Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Does Zelda Need an Overhaul?

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the tooling-up-the-mean-green-machine dept.

Games 286

CVG has up a piece noting the fact that not much about Zelda games have changed since the move to 3D. Chalk that up to the greatness of Ocarina of Time if you will, but the same mirror moving, fire-arrow switch activating puzzles have been in the last several titles. Is it time for some kind of radical change to the equation? "People generally don't like to accept change. But change doesn't always spell disaster. Final Fantasy introduces a totally new cast, setting and theme with each sequel and continues to please fans. Resident Evil 4 completely revolutionised Capcom's horror series and is now viewed as one of the best games ever made ... We still totally adore Zelda but eventually the appeal will tire and the series risks bombing. Nintendo needs to take the bold step and inject something totally new into Zelda. We're not talking about a couple of new items, or a new location - that's been done. We mean a significant change that affects the whole structure and gameplay."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

No way. (5, Insightful)

omaha_boy (512639) | more than 7 years ago | (#19166721)

The Zelda style of gameplay is what the fans keep coming back for. Perhaps a spinoff from the series would be best suited for this idea.

Re:No way. (4, Insightful)

Turn-X Alphonse (789240) | more than 7 years ago | (#19166773)

The Zelda style of gameplay is what the fans keep coming back for

Aww young naive kids. Zelda has had several styles of gameplay from RPG to platformer to 3D platformer RPG mess thing. You can't say Zelda has a type of gameplay if you know the series.

Re:No way. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19166847)

Aww young naive kids. Zelda has had several styles of gameplay from RPG to platformer to 3D platformer RPG mess thing. You can't say Zelda has a type of gameplay if you know the series.

With the exception of Zelda 2 (the RPG-like adventure which most gamers seem to consider the low point of the series), all of the Zelda games fall under "adventure". Changing from "2D adventure" to "3D adventure" doesn't mark a genre change.

Re:No way. (2, Insightful)

seaturnip (1068078) | more than 7 years ago | (#19167349)

Could you invent a genre that is a little less specific please? How about "action"? Oh oh, how about "graphical"?

Re:No way. (2, Insightful)

Purity Of Essence (1007601) | more than 7 years ago | (#19167107)

What? Talk about naive. Zelda has NEVER been an RPG and has ALWAYS been an action adventure. Each Zelda brings a new gameplay element to the table, usually in the form of a new item, than allows the creation of new kinds of puzzles. This new item or gameplay enhancement is almost always is in the title of the game, or is at least alluded to in the title. That said, I have not played Twilight Princess, so I can't speak to its innovations, if any. Perhaps the series is (momentarily) stuck in a rut of nostalgia.

Re:No way. (1)

Turn-X Alphonse (789240) | more than 7 years ago | (#19167151)

Twilights princess is the same as OoT. It's payable but the running horse battles and wold form save the game IMO.

And no, Zelda was always called an action RPG, like secret of mana was. It was never an "adventure" game ever.

Re:No way. (4, Insightful)

edwdig (47888) | more than 7 years ago | (#19167699)

And no, Zelda was always called an action RPG, like secret of mana was. It was never an "adventure" game ever.

Zelda was only ever considered an RPG by the kind of gamer that usually only plays RPGs, but needs an excuse to justify liking Zelda.

If you check the old guides from when Nintendo used to publish large strategy guides that covered multiple games, Zelda was always in the Adventure section.

Zelda really doesn't count as an RPG unless you use such a broad definition of RPG that almost any game counts as an RPG. Collecting items to progress doesn't make something an RPG...

Re:No way. (1)

Tofystedeth (1076755) | more than 7 years ago | (#19168205)

Actually, I've always heard Zelda referred to as an adventure game. I am one of the only people I know who argue that it has RPG elements. In fact, I would say it has more by way of Playing a Role, than Secret of Mana, much as I loved that game.

