So basically, your proposal is "make zelda more like metroid" ;)

I do agree that putting most of the items in the overworld is a good idea, but putting players on more fetch-quests isn't.

I'm not sure I like the idea of smaller dungeons.  It makes the exploration aspect of the dungeons much less.  Dungeons are supposed to be mazes that you need to explore, with various different passages twisting and interconnecting, with you being able to see an area you can't reach right at the beginning but not actually getting there at the end.  Making the dungeons short would defeat the purpose.

It would be easy enough to put tests very early on in the dungeon that make sure you have the necessary items, or to let you enter and leave the dungeon at pre-defined points rather than only at the main entrance and exit.  Personally I think the latter approach is the better one.  Don't have more smaller dungeons, have fewer larger ones.  Dungeons would contain multiple items, and you would have to leave the dungeon part-way through, only to come back to it much later.

A possible solution would be to have even smaller mini-dungeons, which contain a single item, 5 rooms or less, a few enemies (including some specialized for the item), some puzzles to learn how to use the item, then a mini-boss that requires just that item to beat.  These would serve purely to give you items and teach you to use them.  Many of these would be available up-front, but others would need items to access.

You would get some items from characters, but those would restricted to mini-games, side-quests.  There would only be a few of these.  There be lots of side-quests, but these would be restricted to getting upgrades for your existing items.  So many if not all of your items would initially come at a basic level, but you could increase their power or give them new abilities by doing side-quests.  This would also allow for alternate ways to accomplish certain tasks.  For example, say you need to freeze something.  You could do the mini-dungeon for the ice staff weapon, or you could do side-quest and get the ice arrow upgrade.  To cross a large gap over a volcano, you could either do the mini-dungeon to get the Roc's cape, or you could do a side-quest to get you a longer version of the hook-shot.

The main dungeons would be larger than the existing ones, would contain multiple items, and like the mini dungeons would have mini-bosses dedicated to those items.  However, like in the game boy zelda games, after defeating a mini boss you would open a permanent two-way portal between the former mini-bosses  and the exit of the dungeon, allowing you to then leave and come back later.  This would also allow you to jump between different areas of the dungeon.

You could not beat a dungeon in a single go, you would need to leave and visit other dungeons (mini and full) to get items necessary to proceed.  The final boss would need multiple items to defeat, including ones from other dungeons and mini-dungeons, and likely you would be able to beat the bosses in several different ways.  A portal would automatically open when you reach the room immediately before the final dungeon boss, letting you leave to get items if you don't have everything necessary to beat the boss (it would also let you save and refill your health, so you could easily try again if you can't beat it).

That master dungion idea reminds me Spirit Tracks and that tower . Overall I like the idea of making it more open thats how it was in the original.


I like the idea of items not necessarily being in the dungeon, maybe you can buy some for a high price if your lazy to find it in the field or whatever. Bomb bag 400 rupees, or go find it yourself. I always have TONS of money in zelda games and not much to do with it.

One issue that occured to me that you didn't address is how the overworld is structured.  The 3D zelda games, for the most part, seem to have one large, open central area with other small areas branching off from that.  This results in a few fairly isolated area with limited, well-defined connections between them (if there are connections at all).  The central area is relatively empty and boring, with a few token enemies and fences and maybe one complex in the middle, but mostly empty space.  Travelling between areas is a pretty well-defined affair, you either go to the hub then go to another area, or you travel through a specialized passageway like big door or a tunnel.  There was never any doubt or ambiguity as to what area you were in, no transition zone that had some features of one area and some features of another.

Most of the 2D games, on the other hand, had a lot of interconnected areas with trees, hills, rivers, and other obstacles that prevented you from going directly from one place to another.  Besides Zelda II they didn't really have a central hub area that just served as a a way to get from one place to another, traveling directly between areas is just as easy and common as traveling through the center (except in cases like LTTP where you couldn't travel through the center at all).  They tended to have transition areas between environments, like a rocky area with some dry vegetation between the planes area and the desert area, or increasing density of trees before you get into the forest. 

I would much prefer to see a return of the 2D overworld model.  No more isolated areas, it is just one big world map.  There could still be a fire area, a lake area, and ice area, and so on, but rather than being fully separate areas, they would flow into each other, with numerous criss-crossing paths leading between them.  Many of these paths would need items to access or open, but once you get the necessary items moving between areas without going through the central hub area (if there even is one) would become the more common approach. 

