Twitch on January 02, 2009, 06:23:46 PM
Half of Hyrule is separated by a wall, gannon has taken over the eastern side. Sneak in with humanitarian supplies and help the Zoras/Gorons/etc subvert the evil empire from within! This will require lots of criss-crossing into non-hyrule areas, as well as smuggling via Romani's wagon; and the failed Ganonism policies will make the comparatively impoverished eastern half resemble a light/dark world dynamic.
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: Halbred on January 02, 2009, 07:20:36 PM
You know, people whine about the sailing in Wind Waker, but it's a stroke of technical genious on Nintendo's part. While you're sailing from island to island, your destination is LOADING. What the game gives you is interactive loading screens. Instead of sitting and staring at a "Loading..." screen, you get to trade blows with pirates, play games, and fish for treasure.
I'd like Nintendo to continue the Wind Waker storyline to see where the series can go without Ganondorf. The aethetic should stay, I enjoy boating, but the power of the Wii could give us a larger map with more "randomly" spaced islands.
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: Stogi on January 02, 2009, 08:02:31 PM
I liked the boating aspects of Wind Waker, but everyone thought it became tedious later in the game. It was fun and exciting at first. Now, if the boating parts where between two continents with a few islands here and there along the way and the boat traveled faster, I don't think anyone would complain.
And also, I came up with the animal idea for one purpose: to point out that a new MM is possible. You don't need masks, you can use anything even animals! But just like those masks, you'll to track them down and figure out how to get them. I liked that process a whole lot (if you couldn't tell). Every time I received a mask, it felt so rewarding, even more so than freeing the giants. And who could forget Oni Link?
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: Caterkiller on January 02, 2009, 08:11:54 PM
Please get rid of the boats. Give Link a Dolphin so we can just Wave Race our way around the seas. Transitions between modes of travel should be seamless.
I was honestly pissed there were no dolphins in the game! With the whole pirate theme going on, and sailing across the world, I expected to have giant whales breach the surface just for air! You wouldnt kill them but maybe if you were quick enough you could hop onto its back and get inside its blow hole, for a short mini dungeon. But I guess people would complain it would be too much like JabuJabu. But still wouldnt that be cool to see giant animals good or bad, pop up out of the ocean every now and then?
And after reading and watching so much One Piece, it was then when I truely realized how much of a missed opportunity the ocean was.
I'm confident Nintendo will "galaxy" up Zelda in ways we wouldn't have thought of. Did anyone predict Galaxy would be anything like the way it was?
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: Dasmos on January 02, 2009, 09:35:11 PM
It's a shame that everyone is bashing on Wind Waker in here. It's undeniably the best Zelda game.
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: Caterkiller on January 02, 2009, 11:25:32 PM
As pissed as I was about no dolphins and whales, I no doubt got a better fresher feeling from WW when compared to TP. I absolutely loved the game, but just angry about the auquatic mamals.
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: Stogi on January 02, 2009, 11:55:14 PM
I was actually very surprised at the lack of a water level in Wind Waker. You couldn't even dive!
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: Chozo Ghost on January 03, 2009, 12:21:56 AM
I was actually very surprised at the lack of a water level in Wind Waker. You couldn't even dive!
Yeah, that's true! In TP you could explore the underwater world of the Zora's and Lake Hylia, but in WW despite the overabundance of water, you could only sail on it...
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: EasyCure on January 03, 2009, 12:53:50 AM
I was actually very surprised at the lack of a water level in Wind Waker. You couldn't even dive!
Yeah, that's true! In TP you could explore the underwater world of the Zora's and Lake Hylia, but in WW despite the overabundance of water, you could only sail on it...
i think diving into a vast ocean that you couldnt really exploe would be kind of annoying.
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: Stogi on January 03, 2009, 12:55:33 AM
Ya, but that's no excuse not to have a water level in a world filled with water
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: Adrock on January 03, 2009, 02:59:10 AM
So there's no real point in asking people if the series needs to change, since Nintendo has already stated that it will change.
It's still an apt question and point of discussion. Alternatively, there's no need in asking "Will Zelda change?" for just the reason you mentioned. Of course, Miyamoto has flat out flip-flopped on numerous occasions so there's reason to believe it can happen again.
You know, people whine about the sailing in Wind Waker, but it's a stroke of technical genious on Nintendo's part. While you're sailing from island to island, your destination is LOADING. What the game gives you is interactive loading screens. Instead of sitting and staring at a "Loading..." screen, you get to trade blows with pirates, play games, and fish for treasure.
Still doesn't make it NOT boring, tedious, and annoying.
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: KDR_11k on January 03, 2009, 03:45:44 AM
I think it could be done as an optional element to the game. Like I said, a move like this would be very jarring for many fans so having the option of turning it off would be appreciated while still leaving the experimental factor of the game intact.
Besides, I think it would be stunning to see all of the world's details through a first person perspective, especially if they offer a beautiful world that contrast the grayness of FPS greatly.
What, sequels can't be bigger anymore? We've hit a wall now? Considering Nintendo already has an engine for Twilight Princess and could in theory reuse a lot of that I think that would remove a lot of the development time. If they used my East & West Hyrule suggestion one of the Hyrules could be lifted right from TP and then they just have to go and tweak the area to show the passage of time. 3-4x is likely too much but double? Unless Nintendo completely starts development from scratch with the next Zelda I think it's perfectly doable.
Wouldn't people complain if half the game was just TP again? Pokemon Gold and Silver threw the old game areas in as bonus material after you beat the main game AFAIK, the sailing between continents idea would require large parts of the main game to happen in the old area.
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: IceCold on January 03, 2009, 07:01:16 AM
Well I think I'm the aberration here because my favourite parts of Zelda games are the dungeons, not the random adventuring. But I think Miyamoto's original vision of Zelda was of a boy exploring an unknown cave not knowing what lies ahead. So the original Zelda is probably the "purest" in terms of his vision.. As time passed, the games were ironed out technically and evolved to more user-friendly and commercial games, but I think they have strayed from his vision. I'd say that's one of the reasons Miyamoto has handed over the reigns almost completely to Aonuma - what Zelda has become doesn't interest him as much.
So anyway, I'd welcome some of the changes you mentioned. At the same time time though, in this day and age, you can't make the game too much of a pure adventure game. Mostly because people would be overwhelmed with the amount of exploration especially if there is little payoff (and in real life there isn't a treasure chest at the end of every trek). I do like the idea of the act of exploration triggering an action sequence or something though,
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: Shecky on January 03, 2009, 11:05:07 AM
I have only skimmed this thread... but the next Zelda game will push the Wii Motion Plus. It'll likely have segments, minigames, bosses that will most likely switch you to a fixed camera and force you to make precise sword attacks or reflections. Even the musical instrument may make use of it. If Nintendo were smart, they could reuse some of the logic from past games to put games of fetch with the boomerang (Frisbee would be a little out of place :) ) - Give link a dog back at the ranch or something.
After that, you can freshen the game up by changing up what has been common place in the past games. I'm not saying you have to make everything different, but would it hurt to go to a rocky area and NOT find a Goron city for a change?
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: EasyCure on January 03, 2009, 01:31:18 PM
Ya, but that's no excuse not to have a water level in a world filled with water
I never said it was. Until people started complaining I didn't even notice the absence of a water level. Perhaps, though, they had one that wouldn't work well because they had no diving mechanic for Link (or vice versa had one with a diving mechanic that wouldn't work well outside the dungeon itself)?
I'm not saying a water level wouldn't work without a dive feature (look at ALttP's water level) but it certainly would be subpar if you translated something like that to 3D. I also like the idea of not diving into the Great Ocean because it adds to its mystery thats obviously revealed later on Old Hyrule.
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: Chozo Ghost on January 03, 2009, 01:49:12 PM
I was actually very surprised at the lack of a water level in Wind Waker. You couldn't even dive!
Yeah, that's true! In TP you could explore the underwater world of the Zora's and Lake Hylia, but in WW despite the overabundance of water, you could only sail on it...
i think diving into a vast ocean that you couldnt really exploe would be kind of annoying.
Why shouldn't you be able to have stuff to explore? Nintendo should have put in some sunken cities like Atlantis where you can explore the underwater ruins with your Zora suit, or yeah, there should be some Zora levels as well... and what about sunken ships? Link could explore wrecks and find treasure chests in them.
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: KDR_11k on January 03, 2009, 02:53:59 PM
Windwaker had no elaborate diving because you're already limited in your swim time so you can't just swim from one island to another (which would enable sequence breaks or just frustration because you left your boat at the other island).
Also wasn't there a water level? I do recall a dungeon where the water went up and down...
Anyway, my suggested mechanics change would apply mostly to dungeons and maybe a few points of interest in the overworld. I think direct item controls could reduce the control complexity (no need for different swing controls and aiming systems and whatnot, you got the thing in your hand and just point it where it should point). Probably would work well with simple physics simulations for the items instead of predesigned animations (so instead of having a swing gesture that triggers the swinging animation for the morning star the thing would just be attached to a stick with a chain and react to however you move it)
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: NWR_Lindy on January 03, 2009, 03:13:55 PM
I'd like to see some deeper RPG-style character customization. Zelda has become very predictable in terms of the way your characters advances during the story. You get bombs, then you get a bow and arrow, then you get flaming arrows, then you get a bigger sword, bigger wallet, etc. I'd like to see them break away from that and let you do stuff like make potions, for example (I'm thinking Eternal Darkness). Also being able to buy different types of swords and armor would be really cool. Get away from the predictability and let players experiment a little, if they so desire.
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: Shecky on January 03, 2009, 10:43:22 PM
I'd like to see some deeper RPG-style character customization.
