Author Topic: Zelda: Does it need to change?  (Read 36409 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Stogi

  • The Stratos You Should All Try To Be Like
  • Score: 18
    • View Profile
Zelda: Does it need to change?
« on: January 02, 2009, 12:21:39 PM »
Yes. Yes it does. /end thread

So where to start? How about at the core. For every Zelda game that came out after LTTP, the same formula has been applied. Link must travel to many different dungeons (water, fire, etc), gain an item, then use that item throughout the level and then eventually kill the boss with said item. It is because of this redundancy that Zelda hasn't felt fresh in a long time. The games themselves are beautifully crafted, but there are hardly any surprises. What I propose is that Zelda stray away from the "collect 8 pieces of the artifact" to something more sincere, something more worthy, something more random.

It is because we know the formula so well that it doesn't matter how interesting these new dungeons are, they all feel the same. It feels like a different version of the same game. Lately, Zelda games have put more and more emphasis on side quests, quests between the quest. IMO, this is where the adventure portion of the game comes in. This is where random comes in. And generally, all the quests have been great. This is the reason why MM is my favorite Zelda. But still, sooner or later, no matter how much you delay, you still have to go to a dungeon in order to progress through the game.

Now I applaud Miyamoto for his courage. He knows that Zelda has become too redundant and that's why he said TP will be the last of its kind. And I really think he's thinking what I'm thinking (well maybe not exactly). He's thinking that adventure isn't ordained. You don't tell someone where to go and what to do and call it an adventure. That's similar to telling someone to go to the store and buy some juice. That's an errand. An adventure is the unknown. An adventure is possibilities. And in order for Zelda to have the unknown, it needs to be changed from the ground up.

Now imagine starting the game and finding yourself abandoned out in the middle of the woods. It's dark and your hurt, but what is that? You hear something and it sounds like singing. As you draw nearer, the singing gets louder. Louder and louder still, until you see it. It's a cave; a Great Fairy spring in all it's glory. You have no items, no sense of direction, and no memory to speak of; she gladly takes pity on you and heals your wounds. But her kindness comes with a price. She entrusts you with something, something very precious. A creature; it looks like a mole but it's so tiny and furry, and it looks like it's hurt. But wait, what is this? It's faintly glowing, but it seems to be getting weaker. The Fairy tells you that she cannot heal this creature here, and that you must take it to whence it came. Conveniently, she has no idea where it came from, but knows that it cannot be allowed to die. So you are turned away, helpless. You exit the cave, riddled with questions. Then BAM! Goblins and there's a lot of them. You don't have anything to defend yourself with and they're getting closer! Closer and closer they come with their incessant laughter and disgusting slobber. Backed up against the wall, it looks like your done for. But just as they are about to come down on you, the creature sneezes and the land around you suddenly pops out into a hill, sending those goons flying. Then you realize....WTF is this thing? It sneezes once more and a path is formed. It's trying to lead you somewhere. So you follow.

You find that the path leads to a mountain. It's treacherous, but you still manage to follow the path and climb its summit. There you notice the creature is looking a lot brighter and healthier. It sneezes again and creates a giant hole deep into the mountain. You fall for what seems like forever. And screaming your longs out, you finally black out. When you come to, you see the creature running around joyfully. This is the creature's home and you brought him back safely. It notices you are awake and scurries over. What? What's it saying? It looks like it wants to reward you. It starts doing this hilarious little dance; back and forth and back and forth. You don't understand it until you see it turn into pure light. Like electricity, a bolt of energy strikes you and starts pouring power into you, but somethings wrong. There is so much pain. With light coming out of your eyes, ears and mouth, you scream in agony. And then, it's over. On all fours, you catch your breath and even spew out a mouthful of blood. You look around for the creature and find him lying on his side, with his glow slowly pulsating fainter and fainter until nothing.