The central area should also not be just a big open field with a building in the middle, either.  It should have a much more complex environment with large groves of trees, rivers with bridges, hills and cliffs, random buildings, valleys, and areas you can see early on but can't access until late in the game.  It should actually be an environment with things to do (in addition to a few token treasure chests), rather than just a way to get from one area to another.  It shouldn't necessarily be the fastest and easiest way to get from one area to another, it should be sufficiently complex, time-consuming, and dangerous to cross that players want to find more direct routes between areas.

The overworld would have to be a far larger place than any previous 3D Zelda game, in order to have many caves and other areas that the player would have to explore. I want the player to be able to go in pretty much any direction that they want right off the bat, like the original NES Zelda. I want to break away from a set path through the game, which is why I took the items out of the dungeons, it would allow people to go and get items in different orders.


Dungeons wouldn't really have a big build up to entering them, it would be like you find a hole in a waterfall, and on the other side you just keep exploring. Sometimes you might not realise you have transitioned. I would want this Zelda overworld to basically allow for a tonne of potential areas to find, so that there is more variety. Hence the Mario Galaxy association. Also a good example of a smaller more bite sized dungeon area, would be the Ice Cavern and the Well from Oot. Much more of that kind of stuff.

Nice article.

When it comes to games, if there's one thing I love doing, it's speculating on how to change Zelda for the better.

I really like your ideas about putting items in the middle of nowhere. One of the best moments in TP was finding the garden in which the Master Sword was just there. Sure you had to follow that imp dude and take him out, but that was fun and it never felt like a dungeon because it wasn't. It was pure adventure.

If I were in charge of Zelda...

I would get rid of all story elements. Instead, I'd make story elements another item to collect. Puzzles and puzzles pieces strewn about the land that give clues to what is happening and access to secret areas. For example, I loved in OOT when you got the Sun Song. It was so eerie and creepy, a perfect match for the little story that came along with it.

I'd also make the master sword the LAST item you collect. It always seems that after you get a few items, the master sword is next on the list. Why? If it is truly evil's bane, and the most powerful weapon you have, then why make it one of the first items you get? Is this King Arthur?

Also, if Ganon is truly taking over, why the hell is everyone always so happy? MM was the only game to actually show NPC's fearing impending doom. That was absolutely brilliant.

So let me summarize...

From the get-go, you are allowed to go anywhere. Passages maybe blocked off due to an item or two, but never because the story simply hasn't progressed yet.

Story elements would be taken out of the dungeon. You would find the necessary information to continue on to secret areas by finding clues and puzzle pieces throughout the land. You would be pointed in the direction to those clues by NPC's whom may or may not be fearing impending doom. So maybe you have to help them out first, e.g. NPC sidequest to adventure sidequest to story element to location of dungeon.

The Master Sword would be the last item you get. This would make the Master Sword awesome to behold for one, and secondly, you would actually have to spend money refining your sword or going on an epic Goron Sword quest.

Yes I also agree the graveyard area with the sun song was awesome. Much more stuff along those lines are needed. Storytelling should be about uncovering things throughout the land and through the various NPC's. I like your idea about saving the Master Sword till much later in the game.

For any videogame series if I was in charge I would start by deconstructing the series itself.  What makes Zelda Zelda?  It isn't completing three dungeons in one section and eight in the other.  It isn't getting the bow or the hookshot.  Those are all specifics.  The way I see it the core elements of Zelda is that it is a non-linear game where all interaction with the game world is done in realtime.  That is the basic gist of it.  You take those elements away and it isn't Zelda anymore.

The problem with Zelda these days is that they have made the formula much more specific so they feel the need to reuse the same stuff again and again.  If I made a Zelda game I would use Majora's Mask for inspiration as I feel that it turned the series on its head more than any game aside from Zelda II.  It only has four dungeons for starters which is a huge deviation from the norm and it does not take place in Hyrule.  Link's Awakening also does not take place in Hyrule and I feel that really adds to the creativity.  With a unique world you can put whatever the hell you want in it.

I like the games that have a good balance between dungeons and sidequests.  So what I would do is not be so rigid with what is or isn't a dungeon.  It isn't like we have them numbered 1-8.  There are areas you explore that effectively are dungeons but some are very short and some are very long and you never really think "this is a dungeon".  It's just parts of the map that are hostile vs. friendly areas like villages.  But it would still be straightforward so you would find an item in an area where it is clearly needed.  I think that combined with a new world that isn't Hyrule would do tons towards freshening things up.

Ultimately I think it would be the same formula but hidden in a way that isn't so rigid and obvious.  For the story I might just make it so that you need to find the five stones of power or whatever but I don't say exactly where they are.  Some are in dungeon-like areas, some are not.  It's never just a straightforward five stones in five dungeons and you get each stone after defeating each of the five bosses.