No thanks. One of the reasons I actually like the Zelda games is it's complete abstraction of any RPG elements. No stats, no weapons that break, no skills, etc. In fact I struggle to find a game that rips off the formula at all. You'd think someone would have tried... even if it's blatant. Why there are no 3D Zelda clones is beyond me.
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: Chozo Ghost on January 04, 2009, 04:07:24 AM
Okami is a blatant Zelda clone, from what I understand.
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: SixthAngel on January 04, 2009, 09:04:53 AM
After Phantom Hourglass, no. It fixed most all of the problems I had in Zelda games (talked about it a few weeks ago on the DS board) and added some new fresh twists and a superior control scheme. I also liked how it gave a new character besides Link to constantly have around and talk (Linebeck).
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: mantidor on January 04, 2009, 12:54:23 PM
Okami is a blatant Zelda clone, from what I understand.
I was going to mention the same thing, and its quite a good clone. Unfortunately it really seems to be the only one.
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: KDR_11k on January 04, 2009, 02:04:34 PM
I don't think it qualifies as that good of a clone, the areas are pretty much discarded once you finish them except every new power you get has spots to use it on in the older areas.
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: jakeOSX on January 04, 2009, 02:44:35 PM
i'd like the ruppees i get to actually be worth something. since OOT they mainly just sit unused in my wallet.
a first person zelda would be no good. it would be like oblivion with more suck. OOT WW and TP have shown that third person zelda is a great way of doing it, the change, i think, should be in the game.
in that sense, robbing from Oblivion (or western RPG's in general) wouldn't be a bad idea. a huge open world, more towns/cities, etc. don't make exploration/travel linear. i'm not saying link should do quests with the assassin's guild, but not all items/upgrades need to be dungeon based either.
dungeons are fine, but i agree with the block pushing puzzles. sheesh. one of my favorate parts of WW was sneaking into the castle and hiding under the jars.
somewhere else WW succeeded was in the story. the bad guys took your sister! this wasn't some existential desire to save the world as a whole, this was a quest to get your sister back. you just happened to save the world on the way.
if they make hyrule a living breathing place, then even if, as Ian pointed out, you already know it, it will still have that something that makes you look forward to exploring it.
oh and having a real threat of death wouldn't be bad. not saying everything should be boss hard to fight, but it would be nice to actually be worried some of the times...
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: EasyCure on January 04, 2009, 03:18:29 PM
I was actually very surprised at the lack of a water level in Wind Waker. You couldn't even dive!
Yeah, that's true! In TP you could explore the underwater world of the Zora's and Lake Hylia, but in WW despite the overabundance of water, you could only sail on it...
i think diving into a vast ocean that you couldnt really exploe would be kind of annoying.
Why shouldn't you be able to have stuff to explore? Nintendo should have put in some sunken cities like Atlantis where you can explore the underwater ruins with your Zora suit, or yeah, there should be some Zora levels as well... and what about sunken ships? Link could explore wrecks and find treasure chests in them.
They also shouldn't have rushed the game out with less dungeons than at first planned. Imagine how far they woulda got if they did impliment sunken cities or shipwrecks ;)
Besides, like i said before not being able to dive increases the mystery of whats underneath the waves. What if you dived down to a certain point and due to some graphical glitch saw Hyrule Castle early on in the game?
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: Stogi on January 04, 2009, 07:46:07 PM
Honestly, that would have made me more eager to play through the story.
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: Mop it up on January 05, 2009, 12:02:29 AM
Make the new Zelda a side-scroller.
*gets shot*
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: nitsu niflheim on January 05, 2009, 12:23:09 AM
I want more CDi Zelda.
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: King of Twitch on January 05, 2009, 12:32:02 AM
I wouldn't mind seeing Zelda change
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: Shecky on January 05, 2009, 01:18:26 AM
oh and having a real threat of death wouldn't be bad. not saying everything should be boss hard to fight, but it would be nice to actually be worried some of the times...
Ironically, I was playing trough the original Zelda the other week and got to Level 6 rather easy... However, I did die 6 or so times on my way to that point, and Lv 6 has claimed 4 more deaths on top of that. That caused me to start paying more attention to what was different between this game and current 3D ones. I think the major difference is the number of enemies at once and the ability to get hit rather rapidly in 2D. Also, the original title doesn't implement what I like to call the Goldeneye hit system... where only the first strike counts and subsequent followups wont do harm until a set time passes (however short).
What that means is that in Lv6 when your surrounded by Wizrobes that like to synchronously fire ... if you get caught in that crossfire, a nice chunk of health disappears fast. The amount of damage doesn't seem to far off where it used to be... although, I believe you have more hearts/health in the later games.
Edit: I'll also note a few other key differences: - The level of hearts that appear from enemies is very low in LoZ... fairies are even less. No pots to rely on either... Since the drops are random'ish too, it makes you more concerned about losing power to begin with. - Continuing starts you off with only 3 hearts, and boy what a pain to make your way back into the dungeon. Kind of forces you to either a) play even harder with hopes of getting some heart drops or b) leave and visit the fairy fountain type deal. - No bottles! and thus no cop-out fairies in a bottle. Max medicine is 2 shots per level essentially.... instead of the near 8 given in later games.
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: DAaaMan64 on January 05, 2009, 02:07:24 AM
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: KDR_11k on January 05, 2009, 04:18:33 AM
I'm pretty sure Zelda has mercy invulnerability even in the first game though it might be very short. Generally in 2D an enemy can "attack" faster because it only has to touch you, in a 3d Zelda it has to perform an attack animation (which takes a lot of time with many enemies and I think most have a wait time between reaching you and starting an attack too) and since there's so much room you can dodge easily and often block the attack too. I don't think 2d Zelda combat could be transferred into 3d with the regular perspective though since it's already hard enough to deal with one or two ranged enemies that are where the camera doesn't see them, 8 wizzrobes simultaneously shooting at you from all directions would be impossible to dodge because the camera would only show 2-3 at a time.
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: Stogi on January 05, 2009, 05:55:58 AM
You know what (for me of course) was more fun than going through the dungeon? Having to find how to get to that dungeon. Like in OOT, how you had to get a red tunic before you could enter the mountain, or how you had to go back in time in order to even enter the Spirit Temple as an adult. **** like that was always more intriguing than the dungeons. (Though the boss fights are always the most fun).
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: Ian Sane on January 05, 2009, 01:49:56 PM
Quote
oh and having a real threat of death wouldn't be bad. not saying everything should be boss hard to fight, but it would be nice to actually be worried some of the times...
I think this would be a good change but they have to balance this well. I don't want like Wind Waker where I'm breezing through the game without any fear of death and then I fight that Ganon caterpillar deal and get my ass whooped. This is just something all games have to take into account. It's okay if enemies get gradually harder but don't make it a huge jump and don't make the third boss the hardest in the game and the last boss the second easiest. Plus the worst is when a routine enemy is as hard as a boss. Metroid Prime tends to have the occasional regular enemy like this.
I guess I'm just worried Nintendo won't do this right. They're very used to making easy games.
Do those of you suggesting being able to dive into the ocean in WW have ANY IDEA how impossible that would be? Just think of how HUGE the ocean in that game is and how deep it would have to be. It would be an insane amount of work to create a whole underwater world. The reason they didn't have a water dungeon to dive into is because it would be BS to let you dive then but not anywhere else. This is what Nintendo does right. This is their thing. They realize that diving in the ocean is not an option so the design the game so you never have to dive. Just like how they have no jump button and then don't put complex platforming in the game. This is intentional design. It's tight design that only true game design masters do. A lesser developer would have had diving "sometimes" and have it feel wrong when you can't dive anywhere else. Nintendo totally did the right thing there.
On the subject of water remember swimming as Zora Link in MM? That was awesome! I loved leaping out of the water like a dolphin. The transformations in MM were such a great idea. It let us play four characters while only playing as Link. That's something they should consider using again. They don't have to use masks or Deku, Zore and Goron Link but some similar idea.
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: Chozo Ghost on January 05, 2009, 03:09:42 PM
oh and having a real threat of death wouldn't be bad. not saying everything should be boss hard to fight, but it would be nice to actually be worried some of the times...
It's okay if enemies get gradually harder but don't make it a huge jump and don't make the third boss the hardest in the game and the last boss the second easiest.
I have to disagree with you here, because I think its hilarious when the final boss in a game is piss easy. I forget the name of it, but I remember a game for the old NES where you fought Ninjas and stuff to rescue a girl and you would have to fight bosses at the end of each level and they would tend to get harder and harder, but the developers made the last one really easy kinda like a joke I guess.
I think its funny when they do that, and if you think about it it is very realistic in most cases. Usually the one pulling the strings is a weakling who is good at manipulating people or is rich enough to buy followers, but in combat he sucks. That's why Mafia bosses hire goons and henchmen to protect them and exert force, because usually these leaders are fat old men who can't fight worth a crap.
Or what about a boss which is a giant metal robot and after you beat it this little man pops out of the wreckage who had been controlling it all along, and then you have to finish him off as the next boss, lol.
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: KDR_11k on January 05, 2009, 03:26:33 PM
I call 'em Gradius bosses.
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on January 05, 2009, 03:28:01 PM
Nintendo should quit making Zelda a man and have her be the lustful elf princess like in more popular Japanese genres.
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: Chozo Ghost on January 05, 2009, 04:07:19 PM
Nintendo should quit making Zelda a man and have her be the lustful elf princess like in more popular Japanese genres.
I agree. The sad thing is, the Zelda series does feature a beautiful princess, but she is never a playable character. Instead, you play as young Legolas from LOTR.
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: Nick DiMola on January 05, 2009, 04:08:07 PM
Does Zelda need to change?
No
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: King of Twitch on January 05, 2009, 04:51:30 PM
YOU WANT HER TO WEAR THE SAME CLOTHES EVERY DAY? GROSS
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on January 05, 2009, 05:06:55 PM
She's the Sage of Stench.