The mountain starts to crumble all around you. Your going to die unless you figure something out. But the only way out is the way you came in. That's when the game prompts you to stand where the light shines in and tells you how to use your new found power. So you execute the move and a hill forms up under you launching you higher and higher. Your not going to make it. The hole is getting smaller and smaller. Your never going to make. That's when the game prompts you to use another one of your abilities and force the hole open. In a tremendous blast, the top of the mountain is turned into specks of dust. You've set yourself free but only to land in comical fashion right on your face and pass out.

You wake up to a beautiful girl tending to your needs. Shes was worried you'd never awaken. She tells you her name and asks yours (game prompt).....

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm sorry that was so long, but I felt it necessary (and kinda fun). But you can see the setup of this game and how it can be much different than in the past. There could be many of those special creatures with many different powers. They could be huge beasts while others tiny little bugs. There doesn't have to be a predetermined limit. But best of all, they don't have to be locked away in some Temple either. Also, the powers they grant you can make for some interesting puzzles.

The way you find these creatures could be by listening to crazy town folk talk about "legends" and taking the hints and setting out to look for them. And you can even be given a choice, to capture them by using their weakness and doing them harm, or by helping them.

These creatures can also have personalities themselves. For instance, you find a giant dragon perched atop a cliff. She warns you that she has done away with the others that tried to capture her, and if you don't leave now, she will kill you. You end up fighting her but during the struggle she runs the risk of dieing, so you save her life. In gratitude, she grants you the power to tame her young (giving you the ability to fly!).

The story could allow for many unique possibilities. Such as Ganondorf is searching high and low for these creatures (the one you helped barely escaped his grasp) and he will stop at nothing to find them; not after he knows their true power. The more he captures and the more powerful he becomes, but something noticeable starts to happen. The world becomes more dull, the animals more angry and the sky more dark. But the same thing happens as you find creatures and use there power. Your a detriment to the world, just like Ganon. The further you advance, the more you step on each others toes. And as you both obtain more and more power, the laws of the world finally become unhinged when you face each other; providing an epic setting for a climax.

That is just a simple idea. The point I am trying to make is that Zelda will receive a great push in the right direction with the Wiimote and Motion+, but to truly feel completely new, it'll need to shed its now archaic structure and employ something more flexible, something more random. The problem with Temples and Dungeons is that you know where they are and you know generally the challenges you face. With a system similar to mine, you have no idea where to go and have no idea what you will face; and that is what exploration is all about. The unknown.

Thanks for reading!
black fairy tales are better at sports

Offline AV

  • Score: -4
    • View Profile
Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
« Reply #1 on: January 02, 2009, 12:32:59 PM »
make it se in the future and use claymation as the graphics engine. Now that sounds like a big leap in imagination for zelda.

Offline KDR_11k

  • boring person
  • Score: 28
    • View Profile
Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
« Reply #2 on: January 02, 2009, 01:02:11 PM »
What you're describing there sounds like a linear game. There are many ways to make an adventure game but few of them are right for a Zelda game. Catching creatures to gain powers sounds definitely out of place for a Zelda game, if you want to make a new IP then say so.

Offline Stogi

  • The Stratos You Should All Try To Be Like
  • Score: 18
    • View Profile
Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
« Reply #3 on: January 02, 2009, 01:26:58 PM »
It was just an example to prove a point. The point being, that you don't need the conventional Zelda mantra to make a Zelda game. Zelda is about exploration first and foremost.
black fairy tales are better at sports

Offline Ian Sane

  • Champion for Urban Champion
  • Score: 1
    • View Profile
Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
« Reply #4 on: January 02, 2009, 01:31:43 PM »
Zelda doesn't need to change in a drastic way, Nintendo just has to not be so conservative about it.