This is a subject I have so many strong opinions about, I could literally write an entire book on it. But I'll try to restrain my self and keep this as brief as possible. First off, Zelda games have gotten too linear in recent years, and there definitely needs to be more freedom but a lot of what  you seem to be suggesting sounds like it might going too far and crossing into Metroid territory-- it certainly shouldn't go that far. Besides, a lot of that is exactly what they've already been doing in more recent games to make up for the lack of dungeons. Instead we get stuck with unavoidable boring fetch quests which bogs down the game and slows down the story progression. The source of the problem is  too much busy work between dungeons in the first place.  If they combined a full set of dungeons with the same fetch quests, things would would be bogged down even worse.

Since Aonuma took over the series there has been a lot less dungeons and a new emphasis on NPCs and too many side quests-- and that just doesn't work in a Zelda game. What recent Zeldas have really been lacking is an emphasis on dungeons.  Don't get me wrong, I loved concept behind Majora's Mask. It was brilliant in its own right... but not as a Zelda game.  They should have reworked it with original characters and made it its own franchise. Presenting it as a Zelda game doomed it to be a failure.

The dungeons are the core of the series and what makes a Zelda game. And while NPCs and side quests are great additions,  but most of them need to be optional and they definitely can't be made the main focus of the game. OoT did it perfectly, after that they started going overboard.

Nintendo needs to look back at the original design and how it evolved. In the early days, there was little story and virtually no side quests.  The first game had a full set of nine initial dungeons and after that there was a second quest with nine more-- a total of 18 dungeons total. Starting with ALttP, they added in more story elements and side quests, while it resulted in less dungeons (three in the first quest, eight in the second), it made for better balance an overall better presentation. That same basic structure was continued in OoT, which is generally considered one of the greatest games of all time. It was a clear winning formula, so since it wasn't broken there's no need to keep trying to fix it. Go back to that structure and then just come up with a new story and plot device.

As for story, your idea of splitting up the Triforce's resting place sounds great and certainly could have worked at one point, but you're overlooking another reoccurring problem in recent Zelda games-- story redundancy. The origin of Ganon and the Triforce has already been told, expanded deeper, redundantly retold, and inconsistently retold again to the point of ridiculousness:

Ganon is a magical blue pig who used to be a human thief named Ganondorf who found the Triforce which transformed him and gave him his power.

Later this was expanded upon:

He got the Triforce by tricking Zelda and Link into opening the entrance to where the Triforce was kept. Link then experienced an alternate future where Ganondorf only obtained the Triforce of Power (whereas he had the full Triforce in ALttP) while the other two parts went to Zelda and Link, who battle and defeat him and ultimately seal him away in a confusingly similar way to how he was said to have been sealed away in ALttP's history, yet clearly not the same since here, there are only six sages instead of the seven, and they weren't all human either so they couldn't be the ancestors of the maidens from ALttP. This is soon proven to be the case as Zelda then sends Link back to the past where he closes the gate by returning the Master Sword while Ganondorf was still off in the Sacred Realm, thus preventing him from returning, instead allowing him to obtain the full Triforce but leaving him unable to return, which would lead up to the ALttP history instead, but apparently not before he ends up meeting some guy named Zant and causes more trouble.

Oh yeah, also:

Even though that other timeline was prevented, it still somehow existed and resulted in Hyrule being flooded generations later which apparently led to the Zoras somehow evolving into a birds and Ganondorf turning into a statue... But it's apparently not worth explaining, since it all takes place in a defunct timeline anyways, so we're apparently just supposed to ignore it for now and pretend it never happened (unless of course they change their mind try resurrect the idea in the future).

Clearly, Ganon's story has already been told to death. It's time to move the story forward, not complicate it more.

Considering Skyward Sword is going to be the very first Zelda in the timeline (I know, lol zelda timeline) that will tell the story of how the Master Sword was made, it's virtually impossible for Ganon to be the villain of this game.  Unless of course they do a Terminator style storyline were Ganon has traveled back in time to prevent the Master Sword  from ever being created.

See this just demonstrates the tremendous task that Nintendo has before them.  My attitude about Zelda is completely the opposite.  I feel that Zelda has gotten better as more sidequests and NPCs are introduced.  To me if you're just going to focus on dungeons it might as well be a linear action game with levels.  I find it annoying when some Zelda games towards the end just start going dungeon-dungeon-dungeon with no breathing room in between and my favourite games are the ones that go back and forth.