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: King of Twitch on January 05, 2009, 05:59:15 PM
Her triforce power is Pungence
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: Stogi on January 05, 2009, 06:18:19 PM
What are you talking about? Her poop probably smells like cupcakes.
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: stevey on January 05, 2009, 06:19:05 PM
In one year all of you will be bitching about how Zelda changed too much and how much you all hate the concept of the female hero and the new FPA co-op gameplay and the hidden hawtness minigame.
Mark my words! The Legend of Zelda:The adventure of Malon and Girl Link is coming!
Repent now, for it is good!
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: Dirk Temporo on January 06, 2009, 09:04:48 PM
Yes, f***ing yes. Goddamn. I posted this on another forum, which drew a lot of ire from butthurt fanboys, but to hell with them. Playing the same game over and over and over again is NOT fun.
A. Either change the time period it's set in, or get the **** out of Hyrule. The only thing I liked about Majora's Mask was the fact that it WASN'T in Hyrule, because I'M FUCKING SICK OF HYRULE. Also, that was one of the reasons I loved Wind Waker. B. Voice acting, dear god. It's 2008, and may very well be 2010 by the time the next Zelda comes out. There is NO EXCUSE for no voice acting. C. Something NEW and INTERESTING for Link. Maybe give him an axe instead of a sword, or a polearm or something. Give him a musket instead of a bow. ANYTHING. D. On second thought, even better than C, have Link NOT be the main character. Either have him not in the game, or maybe be old and wise, and act as a sort of mentor for the main character.
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: nitsu niflheim on January 06, 2009, 10:42:31 PM
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: Chozo Ghost on January 06, 2009, 10:49:00 PM
One thing they could do with the Zelda franchise is have it set in the realm of the Twili where Midna and Zant and all those dark beings come from. Its a whole other parallel dimension which could probably make a cool game where you play directly as Midna or maybe some Twili equivalent of Link.
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on January 06, 2009, 10:53:33 PM
B. Voice acting, dear god. It's 2008, and may very well be 2010 by the time the next Zelda comes out. There is NO EXCUSE for no voice acting.
No. I can name ten to fifteen games off the top of my head that have been ruined by bad voice acting, and I don't want Zelda to be on of them. However, Animal Crossing-esque gibberish (like Midna had) would probably be an improvement.
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: Michael8983 on January 07, 2009, 12:17:07 AM
I think SOME voice acting would be appropriate. There was a lengthy scene in Twilight Princess where the Princess herself literally silently mouthed the words along with the text. It was absolutely ridiculous. Link should NEVER talk and most of the characters in the game should stick to text but when a major supporting character has a lengthy, dramatic speech in a cut-scene I do think quality voice-acting would really add to the mood.
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: Mikintosh on January 07, 2009, 12:48:39 AM
I think SOME voice acting would be appropriate. There was a lengthy scene in Twilight Princess where the Princess herself literally silently mouthed the words along with the text. It was absolutely ridiculous. Link should NEVER talk and most of the characters in the game should stick to text but when a major supporting character has a lengthy, dramatic speech in a cut-scene I do think quality voice-acting would really add to the mood.
But that doesn't work. Either they all talk (except Link), but none of them do. I think this was simpler back in the N64 days, when they didn't show the characters mouths moving. I'm sorry, but I just find nearly all voice acting in video games incredibly cheesy (the exceptions being the Halo series, some anime-based games, and Portal, possibly Kingdom Hearts), and Zelda's mix of modern day dialogue and old English would make the series sound like the dialogue from the Star Wars prequels, and no one wants that.
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: ThePerm on January 07, 2009, 01:41:43 AM
why not do a non zelda zelda game, call it Mystical Ninja or something
i like the continent ideas, and the underwater city ideas. I think they should implement a more Castle Crasher like system for leveling up. The more fights your in that end in an enemy's death the more experience you get..nothing like turn based bullshit though. After you beat a level you get to pick which part of your character you want to update.
And weapons...lots of weapons! Link needs a lot of weapons to screw around with. Links main weapons have always been: Sword, Bow, Stick, Slingshot, boomerang, Grappling Hook. If they can add like different versions of those weapons to earn then they've just improved the game tremendously. There iss usually two different weapons for say the hookshot or a couple of different arrows for the bow. What if they had like ten different bows to earn, bunches of different swords, boomerangs that do different things, grappling hooks that have ever increasing distances or surface attaching ability, different shields, more different armor(i was so disappointed in the third armor on tp)
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: KDR_11k on January 07, 2009, 06:46:43 AM
B. Voice acting, dear god. It's 2008, and may very well be 2010 by the time the next Zelda comes out. There is NO EXCUSE for no voice acting.
Be careful what you wish for. Viddeogames (especially from Japan) are known for having voice acting so bad you'll want to stab yourself. Also Nintendo is very lazy, voice acting will remain in English for all other territories and people will wonder why.
More weapons, more RPG, etc isn't really what I think Zelda needs, it just needs equipment that feels fresh again (either by having a PH-like mechanics change that makes them act in new ways or just different equipment). Of course fresh equiopment also means it shouldn't just be a "sprite swap" for old equipment (e.g. hookshot and grapple hook are effectively the same thing as would anything else be if it was used to aim at spots on walls and attach to them). That along with levels that feel fresh again. New ideas in the content. OOT wasn't really better than later Zeldas but it's regarded highly because it changed so many things about the game that the feeling of surprise was strong. Wind Waker reused many parts of OOT and TP was pretty much a remake (it had new mechanics like the wolf but the result felt the same anyway). TP was way higher quality and such but since there was little feeling of surprise the game was generally considered weaker. Exploration doesn't really work when you already know what's behind the corner...
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: Stogi on January 07, 2009, 08:05:21 AM
Quote
Exploration doesn't really work when you already know what's behind the corner...
That sums my feelings up perfectly. That's why I proposed what I did, not because of the quality of the idea, but rather because it would put in place a system that allows for surprises behind every corner!
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: KDR_11k on January 07, 2009, 08:59:07 AM
Dunno, I don't think of it as exploration if the story tells me to go around that corner...
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: Stogi on January 07, 2009, 09:24:40 AM
The balance can be made easily. The story can tell you to go find something, but not tell you where it is. It actually doesn't even have to tell you what to find either.
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: Spak-Spang on January 07, 2009, 10:15:55 AM
Zelda does not need to change. The core gameplay and design are brilliant.
All it needs is some a coat a fresh paint and refining of the experience.
1)Begin with making the traditional Zelda puzzles more complex. Instead of just using 1 item to solve puzzles, why not create dungeons that require you to use all the items you have acquired throughout your adventure to solve...and some puzzles requiring multiple items to solve. Something more like Zach and Wiki (but not that extreme) would be nice.
2)More fluid fighting. Link needs to become much more aggressive and fluid as a fighter...look at games like Prince of Persia...there is no reason why we can't have more diversity in attacks...without making the game too complex in button mashing. Also, the items need to be more flexible while attacking.
3)New Environments and new items. An underwater City would be amazing...but what about exploring more lavish Goron environments with a Lord of the Rings style underground city. Finally, with these new environments try to put some history into them...perhaps the ruins of a dungeon held a great battle and the landscape is still scarred by the battle. Perhaps a lost temple is covered completely by vines and plant life....or the Dungeon boss escaped and tore up the place. I mean if Metroid can have atmospheric environments that tell a story so should Zelda.
What needs to change is presentation...everything else is perfect still.
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: Nick DiMola on January 07, 2009, 10:19:49 AM
What Spak said.
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: Stogi on January 07, 2009, 10:33:06 AM
While I agree, I still feel that it needs more than just better puzzles and atmosphere.
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: Bill Aurion on January 07, 2009, 10:53:40 AM
Quote
A. Either change the time period it's set in, or get the **** out of Hyrule. The only thing I liked about Majora's Mask was the fact that it WASN'T in Hyrule, because I'M FUCKING SICK OF HYRULE. Also, that was one of the reasons I loved Wind Waker.
Considering the locations change and don't have any real comparison to other games, this complaint is moot...
Quote
B. Voice acting, dear god. It's 2008, and may very well be 2010 by the time the next Zelda comes out. There is NO EXCUSE for no voice acting.
Ugh, get out presentation nerd...Voice-acting is the most worthless and least important addition to any game
Quote
C. Something NEW and INTERESTING for Link. Maybe give him an axe instead of a sword, or a polearm or something. Give him a musket instead of a bow. ANYTHING.
Yeah, uh, that's what his secondary items are for? I'd rather him carry around things like this (Ball-and-chain, anyone?) in his pants...
Quote
D. On second thought, even better than C, have Link NOT be the main character. Either have him not in the game, or maybe be old and wise, and act as a sort of mentor for the main character.
WHY NOT JUST MAKE A WHOLE NEW IP!?
Quote
Begin with making the traditional Zelda puzzles more complex. Instead of just using 1 item to solve puzzles, why not create dungeons that require you to use all the items you have acquired throughout your adventure to solve...and some puzzles requiring multiple items to solve. Something more like Zach and Wiki (but not that extreme) would be nice.
I'm sure that's something the Zelda team has trouble with, considering they have to find a perfect balance in puzzle difficulty...Remember, it's not just a game for hardcore Zelda fans...
Quote
More fluid fighting. Link needs to become much more aggressive and fluid as a fighter...look at games like Prince of Persia...there is no reason why we can't have more diversity in attacks...without making the game too complex in button mashing. Also, the items need to be more flexible while attacking.
Ehhhh...I don't like the comparison to Prince of Persia, but from Twilight Princess you can see that they HAVE been expanding the combat...I'm not really sure what you mean by "fluid"...
