Topic: Zelda: Does it need to change?

[Ian Sane]

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.

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.

[KDR_11k]

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.

[EasyCure]

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?

[Bill Aurion]

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...

[KDR_11k]

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.

[EasyCure]

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(?)

[Dirk Temporo]

Voice-acting is the most worthless and least important addition to any game

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

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.

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

GLORIOUS THREAD

[Bill Aurion]

Voice-acting is the most worthless and least important addition to any game

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

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...

[Spak-Spang]

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.) 

[Ian Sane]

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."

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

Legend of Rehash

[Bill Aurion]

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...

[IceCold]

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.

[Mikintosh]

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!

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

Someone recently mentioned to me:

"zelda topic is a pile of dumb and former zelda fans"

We can clearly see why Nintendo went casual.

[EasyCure]

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

[BeautifulShy]

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.

[EasyCure]

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??

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

You can't be confident in any game Nintendo makes unless it's done by the Jungle Beat team.

[Spak-Spang]

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. 

[Stogi]

GLORIOUS THREAD

I know right!

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.

[KDR_11k]

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.

[EasyCure]

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"

[Ian Sane]

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.