Nintendo has to try to please both me and Bman.  And they also have to try to please Nicholas who wants a more Metroid style design.  There are so many directions to go in and so many different elements of Zelda that different fans prefer.

Though none of us are asking for Ocarina of Time Part 2 or anything like that.  At the very least it seems that best thing for Nintendo to do is not be formulaic.  Whenever this topic comes up there are some many ideas presented and it shows that clearly there are a lot of fans that are not content with complacency.  So I think the best thing for Nintendo to do is to try different things and not get pigeonholed.  And sometimes individually we'll connect to a specific Zelda game more than others but if they try different stuff there is a greater chance of them hitting on something that really gels with you the individual.

Nintendo has to try something different.

You kind of just proved my point. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that your first Zelda experience was probably with OoT or later. If that's the case then obviously you look as the series differently than myself, who has played every game in order from the time they were released. If Majora's Mask were its own game instead we wouldn't be questioning which direction the Zelda series should go in based off it because it would be comparing apples and oranges.  Majora's Mask was a good game. Star Fox Adventures was a good game too, but it played nothing like previously SF game... for one thing it wasn't even originally intended to be Star Fox-related at all.  The end result was was terrible as a Star Fox game.  To someone whose first experience was with SFA and they enjoyed it, that person is going to want more of the same. That's where the problem lies. If SFA were released as Dinosaur Planet as it was originally designed to be, DP fans would be separate from SF fans. But instead, Nintendo wanted to cash in on SF64's success, so they stamped the SF brand on DP and look what happened to SF after that-- they tried to cater to bother audiences with Star Fox Assault and the series fell apart after that. If point is, if a game is part of an established series, it has to follow the traditions of its predecessors. If it strays too far away from them, it should be its own game.

I'd get rid of the fantasy/rural setting. Set it a modern day city. Dungeons could be office towers or warehouses or abandoned theatres or mansions in the suburbs. You could wander the streets talking to NPC's like hobos or fruit stand or newspaper stand merchants, or office workers on their lunch hours. You could ride a mtorbike instead of Epona or drive a car or maybe get a chauffeur instead of a fairy companion. Just shake the damn thing up.
(p.s., I haven't read the artcle yet, sorry)

And me!

I want it to be more like an Elder Scrolls game. The main plot should never feel forced. You should be able to get lost in the side quests and simply exploring.

How about adding some more overt steampunk elements to the franchise as well? That high fantasy stuff gets pretty boring after a while.

This thread shows the problem with the situation Nintendo's in: There is no way to please everyone. No matter what they do, a significant portion of the audience will be disappointed. Some people want more focus on characters and story, while others want the exact opposite. There's no way to win, which seems to me to be the likeliest explanation for why they've stayed so close to the formula.

I started with A Link to the Past.  But there were a lot of changes between the original NES game and that so your point still works.

See to me that's cowardly.  That's Nintendo meek "we'll make it watered down so it offends no one" attitude that leaves no one happy.  How about Nintendo just make the Zelda game THEY want to make instead of specifically calculating what will sell?  That's what artists do.

Aughhh nnnnno. Why are there so many dungeons in Hyrule? Has anyone thought about what a dungeon actually is?

Is King Daphnes like Saddam Hussein or something that he needs 8 or 15 or 20 of these things? What kind of guy hides magical items in old torture cells and guarded by giant monsters.... instead of using them to defeat evil? Why not tear them down and institute a more just penal code?

Maybe Gannondorf isn't such a bad guy if THIS is what Hyrule has to live with.

Exactly, I also feel that Nintendo used to not care about anyone else and do whatever they wanted. TP was where they actively tried to please people, and I think that they failed to make a game with any significant impact.

I agree that Nintendo should go back to its roots and ignore public opinion when making games. I seem to remember that a lot of people weren't too keen on the idea of a first-person Metroid game, and I know a lot of people were upset at the idea of a Super Mario Galaxy 2.

I like where you are taking your ideas for Zelda.  There are so many ways to change the concept of Zelda.


I really thought Twilight Princess took the right direction with adding story events to the game outside the dungeons. 


Personally, I want to see more of this...and I want a story that is happening AROUND Link.  Most of the Zelda stories take place before and after Ganondorf defeats Hyrule.  So you see 2 worlds, the world before war and the world after darkness won. 


I want a story where Ganondorf or his followers are actively battling Hyrule, and this farm boy stumbles into a battle and helps Princess Zelda escape.  The old priest believes that such heroics could mean he is chosen vessel of the triforce of courage, and sends him off on quest based on old legend. 


This story could have a lot of subplots and themes.  Doubt in oneself, the effects of war on the land, and what role does a hero have in the war of politics. 