I feel the mechanics in every Zelda game change enough that it's still worth going back and playing each and every one of them...That is, unless you think that the sailing in Wind Waker is comparable to the wolf mechanics in Twilight Princess, or that the dimension-shifting in Link to the Past is the same as the season-changing in Oracle of Seasons, etc, etc...Really the only things that stay the same are the main characters (or rather, just Link sometimes), the battling (which is still being shaken up enough to stay fresh), and the "find a new item in a dungeon to take the boss on with" mechanic, which should NEVER be gotten rid of because it's a Zelda staple...Obviously new items and environments will appear, and gameplay mechanics will obviously change a bit considering the Zelda team will utilize the functions of the Wiimote...No, Zelda does NOT need voice-acting, anyone who says so needs to just go sit their ass in front of a movie like Metal Gear Solid 4...No, Zelda does NOT need orchestrated music, midi is just fine...No, Zelda does NOT need to be set in some far-off land, considering the environments are different enough in every game ANYWAY (even if they are supposedly the same Hyrule)...
In the end, the game just needs to be fun, which the Zelda team has never had a problem doing...Looking forward to what they come up with next...
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: EasyCure on January 07, 2009, 11:27:08 AM
I agree with some of the things Bill said but there's a few I don't, but mainly because he's coming off as an angry fanboy (not that theres anything wrong with that).
When someone says maybe link shouldn't be the main character and you 'shout' that they might as well make a new IP, I don't find that fair really. I don't know who was quoted there, but perhaps you should get more ideas out of them before outright dismissing them.
Why couldn't Nintendo make a Zelda game where Link wasn't the main character? That doesn't mean Link won't be in it in some way, so why should this idea be discarded. Maybe the poster that suggested it meant something else, perhaps why not change up who Link is. Whether you're the fanboy that thinks theres a timeline or the ones that think timeline doesnt matter because the Legend of Zelda is a re-telling of the same tale everytime, we all agree on one thing: Link is the embodiment of The Hero, right? Does that mean he always has to have the green tunic though? The way I see it, both WW and TP would of felt exactly the same if you played the game with Link in his PJ's/Rancher outfits respectively.
In that one aspect, I feel you're the one being close minded here. When it comes to things like voice acting though.. that i agree with. I still remember the first time i played MegaMan 8 and finally heard Mega Man talk... my heart still hurts from that :( /sigh
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: Bill Aurion on January 07, 2009, 11:36:35 AM
When someone says maybe link shouldn't be the main character and you 'shout' that they might as well make a new IP, I don't find that fair really. I don't know who was quoted there, but perhaps you should get more ideas out of them before outright dismissing them.
Why couldn't Nintendo make a Zelda game where Link wasn't the main character? That doesn't mean Link won't be in it in some way, so why should this idea be discarded.
I don't mind playing as another character for a short period of time (like we did as Medli and Makar in Wind Waker), but completely negating Link would be like making a Mario game where you don't play as Mario...In the end, all you are really doing is exchanging a character model, and it doesn't (or rather, shouldn't) change the gameplay, so it's a pointless attempt to feel "fresh"...
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: Nick DiMola on January 07, 2009, 11:50:10 AM
I'd still love to see a side game where you play as Ganondorf.
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: EasyCure on January 07, 2009, 12:03:07 PM
When someone says maybe link shouldn't be the main character and you 'shout' that they might as well make a new IP, I don't find that fair really. I don't know who was quoted there, but perhaps you should get more ideas out of them before outright dismissing them.
Why couldn't Nintendo make a Zelda game where Link wasn't the main character? That doesn't mean Link won't be in it in some way, so why should this idea be discarded.
I don't mind playing as another character for a short period of time (like we did as Medli and Makar in Wind Waker), but completely negating Link would be like making a Mario game where you don't play as Mario...In the end, all you are really doing is exchanging a character model, and it doesn't (or rather, shouldn't) change the gameplay, so it's a pointless attempt to feel "fresh"...
Well the difference between Mario and Link is that Mario is always the same mario but link is never really the same link. A different setting with a different character (named Link or not) would make things feel fresh, if only on ONE level. I'll admit that alone this would be a "pointless attempt" but mixed with other elements, like new additions to gameplay (and yes, while keeping familiar ones that make Zelda, Zelda) it would indeed be fresh. As is, though, its at least a start.
I know many fans have thought about a Zelda game where you control Princess Zelda (or her as Sheik) but would it really be significant if all she did was shoot arrows, use bombs, and toss boomerangs? Nope, you'd have to change the gameplay too (in her case use magic and/or acrobatics) so why wouldn't a new Link be any different?
I'm done now though, since I have no idea what Dirk meant when he said what he did. If he meant new character with same setting, then I'm with you Bill. I was just arguing for arguments sake :)
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: Spak-Spang on January 07, 2009, 12:05:48 PM
Bill: I agree that the series has been moving in the right direction.
Combat has been expanded each game starting with Wind Waker.
Also, the puzzles have gotten more elaborate. But you don't have to make the puzzles more difficult to use more items. Take Twilight Princess using the bombs and then the Gail Boomerang to solve puzzles was brilliant.
Stuff like that.
Now, I don't want Zelda to go all Prince of Persia...I was using that as an example. I just feel that the combat can be enhanced more and more strategic.
I really don't care about making the world bigger or smaller...I just want it more dense with things to do...and for the land to change. Different enemies during different times and such. I felt Twilight Princess had too much empty space in it.
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: Bill Aurion on January 07, 2009, 12:21:09 PM
I really don't care about making the world bigger or smaller...I just want it more dense with things to do...and for the land to change. Different enemies during different times and such. I felt Twilight Princess had too much empty space in it.
Agreed on both counts, though I guess all the empty space in TP was needed in order to make the horse worthwhile...
More sidequests is always a good thing, though, so hopefully they think about that (and also bring back the classic trade quest, which was sadly missing from TP)...
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on January 07, 2009, 12:31:56 PM
That stupid horse would so get killed in the first Zelda, tripping over octoroks and getting assaulted by jumping crabs. Link would die after he falls off the horse and breaks his head on a rock.
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: Ian Sane on January 07, 2009, 01:41:48 PM
Quote
Be careful what you wish for. Viddeogames (especially from Japan) are known for having voice acting so bad you'll want to stab yourself. Also Nintendo is very lazy, voice acting will remain in English for all other territories and people will wonder why.
I agree. Nintendo is the only developer in the world who makes FMV look WORSE than the in-game graphics. Anyone who thinks they would pull off voice acting well gives them way too much credit. Let's not forget to have good voice acting one would have to hire actors and that would cost MONEY and we know how thrifty Nintendo is. That's part of the whole design of the Wii. Though when one asks for something they likely never mean they want it done poorly. So, yes, GOOD voice acting would be a nice addition to Zelda. But realistically I don't see that happening so I'd rather have none then to have embarassingly poor voice acting.
Quote
Considering the locations change and don't have any real comparison to other games, this complaint is moot...
So did you not play Twilight Princess then? Though I agree that the problem isn't Hyrule as a setting ("Hyrule" is but a name) but rather how Nintendo chooses to design Hyrule. In TP they stayed too close to OoT. If anyone doesn't understand what I mean keep in mind I played the Cube version which doesn't have the flip-flopped world and thus almost everything is in the exact same location as it is in OoT. They swapped Zora's Domain and Lake Hylia but aside from that you could figure out where to go using the manual from OoT.
Regarding not using Link I think that's a pretty dumb idea. But that doesn't mean you have to play as Link the whole time. When playing OoT and Oracle of Ages I liked how things you did in the past could have an effect on the future. I think the concept was only briefly touched upon in those games and there's tons of potentially to flesh it out further. One idea I had years ago was for the two time periods to be centuries apart but due to magic or whatever Link can communicate with a hero from the past. I figured this past hero could be the real Sheik (ie: who Zelda is pretending to be in OoT) and you have to swap between the two times (and thus the two characters throughout the game). The most basic situation often being that Link needs Sheik to change something in the past for him to proceed in the present. An idea like this allows for a different character than Link who might use a different weapon than a sword and have different items to work with. It provides a way to introduce ideas that might not fit Link all that well while still keeping Link as a major character in the game and thus maintaining enough of a traditional Zelda feel to not turn fans off.
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: KDR_11k on January 07, 2009, 02:14:35 PM
Screw fluid fighting, it just means more animations. 2d Zelda managed with one attack animation per direction and it worked better than 3d Zelda because it's more controllable, the enemy touches you or it doesn't, no defending (unless you attack from the side that has the shield which is also clearly visible).
While I do hate Nintendo's character designs (they were meant to be recognizable as sprites on the NES, stuff like Link's clothes just look ridiculous) Link is just the player's avatar, replacing him doesn't do anything, you'd still have a Link.
People always talk so much about making Zelda more grand and all that, I really just want something that feels like something new (and puzzles that aren't just "recognize which item matches the objects in the room and just use it until the room is cleared"). Also it's kinda boring when the game gets too easy.
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: EasyCure on January 07, 2009, 03:26:12 PM
I really don't care about making the world bigger or smaller...I just want it more dense with things to do...and for the land to change. Different enemies during different times and such. I felt Twilight Princess had too much empty space in it.
Agreed on both counts, though I guess all the empty space in TP was needed in order to make the horse worthwhile...
More sidequests is always a good thing, though, so hopefully they think about that (and also bring back the classic trade quest, which was sadly missing from TP)...
Yeah good thing they made the world so big and gave your horse purpose and no other, quicker means of transportation like teleporting that made the horse useless ;)
I've had similar ideas to what Ian described, although not with a "real" Sheik...what did i miss in OoT that mentioned zelda impersonating someone???
Oh and to defend (what was possibly) Dirks idea of a *new* character; I still don't see whats stupid about having an original character take the role of Link (whether s/he's called Link or not) compared to playing parts of the game with a character that isn't the green tunic/hat wearing Link...