Re:No way. (3, Insightful)

Purity Of Essence (1007601) | more than 7 years ago | (#19168535)

Beyond marketing hype, what exactly makes a Zelda game an RPG? I honestly don't get it. Maybe I'm just old fashioned having grown up on pen-and-paper RPGs, and CRPGs like Wizardry and Ultima. Every game in the Zelda series are almost completely linear, there is usually only one way to solve any problem, there is almost no way to customize the game or make your experience any different than another player's. There is only one player character, a character who is virtually identical across all games, with no customization, no leveling, no classes, no tactics, no way to influence the story, no characters that react meaningfully to the different ways you play, and not really any other RPG trappings except a Tolkien-esque universe. Yes, Zelda II had some leveling, making it the most RPG-like, but that represents one small feature in one aberration of a game out of something like fifteen in the series. I'm sorry, a handful of hearts does not an RPG make. Zelda is no more an RPG than the three lives of Pac-Man are a statement on reincarnation and corporate capitalism. As far as I can tell the Zelda series is a classic action adventure in almost every possible way, completely in the vein of the grand-daddy of them all "Adventure" for the Atari VCS. You collect specific objects, or perform specific tasks, to overcome a specific series of obstacles, while the game funnels you toward the end. Your options are extremely limited, and almost everything that can be done in the game is utterly compulsory in order to finish it. In other words, Zelda is a particularly inflexible adventure game with many exciting and varied real-time action elements -- and I love Zelda for it. Don't ever change, Zelda!

Re:No way. (1)

Verteiron (224042) | more than 7 years ago | (#19169089)

Zelda 2 was an RPG. You gained experience points, assigned them to certain stats. Granted, there were only 3 stats and 8 magical spells, but nevertheless...

Of course it was also a platform game of sorts. And it was a part of Nintendo's "Adventure" game series, back when they tried to put all their games into an official Nintendo-approved genre. Remember the "Education" series? Had all of 2 games, I think.

Re:No way. (1)

liquidpele (663430) | more than 7 years ago | (#19166987)

Is is really the "fans coming back" that Nintendo is after? I would assume they are going after the younger crowd, who probably have not played more than 1 zelda release before (if ever), so it's not the same old stuff in their eyes.

Besides, Zelda is NOT FF, and it's NOT Resident Evil. It's in a class of it's own, and imho should not be changed because people want it to be more like WoW or something.

Re:No way. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19167803)

So people WANT the "same old, same old"? But Nintendo is innovative! But, it's the same old... but it's innovative! but, but but.. *head explodes*.

Ocarina Hero (1)

SparkyFlooner (1090661) | more than 7 years ago | (#19168271)

It would come with an Ocarina controller. The game would include songs such as 'Greensleaves', 'Scarborough Fair', and 'Crazy Train'.

Re:No way. (1)

fwarren (579763) | more than 7 years ago | (#19168285)

I have a radical idea. If Nintendo makes a game with different game play...they can call it something else.

Nope, get rid of Zelda (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19166813)

Then Pretendo should go under and all fucktarded pretendo loving sheeple should all go earn themselves a Darwin Award and run a hot bath, find a razor, and slit their fucking wrists.


Re:Nope, get rid of Zelda (1)

Gotung (571984) | more than 7 years ago | (#19166941)

Wow, some people like something you don't like. I understand completely. Great reason to get that worked up about something. Somebody needs lots of therapy. Or if thats not available a shovel to the back of the head should do.

Re:Nope, get rid of Zelda (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19167251)

So why don't you try to find someone that will do it for you. If you can't you could always run a hot bath, find a sharp razor, and slit your fucking wrists fucktard.


Re:Nope, get rid of Zelda (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19166975)

Sometimes I almost feel bad for trolls.

Re:Nope, get rid of Zelda (1)

Purity Of Essence (1007601) | more than 7 years ago | (#19167261)

I don't mind trolls. But when they are so tragically retarded it's just sad and pitiable. This is Slashdot; better work on your chops, buddy, and next time bring your A-Game. A weak troll like that will only generate ridicule outside of whatever AOL chatroom you fell out of. And posting AC? Well, you pretty much modded yourself. Sorry, thanks for playing.