Twilight Princess was a pretty weak Zelda but it wasn't because it the was the usual formula of dungeons.  For me it was because there was nothing to explore.  It was the same world as Ocarina of Time.  Typically with Zelda I see the darkened portions of the map and I'm excited as all hell to found out what it is.  With TP, once I figured out it was practically the same Hyrule as OoT I could GUESS what was where.  That removed a big thrill out of the exploration.  "Well this will be Lake Hylia.  Yep, I was right." *Yawn*

My favourite Zelda are the ones that are away from Hyrule.  What does Koholint, Termina, Holodrum or Labrynna have around the corner?  Who knows?  That's what's so cool about it.  Other Zelda games also have multiple variations of the environment like time travel or parallel dimensions which adds to exploration.

And the best Zelda game, to me anyway, are the ones with clear sidequests in between dungeons.  MM takes it to an extreme level that I adore but I can understand why others wouldn't.  Link's Awakening however usually had something between each dungeon, usually a side-quest to find the dungeon key.  Some Zelda games fall into a trap where in the last half of the game it's just dungeon-dungeon-dungeon.  I think the balance is important.  Otherwise it might as well be a series of levels if I'm just going through dungeons one after another.

The problem is that Zelda has a big fanbase that is going to be vocal about things and there are going to be a lot of different opinions being voiced.  Nintendo has to know what to pay attention to and what not to.

"Wind Waker is TEH KITTIE" - minor complaint as it's largely superficial.
"Wind Waker's world is a big blue ocean and that's dull" - important complaint as it relates to gameplay and is a game design issue.
"Majora's Mask doesn't have Zelda in it" - superficial complaint
"Majora's Mask's time limit, while fun in the overworld, adds frustration to dungeons" - very valid complaint

There's an important distinction between complaining that the gameplay is too different and complaining that each sequel doesn't play exactly the same.  I think with Zelda II it was a pretty valid complaint.  I think with Majora's Mask it was close-mindedness from people that just want to play Ocarina of Time again and again (or at least think they do, fans that want this often later dislike cookie cutter sequels but fail to understand why).  Nintendo just has to know how to filter through the criticism.  It's knowing the difference between the guy who hates a car because it's the wrong colour and the guy who hates it because it doesn't handle well on sharp turns.

Deep down though I think the core gameplay design of Zelda is that you have a world to explore in a manner that is not linear level-by-level progression and that you interact with the world in real time.  It's like an RPG without menu battles or an action game with one big world.  Other than that I think they should feel free to experiment.  They should hopefully know how far they can go before it ceases to feel like Zelda.

Unless Nintendo wants to dumb it down for non-gamers of course. ;)

Offline Chozo Ghost

  • I do want the Wii U to fail.
  • Score: -431
    • View Profile
Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
« Reply #5 on: January 02, 2009, 01:50:29 PM »
I remember reading some quote by Miyamoto a long while back about him explaining that Link's Crossbow Training came about as a result of experiments for what to do with the Zelda franchise in the future. If that really is the case, then I think it is very possible that what he means is the next Zelda game will probably be an FPS shooter game similar to what they did with Metroid, except it will involve the medieval weapons of Hyrule instead of space age stuff.

So if you ever wonder what is in store for the next Zelda, take a look at Crossbow Training. Its the test bed for the next major Zelda game.
is your sanity...

Offline King of Twitch

  • twitch.tv/zapr2k i live for this
  • Score: 141
    • View Profile
Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
« Reply #6 on: January 02, 2009, 01:53:18 PM »
Zelda doesn't need to change in a drastic way, Nintendo just has to not be so conservative about it.

Twilight Princess was a pretty weak Zelda but it wasn't because it the was the usual formula of dungeons.  For me it was because there was nothing to explore.  It was the same world as Ocarina of Time.  Typically with Zelda I see the darkened portions of the map and I'm excited as all hell to found out what it is.  With TP, once I figured out it was practically the same Hyrule as OoT I could GUESS what was where.  That removed a big thrill out of the exploration.  "Well this will be Lake Hylia.  Yep, I was right." *Yawn*

My favourite Zelda are the ones that are away from Hyrule.  What does Koholint, Termina, Holodrum or Labrynna have around the corner?  Who knows?  That's what's so cool about it.  Other Zelda games also have multiple variations of the environment like time travel or parallel dimensions which adds to exploration.