If Ians idea ever came into fruition you might see a ton of fans liking the parts where you're NOT playing as Link better because of how "fresh and new the experience is" even if its in the "same old hyrule" everyone complained about in TP. You'd have one set of fanboys begging for some sort of spinoff game where you only control that other character while others (like Ian...) say it'll just be a watered down Zelda or that making a game based on soley that character would be nothing like what we had in Zelda because its not a Zelda game. So why not just make a Zelda game with a new hero or two from time to time?
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: Bill Aurion on January 07, 2009, 04:06:03 PM
So did you not play Twilight Princess then? Though I agree that the problem isn't Hyrule as a setting ("Hyrule" is but a name) but rather how Nintendo chooses to design Hyrule. In TP they stayed too close to OoT. If anyone doesn't understand what I mean keep in mind I played the Cube version which doesn't have the flip-flopped world and thus almost everything is in the exact same location as it is in OoT. They swapped Zora's Domain and Lake Hylia but aside from that you could figure out where to go using the manual from OoT.
Come on, the location names are the same, but the level design is completely different...There's really only a single area (the entrance room to the Temple of Time) that looks anything similar to its OoT counterpart...
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: KDR_11k on January 07, 2009, 04:09:50 PM
Sounds like the horse was a solution in search of a problem.
A new hero wouldn't change anything if the key interaction with the game remains the same. Whether Link or some hypothetical girl avatar uses the hookshot doesn't matter. Yes, there have been secondary statuses (not just controlling other characters but also Link morphing into a wolf or shrinking) but they usually had very limited interaction and were pretty much equal to one or two items in their impact.
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: EasyCure on January 07, 2009, 04:11:03 PM
So did you not play Twilight Princess then? Though I agree that the problem isn't Hyrule as a setting ("Hyrule" is but a name) but rather how Nintendo chooses to design Hyrule. In TP they stayed too close to OoT. If anyone doesn't understand what I mean keep in mind I played the Cube version which doesn't have the flip-flopped world and thus almost everything is in the exact same location as it is in OoT. They swapped Zora's Domain and Lake Hylia but aside from that you could figure out where to go using the manual from OoT.
Come on, the location names are the same, but the level design is completely different...There's really only a single area (the entrance room to the Temple of Time) that looks anything similar to its OoT counterpart...
Bill don't waste your time... He probably thinks the tiny lil island with the tree in OoT is too similar to the heart shaped rock that housed the Wishing Well in ALttP :p
OMG the Ice Palace (of the darkworld) is the same as OoT's Water Temple!
Sounds like the horse was a solution in search of a problem.
A new hero wouldn't change anything if the key interaction with the game remains the same. Whether Link or some hypothetical girl avatar uses the hookshot doesn't matter. Yes, there have been secondary statuses (not just controlling other characters but also Link morphing into a wolf or shrinking) but they usually had very limited interaction and were pretty much equal to one or two items in their impact.
Hence why it should be expanded upon(?)
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: Dirk Temporo on January 07, 2009, 04:42:56 PM
EDIT: Just because you're an ignorant fanboy, and you'll devour the same game over and over again just because it's Zelda doesn't make any of our points less valid. Zelda is tired, boring, and stale.
Also, last I checked, the game is called Legend of ZELDA, so I don't see why you're pitching such a bitch fit about having a different main character.
Oh wait, it's because you'll eat up any crap Nintendo decides to wrap in Zelda packaging.
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on January 07, 2009, 04:53:11 PM
GLORIOUS THREAD
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: Bill Aurion on January 07, 2009, 05:36:16 PM
EDIT: Just because you're an ignorant fanboy, and you'll devour the same game over and over again just because it's Zelda doesn't make any of our points less valid. Zelda is tired, boring, and stale.
Because voice-acting would somehow fix a "tired, boring, and stale" game, am I right? Yeah, sure...It's time for Dirk to stop pretending he plays games because of the gameplay...
And I love it when people fall back onto the "ignorant fanboy" argument...Talk about desperation mode...
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: Spak-Spang on January 07, 2009, 06:26:39 PM
I will say, GOOD Voice Acting can add to the game experience, if it is done right. As in Link not talk but others do. But, usually voice acting is needed for games with high action and team dynamics. Halo, Gears of War, Call of Duty, where you need voice acting to advance the story in the thick of a high action scene.
Thiis is really needed in a Zelda game...and remember if each NPC you run across has to have voice acting it will become costly, and eventually lower the amount of NPCs to interact with. No the gameplay needs to focus of Zelda instead of unneed "fluff" of voice acting.
I will say, I can't believe anyone could say the core gameplay of Zelda is stale...is it formulac yes, but so are all action movies and horror movies. What matters is how you execute the formula that makes it a good game...and proof of this is in the simple fact that only a few games have been able to capture the feel and magic of a Zelda game.
Could the game be placed in a larger and bolder story? Yes. I always thought it would be a great story to see the battle for Hyrule against the forces of Ganondorf happen before your eyes, while a young Link goes on the Quest of Heroes to prove he is worthy of the Triforce of Courage....and becoming the Hero of Hyrule.
This would allow you to have all the dungeons needed for the game, but also have the abiltiy to throw high energy cinematic action pieces iinto the mix (Like Twlilight Princess did early in the game.)
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: Ian Sane on January 07, 2009, 07:51:49 PM
Quote
Come on, the location names are the same, but the level design is completely different
For me discovery is a big part of the thrill of Zelda. Wind Waker's ocean might be dull but I was still on cloud nine every time I arrived at a new island and added a square to my map. Now I know the level design is different but that's not all there is. Once I realized how similar to OoT, TP's world was I was able guess what the sections on my map that I hadn't filled out yet were before I got there. Well that killed a lot of thrill. "The Goron city is going to be over here. Yep, I was right. I guess this will be the desert. Yep, I was right. This will be Lake Hylia then. Oh it's Zora's Domain! Well then this blank sport where Zora's Domain was will be Lake Hylia. Yep, I was right."
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on January 07, 2009, 08:06:20 PM
Legend of Rehash
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: Bill Aurion on January 07, 2009, 09:19:57 PM
For me discovery is a big part of the thrill of Zelda. Wind Waker's ocean might be dull but I was still on cloud nine every time I arrived at a new island and added a square to my map. Now I know the level design is different but that's not all there is. Once I realized how similar to OoT, TP's world was I was able guess what the sections on my map that I hadn't filled out yet were before I got there. Well that killed a lot of thrill. "The Goron city is going to be over here. Yep, I was right. I guess this will be the desert. Yep, I was right. This will be Lake Hylia then. Oh it's Zora's Domain! Well then this blank sport where Zora's Domain was will be Lake Hylia. Yep, I was right."
How is this any different from any other game where you are basically told where you are going next? Like a character will say "Coming up is the Desert of Foreboding Doom" or whatever? Regardless, even if you know a desert will be there, you have absolutely no idea what the desert will look like until you actually get there..."What kind of landmarks will I find in this desert?" "What kind of enemies will I fight? Or rather, what enemies would fit in a desert setting?" "What obstacles will stand in my way?" These sorts of questions pass through my mind when I'm about to reach a new area...I guess it doesn't work the same for you, but for me the suspense is just as tight as if I didn't know what was coming up at all...
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: IceCold on January 07, 2009, 09:30:49 PM
I like Spak's points, but I disagree with the "fluidity" of combat.. Wind Waker's combat system is incredibly fluid, just how Nintendo wanted it to be, to fit in with the toon shading and the atmosphere. TP's combat may have been slower but it was completely intentional - Aonuma himself said he wanted the players to "feel the weight of the sword" since the game had a more realistic direction.
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: Mikintosh on January 07, 2009, 09:35:28 PM
Yeah, the second I see "fanboy" in a post or comment, I immediately skip it because clearly that person doesn't have anything interesting to say.
I don't think the placement of the areas was the problem in Twilight Princess (which I thought was great, anyway), but multiple areas (the homes of the Gorons and the Zoras for example) seemed in there just to provide continuity to OoT, and while I usually love that, that meant that there wasn't as much "new" content as there had been in the N64 game. Majora's Mask had those characters in it, but the new setting led to levels that didn't seem overly familiar.
I wouldn't mind new equipment, but I like the classics that were souped up in TP. Go Gale Boomerang!
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on January 07, 2009, 09:40:24 PM
Someone recently mentioned to me:
"zelda topic is a pile of dumb and former zelda fans"
We can clearly see why Nintendo went casual.
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: EasyCure on January 07, 2009, 09:56:54 PM
Yeah, the second I see "fanboy" in a post or comment, I immediately skip it because clearly that person doesn't have anything interesting to say.
I don't think the placement of the areas was the problem in Twilight Princess (which I thought was great, anyway), but multiple areas (the homes of the Gorons and the Zoras for example) seemed in there just to provide continuity to OoT, and while I usually love that, that meant that there wasn't as much "new" content as there had been in the N64 game. Majora's Mask had those characters in it, but the new setting led to levels that didn't seem overly familiar.
I wouldn't mind new equipment, but I like the classics that were souped up in TP. Go Gale Boomerang!
i skipped this post because it said fanboy in it ;)
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: BeautifulShy on January 07, 2009, 10:18:02 PM
EasyCure asked me my stance on this topic while playing AC.
I really don't think anything needs to change.The Bosses in TP was great.My favorite aside from OOT, LTTP and LA . The combat was great. It took what Windwaker brought and expanded it in TP.I liked what TP did with items and the different types of weapons. Overall I liked the series up to this point.
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: EasyCure on January 07, 2009, 10:29:06 PM
I think the main reason everyone bitches about TP now is becuase of its repeated delays and eventual dual-system release.