How does this story change Zelda, for one the over world is constantly changing...there are battles to be waged, and Link can choose to partake in them or not.  There is also a feeling of immediate dread.  Instead of waking up to the nightmare that is ganondorf's reign on hyrule, you witness the death and destruction first hand.  You see your village destroyed. 


As for dungeons.  I still love the finding items and learning to use them in one dungeon design.  It is smart...but what I want is a build up of dungeon complexity...and boss complexity.  All dungeons should require to the player to use ALL items required up to that point, and bosses, should require MANY items to defeat.  Also, I would love for many of the items to be found outside the dungeons preferably having all items half way through the game, would allow the designers to create 4-5 dungeons that use everything. 


Finally, I can't stress how I would love new items and more than one function for all items.  I want to explore how to use items in this world, and find new ways to link item use together, to create combos, or chains of events. 

I agree there shouldn't be a set path through the game, but I also don't think it should be too open right away.  For me, seeing an area I can't reach yet is one of the big reasons to go find new items.  Without that I think you lose the whole reason to get items in the first place.

Doing both at the same time, however, is difficult.  That is why I suggested that there should be multiple ways to accomplish most tasks, and multiple items with particular abilities.  Players will still have to get new items to access new areas of the overworld, but there are multiple different items they can use in any given situation and thus multiple different orders in which they can access areas.  If you have maybe 3 ways of solving any given puzzle, and a large number of items, then the number of routes through the game will be so large as to be essentially unlimited.

If I were to make a Zelda game then the boss battles would be on a scale similar to the God of War series and Link's appearance would be customizable, among other themes from the Fable series. I would make Hyrule on the scale of Liberty City of GTA 4 and allow Link to have a greater integration into the world of Hyrule by making his actions have consequences. ''

For example, Link is brandishing a cloak or a cape and he is fight Moblins in the Dark Woods. He has to use his lantern to see and if he is not careful, he might drop the lantern in a fight, which causes  forest fire and damages a near by town. For the duration of the game Link is looked upon as an arsonist. He could also spread a bed bug epidemic via his tunic to other locations and therefore will not be allowed inside inns and even the castle itself.

My favorite Zelda is probably the very first one. (Although, Zelda II: Adventures of Link and Majora's Mask are close to the top, because they're so unique.)

Here's what I like about the first Zelda.

1) The adventure starts immediately. It really bothered me in Twilight Princess, when it seemed to take me hours to get a sword and shield before I could finally leave town and start attacking some enemies. I know games have more complex controls and stories that they'd want to introduce before letting you "out into the wild" now, but it's nice when there's at least a happy medium.

2) It's very non-linear. You can go to the third dungeon first if you so desire. You can even go to the eighth dungeon first. The only thing that's stopping you is that the enemies will probably kill you when you're lacking hearts, tunics that let you take less damage and weapons that deal out more damage.

3) There were multiple ways to get through a dungeon. You could often bomb through walls to find a shorter path. You didn't always have to use all the keys you found in that dungeon. You could use keys from one dungeon in another. And if you got stuck, you could even buy a key from a shopkeeper. Most Zelda games since then, there's not a lot of variety in how to beat a dungeon.

5) Dungeons aren't as formulaic. Maybe I'm not remembering properly, but I feel like some Zelda games, you pretty much always use the dungeon item to defeat the dungeon boss. Anyway, some dungeons had one item. Some had two. Sometimes a dungeon's only item wouldn't even be a weapon (ie. the raft or step-ladder). Some dungeons had NPCs in them. Sometimes they'd give you advice or even let you upgrade to hold more bombs (for 100 rupees). In the second quest, sometimes you'd be stuck with an NPC and either have to give up 100 rupees or 1 heart container permanently.  In the second quest, there's one dungeon where the boss is located in a completely different spot from where you collect the piece of triforce (usually located in the room after the boss).

4) No unnecessary boss keys. I feel like this element is here just to "add complexity" and time to the dungeon process... but I think it's really unneeded.

5) A little under half of the items you can get in the game aren't necessary for beating the game. But just about all of the items are super helpful. You don't really need the boomerang, but it's a really good item to have.

6) It's difficult enough where I'm afraid I might die. I never felt close to dying in Twilight Princess. I felt like the only "challenge" was figuring out where all the keys were in the dungeons and solving the puzzles, which felt more annoying than challenging. I can see how some people get frustrated if it's too hard, but... this is my list and I like when the combat is a challenging part of the game.