And the best Zelda game, to me anyway, are the ones with clear sidequests in between dungeons.  MM takes it to an extreme level that I adore but I can understand why others wouldn't.  Link's Awakening however usually had something between each dungeon, usually a side-quest to find the dungeon key.  Some Zelda games fall into a trap where in the last half of the game it's just dungeon-dungeon-dungeon.  I think the balance is important.  Otherwise it might as well be a series of levels if I'm just going through dungeons one after another.

The problem is that Zelda has a big fanbase that is going to be vocal about things and there are going to be a lot of different opinions being voiced.  Nintendo has to know what to pay attention to and what not to.

"Wind Waker is TEH KITTIE" - minor complaint as it's largely superficial.
"Wind Waker's world is a big blue ocean and that's dull" - important complaint as it relates to gameplay and is a game design issue.
"Majora's Mask doesn't have Zelda in it" - superficial complaint
"Majora's Mask's time limit, while fun in the overworld, adds frustration to dungeons" - very valid complaint

There's an important distinction between complaining that the gameplay is too different and complaining that each sequel doesn't play exactly the same.  I think with Zelda II it was a pretty valid complaint.  I think with Majora's Mask it was close-mindedness from people that just want to play Ocarina of Time again and again (or at least think they do, fans that want this often later dislike cookie cutter sequels but fail to understand why).  Nintendo just has to know how to filter through the criticism.  It's knowing the difference between the guy who hates a car because it's the wrong colour and the guy who hates it because it doesn't handle well on sharp turns.

Deep down though I think the core gameplay design of Zelda is that you have a world to explore in a manner that is not linear level-by-level progression and that you interact with the world in real time.  It's like an RPG without menu battles or an action game with one big world.  Other than that I think they should feel free to experiment.  They should hopefully know how far they can go before it ceases to feel like Zelda.

Unless Nintendo wants to dumb it down for non-gamers of course. ;)

Oh sure, easy for YOU to say
"I deem his stream to be supreme and highly esteem his Fortnite team!" - The Doritos Pope and his Mountain Dew Crew.

Offline NinGurl69 *huggles

  • HI I'M CRAZY
  • Score: 28
    • View Profile
    • Six Sided Video
Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
« Reply #7 on: January 02, 2009, 02:00:38 PM »
"Yes. Yes it does. /end thread."

That's one of the best opening sentences I've EVER seen on this site.
:: Six Sided Video .com ~ Pietriots.com ::
PRO IS SERIOUS. GET SERIOUS.

Offline Ian Sane

  • Champion for Urban Champion
  • Score: 1
    • View Profile
Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
« Reply #8 on: January 02, 2009, 02:15:31 PM »
Quote
If that really is the case, then I think it is very possible that what he means is the next Zelda game will probably be an FPS shooter game similar to what they did with Metroid, except it will involve the medieval weapons of Hyrule instead of space age stuff.

That would seem so redundant to me.  Metroid Prime already fills the role.  Metroid and Zelda are actually REALLY similar.  The only real differences are:

- settings
- Metroid doesn't really have any NPCs, it's more like one huge dungeon
- projectile attacking vs. mostly melee attacking
- viewpoint: side-scrolling vs. top down or first person vs third person

You make top down Metroid or first person Zelda and you're kind of making the two series too similar.  I find Zelda II feels a lot like Metroid and that's entirely because it's using the same viewpoint.

I think an FPA Zelda would be pretty good.  I would certainly still buy it.  But it would make the two series too similar and that would make BOTH of them get stale quicker.