Re:Nope, get rid of Zelda (1)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 7 years ago | (#19167661)

What's funny is, since you posted AC, it takes exactly one modpoint to drop you to -1, Troll. That's one of five...

NO, FUCK YOU (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19168513)

Fuck fuck fuck you in your fucking shit mother's shitty-ass fucking cockhole, you sperm-soaked fuck cock ass cock.

Remake (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19166837)

Of The Legend of Zelda.

No (0, Troll)

mobby_6kl (668092) | more than 7 years ago | (#19166841)

Nope, fans will happily rescue the same fucking princess over and over again, especially since now it's done with a weeemote so it's ok to recycle everything a few more times.

Funny you should say that... (2, Interesting)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 7 years ago | (#19167491)

I distinctly remember Majora's Mask not actually involving Zelda at all. If he was rescuing anything, it was a whole fucking continent, not one princess.

(Not to mention that in Ocarina of Time, he was also rescuing a whole fucking continent, and the princess.)

In a word... no (5, Insightful)

7Prime (871679) | more than 7 years ago | (#19166849)

Twilight Princess was, IMO, the best game in the series, because instead of concentrating souly on new gameplay elements, they actually gave the game a SOUL. In fact sometimes it felt like they transplanted it directly from the Final Fantasy series, which could explain the lack of soul in FF12 (as good as that game was). Every game is evolutionary, and they try expanding on a new area... this one was in story telling and character portrayal, and they get an A+ on this one. Wind Waker tried to experiment with a number of new gameplay elements, and while I applaud them on that, their new efforts were more like a B-.

To me, this sounds like an artical written by a disgruntled gamer who wasn't able to see TP for what it truly was, and while I respect his opinion, its hardly a reason for a call to arms. Does the series need an overhaul? After how good TP was... absolutely not.

TP was an evolutionary step in terms of gameplay, for the series. It added a few new elements (of which it did very well, I might add), but its main concentration layed elsewhere. The gameplay fanatics can probably look forward to Phantom Hourglass and the next Wii Zelda title for a boost in gameplay elements.

Re:In a word... absolutely (1)

edawstwin (242027) | more than 7 years ago | (#19167175)

I disagree. I played the game for about an hour and a half and was utterly bored. Plus, I hadn't even left the village yet. Long adventure games should have something to grab you in the beginning, and this had nothing but corralling sheep and getting a bird to fly towards you.

I love adventure games with a good story and gameplay, but sadly, this was not one of those for me.

Re:In a word... absolutely (2, Insightful)

Kelbear (870538) | more than 7 years ago | (#19167283)

I am having a blast with the game, and yet, I still agree with you.

The beginning of Twilight Princess was slow and boring. The start of a game should be carefully paced to avoid this.

Re:In a word... absolutely (4, Interesting)

7Prime (871679) | more than 7 years ago | (#19167665)

If you played the game for an hour and a half, then I can totally understand. But... AN HOUR AND A HALF???? The game is about 70+ hours! In dramatic narrative, usually writers suggest that about 1/3rd be exposition. In epic form, such as Zelda... there's usually multipul rising actions, so the exposition should probably be more like the first 1/6th. In a 70 hour game, that's about 12 hours. Zelda: TP moves into the action in about 3.

In some works, the whole work is meant to have consistantly riviting material. But in other works, the entire work is meant to lead up to a few key, extraordinary moments. Zelda: TP is one of those works. There is a moment about 4 hours in that is truly disturbing, one at about 18 where I wanted to cry. These moments were so incredible that they took hours to lead up to, and when the game is over, all that matters is those specific key points, and they made the game, IMO, the best game I've ever played (and I've played dozens of long-form titles).