In conclusion, what I would want is: a game where the action starts quickly; non-linear game-flow; dungeons less formulaic, more ways of reaching the end of the dungeon, more variety, perhaps some NPCs within, no boss keys (or maybe just in a few dungeons); items having worth because they are useful in any situation, not just to beat one boss or solve dungeon puzzles in the dungeon in which they are found; and challenging combat.

I guess for my tastes, I'd like a little less puzzles. I like the exploration and action best, but all of these elements need to be there for a Zelda game.

Let's just admit that we're all screwed and wait, in bated breath, to see if we're screwed the least.

Personally still think layout wise the first Zelda was the best.  The areas where varied on the overworld.  The item you had to have was in the dungeon but you could almost do all the dungeons out of order it was just rougher.  Like Megaman, there is nothing stopping me from trying all the robots without there counter ability.  It was just hard.

I like having the items in the dungeons simply because it gives me a way to easily recognize what I'll probably need without just going out and telling me.  Though what really gets me about the new ones is having to finish a dungeon to open the next in a Zelda game.

If I have the item I need from the dungeon there is no reason I shouldn't be able to go to the next one.  Granted I won't have the health and other rewards from the last boss.  Which I would probably need if its the first time. The artificial gating in the newer ones is annoying.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Yes, I tackle the timeline...


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


*Hides in a corner

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


ALttP> LA
^
TP
^
OoT (past)>MM     

---
WW> PH
^
OoT (future)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Before Wind Waker came out and I was in a typical "what would I want to see in a new Zelda" brainstorm I thought of the idea of the world being so vast that you would need to sail to different parts of it.  But the important part was that I was thinking of going between a couple of large land masses.  Wind Waker lacks that "huge" factor because it's just little islands everywhere.

I would love it if you had for example three areas, each the size of OoT's overworld, that you need to sail between, plus a couple little islands.  But the important thing is that the game takes place primarily on land.  Sailing it just a small chunk instead of a main focus.

I also think Nintendo should go for broke and make an new pirate themed IP that uses Wind Waker as an influence.  There is a lot of potential in that.

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

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

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

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


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

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

The power of girl Link claims another victim!

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

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

Because Zelda would need to be a man?

Which might be interesting to see being saved.  I guess it could be a girl power thing and she could stille be a girl.

Ok now to actually read the latter parts of the article.

Latter part read.

When you get to reading the part where you explain the more agile Miss Link, lets face it Mister Link has never been the hulking tank either, what popped in my head was this reminds me of a game.  Prince of Persia... No... Sonic and the Secret Rings (great game when you get used to it shame on the sequel.)  Which as I said was a fantastic game in its own right.  Though it was fast pace by the need of that type of game play.

This is going to sound weird but being more God of War like with the mini-game system and slight events where she perform the scripted move is what I'm sure you where probably going for.  Maybe you were going for wiggly like in PN03 but I figure not.  Which I think would be very cool to the mini-game thing like GoW. In moderation.

I disagree about the Boomerang I believe it is as core to the series as the Master Sword itself.  While we're talking item change I think going through the multiple sword upgrades from the original where you had to grow in power and find them should make a come back as well.  Also I did enjoy the Grapple line from WW.  Fact there is a lot from WW that should be brought back like taking downed creatures weapons.  Though not the water... lord no...

Link being a girl would fit well into the established mytho.  It is a different hero being called each time so why not?  For that matter Zelda taking place in a world much like are own wouldn't really mess with the mytho just the flavor.

I don't think a Girl Link would change anything. If they wanted link to be more nimble, they would just make him so; for instance, they would use child Link. Making him a girl wouldn't change anything but his figure, but Link is already the girliest man ever and I would just see it as a poor attempt to grab attention.

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

Blob Link the ooziest link.

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

Gated Access is the fundamental game design philosophy of both Zelda, Metroid, Banjo Kazooie and Mario 64. To move on in the game you have to find the key. They key could be either an actual key or achieving a new item or learning a new move. You can't get into most Zelda dungeons unless you have the next item. Or even if you can get into them, you can't get far. This works really well and is why people feel like they've achieved so much after playing Zelda. However, after playing a few Zelda games it becomes painfully obvious what you have to do next. The other thing I noticed Nintendo does is they play with your choice making. Every once in a while you think your straying from the path when in fact they've tricked you and your actually doing exactly what they wanted you to do. Anyways, once you perceive all of this it feels like you can't make any choices in a game and it ruins your sense of accomplishment. To change this we still need to have an end goal, but we need to change the method on how you get to it. Thats why i'm in favor of redundancy. This allows you to make choices, and not only that it will make each persons individual game fit into a set of combinations. It would also be cool that by doing the game in multiple orders you got different endings(good endings)

Like using the Magic wand instead of the Candle in the original game?