Unless they made third person 3D Metroid to balance it out.  That would be kind of funny actually.  Swap all the differences I just mentioned except the settings. :)

Offline KDR_11k

  • boring person
  • Score: 28
    • View Profile
Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
« Reply #9 on: January 02, 2009, 02:23:00 PM »
So, what does everyone here think about the changes that were in Phantom Hourglass?

I think I said before that I'd like to see the removal of the context sensitive actions. Optimally you'd use the Wiimote to move the item in your hand and if you want to e.g. use a deku stick as a lever grip then you pull one out and move it so one end goes into the lever base rather than walking up with the item and hitting use. A secret switch would have to be found by looking at the wall and then moving something to touch it rather than walking along the wall and looking for the "you can use this" icon that pops up whenever you're near anything usable. It kinda loses the secret button part when the button is just a trigger area with no graphical representation, no? That would probably require a very close camera though (possibly FPV) so you actually see what you interact with.

I think that's a big part of what was so good with 2d Zelda, items acted mostly the same in any context, e.g. the boomerang didn't lock onto hittable targets, it just flew where you threw it and if that happened to be a target something happened. The grapple attached to anything grabbable when shot there rather than showing where it could attach and behaving completely different when pulled out in combat. Also in 3D the interactable points for most items stood out and made it too easy to figure out what to do (grapple point? Just grab it and see what happens, in TP it'd usually be a grapple sequence that got you where you need to go).

Anyway, that's mechanics, the other part that Zelda needs to be fresh is new content and with content I mean the underlying ideas. New mechanisms to deal with instead of simply arranging the old ones into new shapes (ugh, block pushing puzzles...). When people complain about not enough innovation in a sequel and then complain about new mechanics it means they didn't want new mechanics, they wanted new ideas in the content.

Offline NWR_pap64

  • You are not the boss of me
  • Score: 25
    • View Profile
    • Nintendo World Report
Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
« Reply #10 on: January 02, 2009, 02:35:48 PM »
I agree that the next Zelda game should change the formula, but I think Nintendo will have a hard time doing it.

After Ocarina of Time pretty much became the definite Zelda for some players Nintendo dared to take the basic concept and alter it almost drastically, creating "Majora's Mask" in the process.

MM was, in my honest opinion, a brilliant title, one that doesn't get the recognition it deserves. It does some things that OoT only dreams to do, like creation an emotional connection with its NPCs. But perhaps the biggest addition was a threat that NEVER stopped for you. It didn't matter if you were still in a dungeon fighting a boss, if time was up, it was up. The moon wasn't patiently waiting for you to reach it, it was going to destroy the world and enjoy doing it.

Then there were the masks which played heavily into both the story and the gameplay. The three race masks really did alter how the game was played, right down to the music.

All of this made for a masterful follow up that truly wasn't afraid of experimenting with the formula.

...Yet, fans weren't too keen on the idea and grew frustrated by it. They preferred OoT over MM, and it seems Nintendo took it to heart. The only major change in Wind Waker was the style, which alienated many fans, but many forgot about it by the time it was released. Despite some changes it played A LOT like OoT, except it felt rushed and missing some dungeons.

Now comes Twilight Princess, which offers realistic graphics, more dungeons, more quests and just plain more stuff to do, and fans complain its TOO similar to OoT, that the bosses were easy and the story didn't make sense.

So now Nintendo faces a dilemma with Zelda Wii. They know that the game needs to be changed drastically in order for it to leave a mark in players, in the same way that "Mario Galaxy" impressed many with its story, presentation and controls. But how can they do that WITHOUT alienating anyone?

Do they try to replicate the OoT experience except with more in-depth, masterful controls? Do they do the MM route and alter the game greatly while keeping some core concepts  intact? Or will they just focus on a graphical change like WW and TP did?

It seems that after OoT the 3D Zeldas have failed to impress people. Yes, they get great reviews at launch, and sales records are shattered. But the fans seem split as to what they think of the games. They don't want the formula to be drastically changed like in MM, but they don't want yet another OoT wannabe.