Some games that start out with a BANG are great... like FF7, but probably the best start out quiet and subtle, and build into amazing things, like FF8 or Tales of the Abyss. Zelda falls into that category, in fact... Zelda typically falls into that catagory, it's just that TP is about twice the length of any other zelda, so its exposition NEEDS to be about twice as long to have the correct balance.

Re:In a word... absolutely (2)

edawstwin (242027) | more than 7 years ago | (#19168091)

I understand your points, but I don't agree with them for an adventure game (maybe a dialogue-driven movie, though). I want to be wowed in some way early (and that could be by amazing graphics, a thrilling fight, a great cut-scene, etc...). Then I will put up with an enormous amount of tedium/exposition to get to the rest of the good stuff. Deus Ex is a great example of a game with a relatively complex story that gets you involved right away. Within 5 minutes, I was storming the Statue of Liberty and killing terrorists! Later the game turned the tables, so to speak, but it got me hooked right away.

Re:In a word... absolutely (1)

7Prime (871679) | more than 7 years ago | (#19168245)

What are you talking about? My friend just had me start a game of Deus Ex the other day... and for the fist 45 minutes, I was in training rooms learning how to play the game. Sure, the normal campaign may start right off... but it doesn't count because I couldn't have done it without knowing the controls.

Needless to say, I was DISGUSTED by Dues Ex's choice of tacking on a training section on the beginning. A game is a learning process, part of the reason for playing the game is to learn how to play the game... why should I have to take a training session before I even begin?

I'm of the feeling that the best games hold your hand a bit and walk you through the gameplay, but make it interesting and reliavent to the story. Twilight Princess did that, FF8 did that, and those are probably my two favorite games. I haven't played through Deus Ex yet (and I want to, it looks good), but the beginning REALLY turned me off.

Re:In a word... absolutely (1)

Fallingcow (213461) | more than 7 years ago | (#19169003)

Uh, I just learned how to play Deus Ex in the first level. You can skip the training level by just starting a new game, and saying "no" when they ask you whether you want to do the training.

I would assume that most people did the same thing. Of course, I'd played System Shock 2, so the inventory system was already familiar to me. Beyond that, what's so hard about just learning that game as you go? I could see maybe a quick glance at the keymap in the options menu to see which button does what, but 45 minutes in the training level? I can't even remember if I ever bothered to do that level out of curiosity or boredom, but most dedicated training levels in FPS games take 5-15 minutes to complete, depending on the game.

Wait, are you talking about Deus Ex 2, by chance? I can't remember whether that one had a mandatory training level, but I do remember that it sucked ass. If that's the one you're playing, stop now. Trust me.

If you are in fact playing Deus Ex, get ready for a hell of a lot of fun. Explore everywhere. Talk to everyone. Use the implants, they're there for a reason.

Easily one of the top 5 best computer games I've ever played.

Re:In a word... absolutely (1)

7Prime (871679) | more than 7 years ago | (#19169117)

I don't have a PC right now, so no. But I'm ordering a Mac Pro... so possibly. But I've already got a game of Ar Tonelico going, and I'd like to get around to playing Valkarie Profile 2 SOMEDAY, so it might be a bit. I'm a little concerned though. I usually HATE (and I mean HATE) non-linear RPGs. But I've heard enough interesting things about this one, that I might give it a shot.

Re:In a word... absolutely (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19169189)

Needless to say, I was DISGUSTED by Dues Ex's choice of tacking on a training section on the beginning. A game is a learning process, part of the reason for playing the game is to learn how to play the game... why should I have to take a training session before I even begin?
You don't. If you're that deeply offended by a tutorial then DON'T DO IT, it's optional. You can figure out how the game works as you go.

Re:In a word... no (1)

Glytch (4881) | more than 7 years ago | (#19167587)

Absolutely right. I loved the new items and weapons (spiderman-ing with dual clawshots, swordfighting while on horseback, a bow that you could aim by pointing) but most of all they made the game epic. The cutscene that sticks out in my mind is a slow-motion scene early on. The pig-riders kidnap a kid and run off, and then Link appears on horseback with a pissed-off expression, chasing after them at full speed. The designers made it so that you'd want to smite evil.