Oh and yes its a very evil Country Club with no Horses.

Eugh, scripted moves are horrible. The whole "press button to not die" thing was fun in its RE4 debut, simply from the fact that even cutscenes were no longer safe. Then it just got silly. What I imagined with the extra moves was simply being able to do stuff like the backflip/sideflip/walljump type thing in Mario 64, just adding a few more nimble battle-evasion controls other than Link's current 4-jump list. I kind of agree that the character could be both male or female without changing the fundamentals at all - it still fits into the world, and I even contemplated the choice of player gender at the start like in Pokémon. For the purpose of the article, though, I had to think of ways it could change and/or improve the formula. Eye candy is not a valid reasoning :P

If this was the fun house and I was one of our other members their be a picture to accompany this.  What do you mean Eye Candy isn't a valid Reason?

Would you play Ugly Link to save Hideous Zelda?

If it added to the gameplay somehow, sure! Technically I already played as "Ugly Link" in Freshly-picked Tingle's Rosy Rupeeland, that game was so messed up, yet such fun.

I should play that game someday.

I like the mini-game break up of GoW, not so much the cutscenes ones.  I like it when you can get the job done without them but its cooler and faster to do it with them.  Also like the mini-game in Turn based RPG like the Mario RPG ones.

No, no, no.  Your other ideas are good but Link should never be a female in any capacity!  You want a playable female lead in Zelda make it Princess Zelda and give her her own game!

Nobody wants to see Link a female, or Mario or Megaman or Donkey Kong or Fox, etc.  I love Zelda games but I would never play one with Link being female.  A female main character in Zelda maybe but not Link!

Maybe a better scenario could be something like this: Link has a sister. At the start of the game you choose one. And whoever you don't choose gets captured (or something).

Still, I'd like it better with no female Link at all.

Ok I'm going to rally here but I think it be good for the Mytho if Link was a girl in one.

Also Zelda was a lead of a game before... *looks around* ... Why are there people coming after me...

Isn't that what Zelda II is?

Zelda is about Discovery
Mario is about Jumping
Sonic is about Gravity

Real Talk.

I was listing to RFN 148 and from my own experience with Zelda 2 and from hearing others.  Honestly think that Zelda 2 is the model all the 3D games are based on.  Think they have more in common with that then the first but, I also think after the Zelda 2 experiment Nintendo realized that:

1.  People love their items.
2.  The tech. really wasn't there yet to do what they really wanted to.

It is also the first time where Link really starts taking on some of his more female qualities, that is until Elvis Link (WW).  Jumping is introduced, more elaborate sword play, and non-item magic for non-villians.


I also say that Metroid is about Discovery and Zelda is about being a reluctant Predestined Hero.

That's not what Zelda is about at all. I can't find the quote at this time, but Miyamoto himself said Zelda was about adventure. I really wish I could find that quote because it was awesome.

Can anyone help me? It was about how he came up with the idea in the first place.

I thought about it, and I used to think Zelda was about adventure, but I think Discovery fits better. Metroid is about isolation, but I may revise that.

Metroid is True Isolation but Zelda is a lot of Isolation in a Crowd.  Link is never really ... close with anyone.  In TP it always felt as if he was duty bound more then anything and parting ways was unavoidable.

Alone in a group? Look at Olimar from Pikmin. Strange planet, nothing but enemies and dumb plant people he can't talk to.

I still put that in a different category because "...dumb plant people he can't talk to."  More akin to isolation by no choice.  Though I need to play through that game more to get a true feel.

Jumping in late, but who says Mario or Mega Man or Donkey Kong or Fox should be female? We all know they're male and there's no denying it. My prime reasoning behind the theory is that every game besides Majora's Mask, Phantom hourglass and Spirit Tracks has featured an entirely different person performing the role of "Link". If one is to believe that there is a timeline between games, that means there has to have been girls and babies and some kind of lineage passed down. Were the girls all just useless NPCs who never amounted to anything and thus weren't worth making a game about? That's kind of biased..

Malon's Quest: Rancher's Revenge!

Yeah, but unless the game were different in some way because Link were female, what purpose would it serve beyond merely shock value? While that's pretty much the whole reasoning behind Samus being female, it at least had an effect on the development of the Metroid franchise, whereas by your own logic this female Link would exist independently of all the other Links, and thus would have no significant effect on the series as a whole.

I googled female Link and got a bunch of dirty cartoons. I think there is a perv market for it.

Rule 34 and Rule 63 is a dangerous combination.