So again, Nintendo faces a dilemma and I KNOW Zelda Wii will be heavily debated as more and more info surfaces.
Pedro Hernandez
NWR Staff Writer

Offline King of Twitch

  • twitch.tv/zapr2k i live for this
  • Score: 141
    • View Profile
Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
« Reply #11 on: January 02, 2009, 02:41:01 PM »
Since the mask thing is played out, they should bring Minish Cap's kinstones to 3D to improve NPC interaction instead of goofy TP cutscene drama
"I deem his stream to be supreme and highly esteem his Fortnite team!" - The Doritos Pope and his Mountain Dew Crew.

Offline DAaaMan64

  • Winner of the Most Terrible Username Award
  • Score: 10
    • View Profile
Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
« Reply #12 on: January 02, 2009, 02:42:36 PM »
Zelda is the series that it's system right, we have nothing to worry about. Except when it comes out.
FREEEEEDDDDDOOOOOMMMMMMMMMM!!!!

Marvel Heroes - Marvel Heroes
Frozen Shoe Games

Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil. For I am with me.

Offline Ian Sane

  • Champion for Urban Champion
  • Score: 1
    • View Profile
Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
« Reply #13 on: January 02, 2009, 03:08:33 PM »
Quote
So, what does everyone here think about the changes that were in Phantom Hourglass?

I found the controls very awkward.  It felt like forced touchscreen usage, the sort of type that third parties stopped doing years ago.  It was like Nintendo desperately trying to "prove" the concept of the touchscreen years after it was established as a gimmick at worst and a decent portable replacement for a mouse at best.  There was a bit of analog movement but a console Zelda game would have access to an analog stick and wouldn't need such a workaround.  And PH had that annoying dungeon you had to return to each time.  Eh, that design was pretty annoying.  Other than that it's a solid game but not one I would want Nintendo to use as inspiration for the rest of the series.

If the big change to Wii Zelda is just waggle controls that would be lame.  Waggle sucks, plain and simple.  It just takes an otherwise decent game and makes the controls less precise.  Nintendo should try to make a good Zelda game and use whatever control method works best for that.  With the DS and, especially with the Wii, they so often design a game with the specific goal to "sell" the concept of their controllers.  That just results in lousy controls.  They have to drop that habbit.  Make a great Zelda game, come up with some new ideas to make a great Zelda game and then decide what controls are the best way to achieve it.  Nintendo criticizes games that try to use every single button on the Dualshock but specifically TRYING to use motion control is the same sin.  Make a great game.  That's all you should care about.

Offline Chozo Ghost

  • I do want the Wii U to fail.
  • Score: -431
    • View Profile
Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
« Reply #14 on: January 02, 2009, 03:47:16 PM »
Quote
If that really is the case, then I think it is very possible that what he means is the next Zelda game will probably be an FPS shooter game similar to what they did with Metroid, except it will involve the medieval weapons of Hyrule instead of space age stuff.

That would seem so redundant to me.  Metroid Prime already fills the role.  Metroid and Zelda are actually REALLY similar.  The only real differences are:

- settings
- Metroid doesn't really have any NPCs, it's more like one huge dungeon
- projectile attacking vs. mostly melee attacking
- viewpoint: side-scrolling vs. top down or first person vs third person

You make top down Metroid or first person Zelda and you're kind of making the two series too similar.  I find Zelda II feels a lot like Metroid and that's entirely because it's using the same viewpoint.

I think an FPA Zelda would be pretty good.  I would certainly still buy it.  But it would make the two series too similar and that would make BOTH of them get stale quicker.

Unless they made third person 3D Metroid to balance it out.  That would be kind of funny actually.  Swap all the differences I just mentioned except the settings. :)

Wouldn't that make everyone happy? People who say the Zelda format can't be improved on would get something completely different; and then the 2D Metroid crowd would get what they want as well. Wouldn't this be the best of both worlds for everyone?

