Topic: Zelda: Does it need to change?

[EasyCure]

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?

[Ian Sane]

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.

[KDR_11k]

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...).

[NWR_pap64]

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.

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.

[Luigi Dude]

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?

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

Link dies.

Play as Zelda.

[Ian Sane]

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.

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.

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.

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

yay another 5 yr game. AUGH

[King of Twitch]

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.

[Halbred]

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.

[Stogi]

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?

 

[Caterkiller]

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?

[Dasmos]

It's a shame that everyone is bashing on Wind Waker in here. It's undeniably the best Zelda game.

[Caterkiller]

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.

[Stogi]

I was actually very surprised at the lack of a water level in Wind Waker. You couldn't even dive!

[Chozo Ghost]

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...

[EasyCure]

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.

[Stogi]

Ya, but that's no excuse not to have a water level in a world filled with water

[Adrock]

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.

[KDR_11k]

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.

Things like that can't really be optional.

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.

[IceCold]

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,

[Shecky]

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?

[EasyCure]

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.

[Chozo Ghost]

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.

[KDR_11k]

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)