I think a female Link would finally put the nail in the coffin to anyone who thinks that between any of the games that aren't direct Sequels that they are the same Link.  Back to Link is a hero and being a hero is not bias.

As biased as it may sound, I'm not doubting the existence of some Link mothers out there.  I'm just saying, "Who really cares about them?".  I seriously doubt that whatever adventure they had to deal with before they gave birth to a Link is really that significant.

Also, eventhough there are many different Links, they all have the same defining characteristics (green tunic, long ears, swordsman, and male) and that's how most fans want him to remain and be depicted.  I've beaten every Zelda under the sun (made by Nintendo and Capcom), and I don't think I'm in the minority when I say, I'm not interested in playing as a female Link.

There have been different leading playable Snakes in the Metal Gear Solid series.  But if I had to star as a female Snake, I'd have to pass.  It was tough playing as Old Snake in MGS4.  Regardless of how the role of Link is defined gamers expect him to be male and would be resistant to a gender change.  You saw the controversy regarding Wink Waker's graphics when that trailer was first published, right?  I think a female Link would spark a similar response.  Bottom line and call it sexist if you want but a female Link will sell less...

If i was in charge of Zelda, I'd...... reboot the franchise. I won't get into gameplay and the whole "what makes Zelda" debate. In terms of storytelling, Nintendo has written themselves into several corners and they're just tossing darts at a plot-points taped to a wall at this point. We have 2 timelines and if that wasn't ridiculous enough, we now have 2 fucking Hyrules. Nintendo was so confused over where to take the series plot-wise that they actually flooded the original Hyrule and made a new one and this new one has magic train tracks. Bitch please!

I'm not saying Nintendo should have 10 minute CG cutscenes (no individual cutscene in any game should exceed 2 minutes besides maybe the ending), but if Nintendo is going to have a storyline, they need to hire some writers plan how the story (and canon) progresses because the plot does affect the game. Additionally, aking prequels and interquels really messes with a series's canon. Take Star Wars, for example. With Zelda, Nintendo has abused the timeline so many times that the plots of the games are more distractions than anything. As a player and longtime Zelda fan, I'm taken out of the game when something silly happens. I remember when Ganondorf shows up in Twilight Princess. Total facepalm moment. It wasn't even cool, more like, "Ganondorf again? Cheesus...."

Why not make Link female and black?

I would welcome a small, concise story line like MM. Anything bigger would probably get Nintendo in trouble like TP or WW.

In terms of story line though, the most important element to me is how the story effects the world. It seems like you are always doing something in secret that no civilian knows about. You defeat Ganon before anyone knows they were in danger.

I would like to see an almost vampire like situation, where people are so scared at night, they are hostile. Or as the game develops they become noticeably more afraid, weary, or frightened.

THen it be Castlevania etc.  Part of the charm of Zelda is the town folks are clueless.

But Zelda has already done it before, and exceptionally. Majora's Mask is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. You saw people transition to doom and gloom day after day. It gave a real sense of sincerity to the world.

I say just take that a bit further and make some of them a bit hostile.

Furthermore, it would be great if people later in the game knew who you were by the rumors of your conquest. Have them evolve a bit and act differently towards you.

As long as they start innocent it may be ok.  I thought there was going to be a few more of these.

iv been playing minecraft..and if only zelda had randomized levels

No.  Just no.  Maybe one dungeon sub area but, No.

If you want Zelda with randomized levels go play Dark Cloud.

Randomized levels means shitty boring levels because the design has to be incredibly generic for randomization to work.

It works fine in Diablo II. Of course, Diablo II is all about running through the level and killing stuff. It's harder to have randomized puzzles.

I'd consider it an improvement to have more randomization, so long as it's in the right amount and in the right places.

Some rooms in dungeons that have random types/amounts of enemies? Could be an improvement.

A smaller mini-dungeon (or cave, etc.) with random rooms, where your only goal is to get to the end to get some item? That would be fine.

A Zelda game where everything is random and it lacks cleverly designed puzzles? Not good.

Let's be honest, Diablo II could put you in an open field and just change the textures and enemies for each level and it be good.  Level design is not a feature for that game and it was designed around not having any.  Which is fine.

I can see randomizing working for the "cave of 100 enemies/trials" thing that Nintendo used to do during the GameCube era. For anything else in Zelda, it's a terrible idea.

Would anyone else like to see herds of non-aggressive animals carpeting open fields? Or maybe flocks of birds flying overhead?

What about a large number of non-agressive animals in general?

Yeah the OoT style Zeldas the world is relatively barren.