Sometimes I wonder if the flaming would've been as bad if this was released in late '05 or early '06 before Wii's launch... I just feel like, even if people felt it was nothing more than a prettier OoT, it wouldn't of mattered so much because Wii's launch and all the games to come were newer and more exciting and just make us forget about TP.. Until the TRUE Zelda Wii title came out.
And as for all the people saying Zelda doesn't need to change AT ALL:
Look at how much Mario games have changed since the original. Every sequel is pretty much leaps and bounds above the previous title, yet still retains the feel of what makes it a Mario title. Wouldn't you want Nintendo to change it up a bit and still make it feel like a Zelda title, and be confident that it'll be on par with the likes of Mario Galaxy??
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on January 07, 2009, 10:32:18 PM
You can't be confident in any game Nintendo makes unless it's done by the Jungle Beat team.
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: Spak-Spang on January 08, 2009, 12:46:12 AM
Easycure: I don't know if Mario is a fair comparison...but for the sake of debate I don't think each Mario game has been leaps and bounds ahead of the other games. Look at Super Mario 3 and Super Mario World. Not much different. Super Mario 64 and Super Mario Sunshine...which many think was a step in the wrong direction. Heck Galaxy uses some amazing new technology but the core game is still basic 3D Mario. Nothing wrong with it, because the formula works and Nintendo really knew how to spice up the experience.
Now, lets look as Zelda. The first 3 Zelda games are completely different. 1 and 2 are night and day. The 3rd actually adds a real story and redefines the game play for the entire franchise. Ocarina of Time is basically Link to the Past in 3D....same basic story, but with 3D puzzles and adventure...it is a huge leap forward in the same vein of Super Mario 64. Wind Waker took the series into a completely new art direction and added sailing and a new combat system with dodging and counter attacks.
Truthfully the only reason Twilight Princess feels like a rehash is because Nintendo folded and gave its emo Zelda Fanboys its "mature" Zelda since Wind Waker wasn't good enough for them.
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: Stogi on January 08, 2009, 02:20:25 AM
I am actually warming up to the idea of a new main character. Yes, in a sense, this character will do basically everything that Link has done and more, but it still sounds fun. I honestly think for it to work though, it would have to be a character already presented or a new character in a different time.
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: KDR_11k on January 08, 2009, 06:06:14 AM
Wind Waker's ocean might be dull but I was still on cloud nine every time I arrived at a new island and added a square to my map. Now I know the level design is different but that's not all there is. Once I realized how similar to OoT, TP's world was I was able guess what the sections on my map that I hadn't filled out yet were before I got there. Well that killed a lot of thrill. "The Goron city is going to be over here. Yep, I was right. I guess this will be the desert. Yep, I was right. This will be Lake Hylia then. Oh it's Zora's Domain! Well then this blank sport where Zora's Domain was will be Lake Hylia. Yep, I was right."
I just wish WW's islands were placed less predictably or had more interesting things to do (most were just empty rocks meant as locations for treasure spawns or the ghost ship). Then again I think PH fixed that. PH was awesome.
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: EasyCure on January 08, 2009, 09:37:39 AM
Easycure: I don't know if Mario is a fair comparison...but for the sake of debate I don't think each Mario game has been leaps and bounds ahead of the other games. Look at Super Mario 3 and Super Mario World. Not much different. Super Mario 64 and Super Mario Sunshine...which many think was a step in the wrong direction. Heck Galaxy uses some amazing new technology but the core game is still basic 3D Mario. Nothing wrong with it, because the formula works and Nintendo really knew how to spice up the experience.
Now, lets look as Zelda. The first 3 Zelda games are completely different. 1 and 2 are night and day. The 3rd actually adds a real story and redefines the game play for the entire franchise. Ocarina of Time is basically Link to the Past in 3D....same basic story, but with 3D puzzles and adventure...it is a huge leap forward in the same vein of Super Mario 64. Wind Waker took the series into a completely new art direction and added sailing and a new combat system with dodging and counter attacks.
Truthfully the only reason Twilight Princess feels like a rehash is because Nintendo folded and gave its emo Zelda Fanboys its "mature" Zelda since Wind Waker wasn't good enough for them.
Heh.. I'm debating for the sake of debating too. I actually LIKED TP and there hasn't been a Zelda yet I haven't enjoyed.
And on that note: Why isn't comparing Mario to Zelda fair? The way i see it it's damn fair because, like Nintendo's hardware theory, they "innovate then refine" every title and these two are no exception. They make some improvements while still retaining the same feel.
Pre-post edit to remove excessively long example of how both series have progressed (for the better) but Mario went above and beyond (literally) while Zelda remained in its safe zone
Know what, its useless to keep trying to debate this because the question really shouldn't be "Does Zelda need to change" because we know it will/is. It's always improved on the same gameplay (ie with changes to it) while still keeping the same "Zelda Feel" so as long as the next title has exploration of enemy and puzzled filled dungeons and loads of treasure to find all over, it doesn't matter what else Nintendo throws in because they've already clearly said its going to change.
The real question will only come after that title comes out; Was the change worth it/too drastic?
Oh and just to spite Mikintosh who (hopefully) has read up to this point: "ignorant Fanboy"
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: Ian Sane on January 08, 2009, 12:36:52 PM
Quote
How is this any different from any other game where you are basically told where you are going next?
I wasn't guessing shortly before I arrived at the new area. It isn't like "this guy told me to go to the lake, well I guess it will be Lake Hylia". Once I saw Karkariko Village, knew where the castle was and knew where the forest I GUESSED THE ENTIRE MAP INSTANTLY with the exception of Lake Hylia and Zora's Domain being flipped. I'm guessing like four dungeons ahead of myself. To me that was enough to completely kill the thrill of discovery.
I can deal with familiar locales like a forest or a lake or a mountain. I can deal with some repeat areas being "remixed" for the new game. But TP just took it too far. It was the same damn place. All I'm asking is that in future Zelda they not be so conservative with Hyrule or go somewhere else. Ocarina of Time's Hyrule has some similar elements with A Link to the Past's Hyrule but it still just does whatever it feels like. Nintendo shouldn't feel restricted into following pre-existing blueprints of Hyrule.
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: Spak-Spang on January 08, 2009, 01:05:16 PM
Easycure: I agree. The debate of if Zelda should change is mute...we already know it will.
The real question is what you posed will it be too much? And we shall see...I am just glad Nintendo is still creating games that I enjoy because without Nintendo creating games I would be outta the industry because Xbox 360 and PS3 has very little to offer me.
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: EasyCure on January 08, 2009, 02:03:59 PM
Easycure: I agree. The debate of if Zelda should change is mute...we already know it will.
The real question is what you posed will it be too much? And we shall see...I am just glad Nintendo is still creating games that I enjoy because without Nintendo creating games I would be outta the industry because Xbox 360 and PS3 has very little to offer me.
Now thats TWO things we can agree on ;)
What's everyones opinion on this:
What if Nintendo was using Links Crossbow Training as a template for a more action oriented Zelda shooter?
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: Mikintosh on January 08, 2009, 02:13:04 PM
Easycure: I agree. The debate of if Zelda should change is mute...we already know it will.
The real question is what you posed will it be too much? And we shall see...I am just glad Nintendo is still creating games that I enjoy because without Nintendo creating games I would be outta the industry because Xbox 360 and PS3 has very little to offer me.
Now thats TWO things we can agree on ;)
What's everyones opinion on this:
What if Nintendo was using Links Crossbow Training as a template for a more action oriented Zelda shooter?
It'd be thought of as an amusing side game like the first one, and people would still be waiting for the next "real" Zelda game. Can't reinvent the wheel when the consumers don't want it.
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: Stogi on January 08, 2009, 03:49:07 PM
Ok, we all know that Zelda is going to change. The question I posed makes you answer the why; why does it need to change?
Now I love TP; I've played it three times already, but even with all of it's inventions, it still felt "safe." That's why I think they need to do something really bold and really interesting like WW did for the style of Zelda (by far the best style yet).
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: Ian Sane on January 08, 2009, 03:50:52 PM
Quote
What if Nintendo was using Links Crossbow Training as a template for a more action oriented Zelda shooter?
The Zelda fanbase will crap on it and have every right to if it's being presented as the next "true" Zelda game and not just some spinoff. About half will buy it anyway because they regard fandom as some unconditional duty and the other half won't. It will sell better in Japan however and Nintendo will decide to continue Zelda in that direction as the amount of new Zelda fans that come on board will outnumber the amount of old fans that didn't like it.
If Nintendo is truly going to rehaul Zelda I think they're likely going to make it more like the 2D games but with a lower difficulty and with blatant hints telling you what to do. OoT was a VERY complex game. It let you do so much and we all thought it was great as a result. But that is a such a different design then Nintendo uses now. Link being able to ride a horse and assign three different items to buttons and certain items using a first person view and z-targeting and tons of sidequests and time travel and stuff like that is probably out. I imagine we'll have a fixed view Zelda (camera controls are complicated) which is more linear in approach. Complete the dungeons, win the game. You can explore the world but the freedom will be scaled back to make the objective of the game more obvious.
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: King of Twitch on January 08, 2009, 03:57:51 PM
TP safe? What about the snowboarding, dragon flying, field battles, boar-riding, dead Zelda.. ?
Or the bold, unprecedented Tingle-free experience?
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: UltimatePartyBear on January 08, 2009, 04:23:29 PM
Please get rid of the boats. Give Link a Dolphin so we can just Wave Race our way around the seas. Transitions between modes of travel should be seamless.
Anyone else remember the rumors that the horse in TP was really a shape shifter named Poseidon that was also the hawk and wolf? I loved that idea (even though I doubted it was true back then), and I'd love to see it done in a future Zelda game. Link apparently has to have a talkative companion, so it might as well be some sort of little whatsit that can both hide in his pocket stating the obvious and do useful stuff. It would even make a good excuse for lengthy overworld quests for new animal forms, such as a creature to ride across the sea.