Although, I do happen to think a Zelda FPA game would still be very different than the Metroid Prime games, if nothing else because of the different worlds, characters, equipment, weapons, etc. Zelda is more about interacting with characters, and I'm sure even as an FPS game that still wouldn't change. Or maybe what Nintendo could do is make the game be First person some times, and the regular overhead way the rest? For example, maybe the dungeons would be FPA but in the overworld it would revert back to the usual format? I could see that working. I recall in Metroid this would happen whenever Samus went into ball-mode.
is your sanity...

Offline NinGurl69 *huggles

  • HI I'M CRAZY
  • Score: 28
    • View Profile
    • Six Sided Video
Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
« Reply #15 on: January 02, 2009, 03:59:43 PM »
ZeldaPersonShooter would be like Red Steel but fun.
:: Six Sided Video .com ~ Pietriots.com ::
PRO IS SERIOUS. GET SERIOUS.

Offline EasyCure

  • wiggle wiggle wiggle wiggle wiggle, yeah!
  • Score: 75
    • View Profile
Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
« Reply #16 on: January 02, 2009, 04:06:36 PM »
I wouldn't mind seeing something similar to Wind Waker that didn't have a bunch of tiny islands, but instead of a ton of small islands to explore, we should have a few continents to explore with small islands strewn about.

Picture starting off in Hyrule  and seeing some of the familiar places like Kakariko Village and Lake Hylia, only to discover theres so much more beyond that. Hyrule could have a lively harbor with NPCs showing up from differnet land to give clues to troubles going on in their homeland, either leading to small quests or full out (and maybe even optional) dungeon crawling. As mentioned before, small islands with a one time treasure could still exist but maybe also serve another purpose. What if they house entrances to nearby dungeons allowing you to take a shortcut to the dungeons item or even the boss (thus skipping the item and making that fight a challange, but you'd still have to go back and complete the dungeon at some point to retrieve the item because its needed down the line).

I maybe alone in this but i liked those giant caves in Twilight Princess. Sure they ended up being NOTHING but everytime I found one I had hope that something great was waiting for me (miniboss battle/treasure/etc). The other awesome part about it was it connected Hyrule; you'd go in one end, go thru what felt like an eternity of twist and turns and you'd end up clear across the land. Something like that with underground caverns, maybe leading to islands otherwise inaccessible, would be pretty sweet in my book.

Edit: blah busy at work and it took over an hour to finish that post so i have no idea what the 7 post before me were.
« Last Edit: January 02, 2009, 04:08:12 PM by EasyCure »
February 07, 2003, 02:35:52 PM
EASYCURE: I remember thinking(don't ask me why) this was a blond haired, blue eyed, chiseled athlete. Like he looked like Seigfried before he became Nightmare.

Offline NinGurl69 *huggles

  • HI I'M CRAZY
  • Score: 28
    • View Profile
    • Six Sided Video
Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
« Reply #17 on: January 02, 2009, 04:11:59 PM »
Please get rid of the boats.  Give Link a Dolphin so we can just Wave Race our way around the seas.  Transitions between modes of travel should be seamless.
:: Six Sided Video .com ~ Pietriots.com ::
PRO IS SERIOUS. GET SERIOUS.

Offline Chozo Ghost

  • I do want the Wii U to fail.
  • Score: -431
    • View Profile
Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
« Reply #18 on: January 02, 2009, 04:14:39 PM »
Yeah, the problem with Wind Waker wasn't the graphical style that many complain about, but because it was too much like a certain 1995 major motion picture that starred Kevin Costner (which was also a flop). The graphical style of Wind Waker was fine, but give me LAND, LOTS OF LAND!