Regarding a non-Link character, I just don't see that working from a story perspective, or at least not the way I see it. It's not simply always Link, but rather it's always the Triforce of Courage. The following is based on my own inferences from the games, and future developments could shoot it all down, but it's how I view the Legend of Zelda series.
The Triforce of Power made Ganondorf into an immortal evil godlike being in response to his desires, but the Courage and Wisdom counterparts responded to Link's and Zelda's desires to stop him. Since Ganon is immortal, Link and Zelda are reincarnated by the Triforce whenever he is close to regaining enough power to be a threat again. Zelda always reappears in the royal family because Wisdom dictates that that's the best place to be to get ready to fight Ganon. Link, however, always ends up someplace more "fun" due to the influence of the Triforce of Courage. It protects him, but by nature it pretty much has to put him somewhere where he'll have great challenges to overcome, or at least where he can get regular adrenaline rushes.
Now, since it's the Triforce of Courage's response to the original Link's wish to stop Ganondorf that drives the legend, it simply does not make sense for some other character to be the hero, or even do some of the work for him.
That's not to say you can't do more with the series than the usual Ganon storyline, as my favorite entries prove. For one thing, Nintendo could explore why the Master Sword already existed before Ganon appeared (if Ocarina of Time explained anything, I've forgotten it). It would even be harder to include Link in such a game than not.
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: EasyCure on January 09, 2009, 08:49:39 AM
Please get rid of the boats. Give Link a Dolphin so we can just Wave Race our way around the seas. Transitions between modes of travel should be seamless.
Anyone else remember the rumors that the horse in TP was really a shape shifter named Poseidon that was also the hawk and wolf? I loved that idea (even though I doubted it was true back then), and I'd love to see it done in a future Zelda game. Link apparently has to have a talkative companion, so it might as well be some sort of little whatsit that can both hide in his pocket stating the obvious and do useful stuff. It would even make a good excuse for lengthy overworld quests for new animal forms, such as a creature to ride across the sea.
Regarding a non-Link character, I just don't see that working from a story perspective, or at least not the way I see it. It's not simply always Link, but rather it's always the Triforce of Courage. The following is based on my own inferences from the games, and future developments could shoot it all down, but it's how I view the Legend of Zelda series.
The Triforce of Power made Ganondorf into an immortal evil godlike being in response to his desires, but the Courage and Wisdom counterparts responded to Link's and Zelda's desires to stop him. Since Ganon is immortal, Link and Zelda are reincarnated by the Triforce whenever he is close to regaining enough power to be a threat again. Zelda always reappears in the royal family because Wisdom dictates that that's the best place to be to get ready to fight Ganon. Link, however, always ends up someplace more "fun" due to the influence of the Triforce of Courage. It protects him, but by nature it pretty much has to put him somewhere where he'll have great challenges to overcome, or at least where he can get regular adrenaline rushes.
Now, since it's the Triforce of Courage's response to the original Link's wish to stop Ganondorf that drives the legend, it simply does not make sense for some other character to be the hero, or even do some of the work for him.
That's not to say you can't do more with the series than the usual Ganon storyline, as my favorite entries prove. For one thing, Nintendo could explore why the Master Sword already existed before Ganon appeared (if Ocarina of Time explained anything, I've forgotten it). It would even be harder to include Link in such a game than not.
See this is a major problem with Zelda when it comes time to discuss it. Because in game story lines became more prevalent in later entries, a lot of fans fill in the blank spaces with their own ideas and finds a way to add them into every Zelda ever. Maybe it's just been awhile, but please show me which Zelda clearly dictates that the reason our hero is always Link is because he wished upon the Triforce of Courage.
The only definite i can think of is the reason Zelda is always the Princess and thats because Zelda II clearly states that there are multiple Zeldas. The original one being the comatose one you're trying to revive. She was put under a wizards spell and to honor the slumbering princess, every girl born into the royal family is to be named Zelda.
UPB, you said that you based all that on your own views of the series so if it sounds like i'm ragging on you, I'm not. There are people out there that have these wild ideas and defend them to the death; like that Link and Zelda are brother and sister. Personally I like having some room in the story for my imagination to fill in, but when it comes to discussing something like this, it becomes hard when someone can't let go of their own assumptions.
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: KDR_11k on January 09, 2009, 09:16:09 AM
UPB, you said that you based all that on your own views of the series so if it sounds like i'm ragging on you, I'm not. There are people out there that have these wild ideas and defend them to the death; like that Link and Zelda are brother and sister. Personally I like having some room in the story for my imagination to fill in, but when it comes to discussing something like this, it becomes hard when someone can't let go of their own assumptions.
I'm not just making assumptions. I'm trying to read between the lines. Every time the events of a game challenge what I thought I understood, I rethink it, so I'm not completely opposed to changes to the series (you should have seen me when Lucas confirmed the Stormtroopers were clones, making volumes of Star Wars Expanded Universe material require ever more hackneyed excuses to still fit in the same universe; I gave up on reading the books instead). It would take too long and be really boring if I spelled out why I think the way I do (and you can't expect explicit clarifications in anything that comes out of Japan). To sum up my thoughts as concisely as possible, a Link and Zelda being around every time Ganon has caused trouble is either destiny or an impossible coincidence. If they make a Zelda game in which Link is not the hero, it throws the destiny possibility out the window and leaves us with no plausible reason for Ganon not to have already won. I think that would damage the entire series' credibility, and not as stories but as works the creators actually care enough about to not treat that way.
I'm okay with not being able to figure out a timeline. Even F-Zero has a more sensible timeline than Zelda. I'm okay with divergent graphical and even gameplay styles. At some level, though, there's a core that makes it the Legend of Zelda instead of the Legend of Some Other People.
As an aside, I actually would like for Nintendo to make the Legend of Some Other People because I'd like for Nintendo to use its talent without holding anything back to fit into an established franchise. I just don't get why anyone would want Girl Space Pirate Link in a Zelda game instead of Girl Space Pirate Somebody Else in something brand new.
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: ThePerm on January 10, 2009, 04:00:41 AM
I'd still love to see a side game where you play as Ganondorf.
yeah i would love a game called the legend of ganon, because his story is super interesting. His rise to power, his abuse of it. If a game was done like zelda, but from his perspective it could be really good.
For instance during the war in hyrule before link was born in oot, link's mother was driven into the forest(so says the young deku tree). Where she would die and link would be raised by the kokiri. Well, what about Ganon's role during this time? Link had a father..who was this? Does Ganon kill him?
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: KDR_11k on January 10, 2009, 04:17:18 AM
To sum up my thoughts as concisely as possible, a Link and Zelda being around every time Ganon has caused trouble is either destiny or an impossible coincidence.
Well, yeah, triforce. Then again "link" (you can pick his name after all) is just a random boy who happens to be of a certain lineage and Zelda is the name for every princess (not even necessarily considering Wind Waker, just the lineage seems to be enough) so there wouldn't be many times when Ganondorf could appear without there being a boy of the hylian soldier lineage and a girl of the hylian royal lineage around which would then take up the usual roles in this play.
Not having a real timeline helps the series IMO. That way there won't be any consistency errors.
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: EasyCure on January 12, 2009, 11:12:32 AM
To sum up my thoughts as concisely as possible, a Link and Zelda being around every time Ganon has caused trouble is either destiny or an impossible coincidence.
Well, yeah, triforce. Then again "link" (you can pick his name after all) is just a random boy who happens to be of a certain lineage and Zelda is the name for every princess (not even necessarily considering Wind Waker, just the lineage seems to be enough) so there wouldn't be many times when Ganondorf could appear without there being a boy of the hylian soldier lineage and a girl of the hylian royal lineage around which would then take up the usual roles in this play.
Not having a real timeline helps the series IMO. That way there won't be any consistency errors.
I feel that way too. I feel that if they try too hard to put things into a timeline, they run the risk of holding back creative ideas in story/characters just to be consistent to whats already there.
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: Stogi on January 12, 2009, 12:59:58 PM
I don't understand why Link has to be born with the Triforce. Why can't he find it? Or it "find" him?
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: Bill Aurion on January 12, 2009, 01:07:33 PM
Well as we've already seen (even recently in Wind Waker), Link doesn't HAVE to be born with the Triforce...And wouldn't "it finding him" mean that he'd be born with it? It's not like the Triforce is some sort of entity that can walk around...(Haha, just thought of a game where you'd play as the Triforce...)
Also, as seen in every game, his existence corresponds to some calamity that has come over the land...Yes, his character is a "fate" persona, and regardless of who you'd play as in a Zelda game, you'd still TECHNICALLY be the "fate" persona (aka Link)...
Which is why if you really want a Zelda-type game with new characters, you should start e-mailing Miyamoto about resurrecting StarTropics...
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: Stogi on January 12, 2009, 01:43:12 PM
"Finding him" doesn't mean he has to be born with it. The Triforce could be like the Master Sword, in that only Link can obtain it and thus "finds him" by weeding out all those rest.
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: Bill Aurion on January 12, 2009, 01:46:33 PM
That's a pretty round-about way of saying "Link goes to find the Triforce"... (http://i212.photobucket.com/albums/cc48/BillAurion/Assorted/hmmm-1.gif)
Not to mention that the Triforce isn't something that is exclusive to any one person...Link, Zelda, and Ganondorf have been born with it in some games, yes, but they can also be stolen or used by others as well...
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: EasyCure on January 12, 2009, 01:58:44 PM
That's a pretty round-about way of saying "Link goes to find the Triforce"... (http://i212.photobucket.com/albums/cc48/BillAurion/Assorted/hmmm-1.gif)
Not to mention that the Triforce isn't something that is exclusive to any one person...Link, Zelda, and Ganondorf have been born with it in some games, yes, but they can also be stolen or used by others as well...
Let Link kill Ganon and take the Triforce of Power already and have him turn into some permanent Oni-Link just more badass. ;)
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: UltimatePartyBear on January 12, 2009, 05:08:35 PM
Well as we've already seen (even recently in Wind Waker), Link doesn't HAVE to be born with the Triforce...And wouldn't "it finding him" mean that he'd be born with it? It's not like the Triforce is some sort of entity that can walk around...(Haha, just thought of a game where you'd play as the Triforce...)
Also, as seen in every game, his existence corresponds to some calamity that has come over the land...Yes, his character is a "fate" persona, and regardless of who you'd play as in a Zelda game, you'd still TECHNICALLY be the "fate" persona (aka Link)...
Which is why if you really want a Zelda-type game with new characters, you should start e-mailing Miyamoto about resurrecting StarTropics...
This. This is what I was trying to say. The Link-Triforce... link is predestined whether Link is born with it, goes to find it, or trips over it on the way to the store. You can name Link anything you want, yes, and every princess is supposedly named Zelda (depending on when in the nonexistant timeline that's supposed to have happened), yes, but we're still talking about a predestined struggle between Ganon and other bearers of the Triforce. That's the Legend of Zelda.
Side stories can work in the series, and often work very well (my theory is that it's because it frees the developers from the constraints of the main series, which is why I want to see them cut free completely sometimes), but they have to fit into the Legend.
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: Stogi on January 12, 2009, 05:21:31 PM
I think Link after having defeated Ganon can go on to do almost anything. MM proved that. Sure it fits in the Legend, but Link isn't ANYTHING without the Triforce.
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: Adrock on January 12, 2009, 06:00:19 PM
The only way for Zelda to make any sense in a timeline would be if Nintendo restarted the entire franchise and planned a coherent series of events because the current history of Hyrule, as it stands, is an irreparable mess. Only Ocarina of Time, Majora's Mask, Wind Waker and Phantom Hourglass are directly tied to each other in any meaningful way. Every other game either contradicts something else, retcons significant established facts, makes no sense, or doesn't fit anywhere/can fit anywhere. How do you reconcile a history that is constantly being altered without any care for continuity?
Now I'm not advocating restarting the entire series (though I'm certainly open to the idea) so don't take this as a debate starter. I simply view most Zelda games as separate entities outside of a flowing timeline because there's very little continuity. It's easier than trying to make sense of a storyline that Nintendo spent very little time constructing. Gameplay first, everything else second... I get it. Just don't expect me to trying to figure out what Nintendo probably hasn't. It's just not worth the effort.
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: Ian Sane on January 12, 2009, 06:10:57 PM
Quote
The only way for Zelda to make any sense in a timeline would be if Nintendo restarted the entire franchise and planned a coherent series of events because the current history of Hyrule, as it stands, is an irreparable mess. Only Ocarina of Time, Majora's Mask, Wind Waker and Phantom Hourglass are directly tied to each other in any meaningful way. Every other game either contradicts something else, retcons significant established facts, makes no sense, or doesn't fit anywhere/can fit anywhere. How do you reconcile a history that is constantly being altered without any care for continuity?
I agree. In fact I think when Nintendo started trying to tie it in is when they f*cked it all up. It used to be that the games came in pairs and those games would be direct sequels but any connection to the rest of the series would just be a few subtle hints. The fans pretty much came up with something themselves which was pretty good and didn't have too many inconsistencies. Wind Waker was the first time Nintendo tried to directly link the gams together and it completely goofed the whole thing up. Going all Waterworld on us and telling us fishmen evolved into birdmen in about a century made it impossible to logically connect any of the other games to the series except the N64 games. Having a major history altering event like a flood is a pretty, well, STUPID thing to throw in because you can't explain it away if it doesn't fit into the existing world. I now just don't pay any attention to the Zelda storyline beyond the current game I'm playing though.
So yeah Nintendo would have to start fresh or retcon any game involving the flood out of the series. But they don't care so I pretty much can't care. They give me no reason to.
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: Bill Aurion on January 12, 2009, 06:19:08 PM
Going all Waterworld on us and telling us fishmen evolved into birdmen in about a century made it impossible to logically connect any of the other games to the series except the N64 games.
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: Stogi on January 12, 2009, 06:21:15 PM
How in God's name did you find a screen cap so quickly?
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: Bill Aurion on January 12, 2009, 06:22:20 PM
Because the issue popped up so many freaking times that I played through the game a couple years back just to find that quote so I could save it for future arguments... =)
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: Kairon on January 12, 2009, 06:39:50 PM
So yeah Nintendo would have to start fresh or retcon any game involving the flood out of the series. But they don't care so I pretty much can't care. They give me no reason to.
Yeah, and I hope it stays that way. This is a LEGEND, and legends change with each retelling. It shouldn't be tied down to continuity or story or anything concrete like that, Nintendo's ability to reinvent and mutate their games time and time again, coming up with fresh takes to keep the fans entertained, is absolutely dependent on that not being tied down, in my opinion.
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: Ian Sane on January 12, 2009, 07:34:39 PM
Quote
I'm sick of correcting this misconception
Well evolution from fish to bird in no more than 999 years still suggests the scientific knowledge of a first grader but I was wrong about 100 years. To me the problem is really more that Nintendo thought putting a great cataclysm in the middle of the Zelda timeline was a great idea.
After doing five minutes of research apparently the explanation is there are two parallel timelines based on Link's time travel in OoT. Gee, that's not confusing at all. And if Link suceeded then why would any timeline where he didn't defeat Ganon exist?
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on January 12, 2009, 08:09:21 PM
=D
Link only succeeded in the 7 yr future. That GANNON was sealed.
Past GANNON was still running around while Link and Zelda were discovering the joys of playing house. Those kids got killed. GANNON was sealed in the Twilight Realm later by the faceless FAIL SAGES.
Makes perfect sense.
=D
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: Stogi on January 12, 2009, 08:19:33 PM
*head explodes*
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: Kairon on January 12, 2009, 08:23:22 PM
Link only succeeded in the 7 yr future. That GANNON was sealed.
Past GANNON was still running around while Link and Zelda were discovering the joys of playing house. Those kids got killed. GANNON was sealed in the Twilight Realm later by the faceless FAIL SAGES.
Makes perfect sense.
=D
Are you trying to get Gannon-banned? &P I keed I keeed.
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: Bill Aurion on January 12, 2009, 08:34:09 PM
Well evolution from fish to bird in no more than 999 years still suggests the scientific knowledge of a first grader but I was wrong about 100 years. To me the problem is really more that Nintendo thought putting a great cataclysm in the middle of the Zelda timeline was a great idea.
Seems kinda silly to try and attach a real-world theory like evolution and attach it to a videogame where magic exists, don't you think? You also need to consider that they didn't evolve wings, they are given them by Valoo (the dragon)...
And AT THE MOMENT, yeah, the flood is kind of confusing...But come on, you are acting as if there won't be more games that could fit into that gap Wind Waker left...The Master Sword was left at the bottom of the ocean, and it'll have to be retrieved at some point, for example...But in the end all the throwbacks are for the Zelda fan's pleasure ("Oh hey, I remember that!", etc), so it's really kinda pointless to complain about a "timeline" that may or may not actually exist for the sake of really being a credible timeline...They are games that follow a series of legends (which by definition are "unverifiable stories"), so just enjoy them...
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: Halbred on January 12, 2009, 08:48:12 PM
It actually won't have to be retrieved if Nintendo actually goes forward with a post-Ganondorft storyline (God forbid). Nintendo has a real problem making alternate villains or storylines in their franchises. To wit:
Super Mario games: Bowser, always Bowser (except SMB2, which doesn't count) Star Fox games: Andross' huge space brain Zelda: Ganon or Ganondorf Metroid: Ridley/Space Pirates Kirby: Dark/Light Matter
Get some new canonical villains, Nintendo!
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: Bill Aurion on January 12, 2009, 08:56:31 PM
It actually won't have to be retrieved if Nintendo actually goes forward with a post-Ganondorft storyline (God forbid). Nintendo has a real problem making alternate villains or storylines in their franchises.
Really? Zelda has never really had this problem...In fact, it's probably the most shaken-up franchise Ninty has!
Legend of Zelda - Ganon Adventure of Link - Link's Shadow Link to the Past - Ganon Link's Awakening - Nightmare Ocarina of Time - Ganondorf/Ganon Oracle of Ages/Seasons - Veran/Onox/Ganon(only in a linked game) Majora's Mask - Majora Wind Waker - Ganondorf Four Swords Adventures - Vaati/Ganon Minish Cap - Vaati Twilight Princess - Ganondorf/Ganon Phantom Hourglass - Bellum
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: King of Twitch on January 12, 2009, 10:23:38 PM
Wii gamers can't remember Wind Waker anyways so might as well start over for TP2: Double the Ply
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on January 12, 2009, 11:10:19 PM
Actually Wind Waker will get ported in the new Playable on Wii series.
TP was the "last of its kind" (new zelda) so it obviously means Nintendo has quit making original console Zelda games for good!
Soon we'll get Adventure of Link Playable on Wii with stabbing motionality.
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: King of Twitch on January 12, 2009, 11:59:56 PM
Title: Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
Post by: Stogi on January 13, 2009, 12:52:20 AM
I think Zelda needs to change like this song changed the original meelody.
http://www.supload.com/listen?s=CWOR73
It didn't. Instead it added to it something more progressive that new users can easily identify while keeping the core as complex as ever. Still the end product is fresh and enjoyable to old and new alike.
/solicit
I know, I know, but I started this thread so cut me some slack here.