Quote
Oh, give me land, lots of land under starry skies,
Don't fence me in.
Let me ride through the wide open country that I love,
Don't fence me in.
Let me be by myself in the evenin' breeze
And listen to the murmur of the cottonwood trees
Send me off forever but I ask you please,
Don't fence me in

Just turn me loose, let me straddle my old saddle
Underneath the western skies
On my Cayuse, let me wander over yonder
Till I see the mountains rise.
Ba boo ba ba boo.
is your sanity...

Offline Smash_Brother

  • Let me show you my poké-balls
  • Score: 3
    • View Profile
"OK, first we need someone to complain about something trivial. Golden or S_B should do. Then we get someone to defend the game, like Bill or Mashiro. Finally add some Unclebob or Pro666 randomness and the thread should go to hell right away." -Pap64

Offline Adrock

  • Chill, Valentine
  • Score: 138
    • View Profile
Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
« Reply #20 on: January 02, 2009, 04:18:27 PM »
Yes.

Specifically? Start with the difficulty level and a coherent, less predictable, less cliche story. Then, more exploration, fewer set paths, more varied enemies in larger numbers, no fetch quests, no empty overworld and more secrets (like an extra dungeon), so on.

I could go on and on about what I'd like to see gameplay wise, but I trust Nintendo with offering engaging gameplay. I'd prefer they change it up a little though I'd be okay with the existing core gameplay if Nintendo would take into account most if not all of the things I mentioned above. That'd at least make for a more interesting and fun game than Twilight Princess.

Offline NinGurl69 *huggles

  • HI I'M CRAZY
  • Score: 28
    • View Profile
    • Six Sided Video
Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
« Reply #21 on: January 02, 2009, 04:22:45 PM »
Hmm RE4 would be preferrable.  Some camera views in No More Heroes went up-close over-the-shoulder as well, with no problems.
:: Six Sided Video .com ~ Pietriots.com ::
PRO IS SERIOUS. GET SERIOUS.

Offline Stogi

  • The Stratos You Should All Try To Be Like
  • Score: 18
    • View Profile
Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
« Reply #22 on: January 02, 2009, 04:29:21 PM »
Wiggles, I couldn't agree more. Having a few giant continents with other islands of all sizes strewn about would make for a gorgeous overworld. But what's even more critical is the feeling that the overworld must exude as the world comes closer to certain destruction. The changes can be subtle, but as time goes on, the world and it's inhabitants should respond to the impending doom.

Oh, I think it would be neat if enemies EVERYWHERE became more difficult as you progressed through the game.
black fairy tales are better at sports

Offline NWR_pap64

  • You are not the boss of me
  • Score: 25
    • View Profile
    • Nintendo World Report
Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
« Reply #23 on: January 02, 2009, 04:36:12 PM »
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3e20d2kT_C8&feature=related

You know, this sort of thing might be crazy enough to work.

Some might say "Oh noes Link went Halo!" but think about it. The Metroid Prime series was never seen as a traditional FPS franchise but as an adventure game that took take through a first person perspective and people loved it. It really added to the atmosphere and moodiness of the Metroid franchise.

I think having a Zelda game through a first person perspective would do wonders to the franchise. Yes, fans will be alienated but considering that Nintendo hasn't a true Zelda hit since OoT they really need to shake things up.

Can you imagine face to face battles were you get to see a swarm of enemies from a first person perspective, and see their expressions and attacks? Can you imagine how epic a Ganondorf/Ganon would be? With the Motion Plus for sword attacks you could literally immense yourself into the game's world, something that could complement the graphical style they opt to choose.

Again, a crazy idea but it might be crazy enough to revitalize the franchise in the same way that OoT did back in 1998.
Pedro Hernandez
NWR Staff Writer

Offline KDR_11k

  • boring person
  • Score: 28
    • View Profile
Re: Zelda: Does it need to change?
« Reply #24 on: January 02, 2009, 04:41:52 PM »
Remember, "more" means more dev work.

People here talk too  much about the combat in first person view. Leaving aside that Zelda is interesting mostly for the environments instead of the fights first person melee doesn't work well.