I'm also glad they didn't go nuts with side-quests for heart pieces, like Wind Waker. There was far, far too much sailing and salvaging to do in Wind Waker, and not nearly enough real dungeons. About the only thing that would have made Twilight Princess perfect is some way to give full control over swordfighting with the wiimote, but I can wait for the next Wii Zelda for that.

Re:In a word... no (1)

moderatorrater (1095745) | more than 7 years ago | (#19167603)

I agree with what you're saying. While reinventing themselves every time works well for a lot of games, evolution in gameplay works well for others. Zelda's the latter. There were huge differences between TP and other Zelda games, including the expansion of special attacks, the difficulty/types of enemies, the gameplay (I don't remember playing a wolf in ocarina...), etc. Maybe starting over every time works for final fantasy, but I like my zelda changes to be slow and steady.

Re:In a word... no (1)

7Prime (871679) | more than 7 years ago | (#19167943)


And lets face it, all gameplay changes are gimmicks. There are various ways of getting people focused on a task, one is to entice them by having fun toys to play around with, but a more prolonged and rewarding exploit is to have them rivitted to characters and story elements.

Games have gotten pretty damn good with gameplay elements, it's what they do best, maybe it's time to pull back a little and work on the quality of character portrayal and dialog? I think the designers of Twilight Princess felt that way.

Re:In a word... no (2, Interesting)

hansamurai (907719) | more than 7 years ago | (#19168341)

I pretty much agree with you. Twilight Princess probably is one of the best 3D Zeldas, but now I'm playing Okami, and I honestly think that it is a better game. Okami was obviously inspired by the Zelda series, some may say cloned, but it does some things better than Zelda (and some things worse). Anyways, the genius thing about Okami is the brush strokes you use to fight enemies or overcome obstacles instead of the typical Zelda tool chest of items. This actually makes the game much more seamless in my opinion because if you need the Okami equivalent of the Zelda hookshot, you just hold R1 and draw a line from the target to you, and off you go towards it. No need to press start and equip the item, or remember what button you assigned it to, and then aim and fire. Both ways work but the Okami way works better because it doesn't remove you from the action like pressing start in Zelda can. All your actions are available to you anytime at the stroke of a brush.

Anyways, even though TP was great, Nintendo needs to hire some decent writers. The game's plot fell apart at the end after an inspired beginning. Basically the plot went from interesting and original, to formulaic and unsurprising fairly quickly. This was unfortunate because it left a bad taste in my gaming mouth after I finished it.

I may also be in the minority about this, but Zelda (and any Okami sequels that will never be made) could do very well from excellent voice acting. Both Okami and Zelda have silent protagonists, and I am totally fine with keeping it that way. I don't really want to hear Link talk, but the supporting cast could really use it. The opening of Zelda is your friend talking to Link when he's fishing or something, and it just drones on and on while you press A. It's boring and very uninspired, and that has nothing to do with the fishing! There's also long conversations with the bad guys and Midna, that could have potentially been awesome with voice acting, but instead were dull and felt way too long and drawn out. Even the cutscene where the game tells the Hyrule Creation story; you're still pressing A while the text narrator slowly crawls about some crap that would have been memorable with an excellent narrator. Zelda (and Okami) just feel awkward with squeaky sound effects that are supposed to be people talking. This doesn't diminish from the rest of the game, but I just can't raise these games to the highest plateau in my mind that they potentially could have.

The Zelda series has a lot to learn from the other games in its genres. Stop spending so many programming and design hours doing the new fishing game that people are so excited about before the game comes out and then finds out how boring it is actually doing it, and use your imagination about what gamers really want! Please Zelda team, play Okami! Port Okami to the Wii by the way while you're at it, it was made for it! Play God of War, Ratchet and Clank, Fallout, Oblivion, Half-Life, etc. All of these games do things right and wrong, recognize these and try to improve and be inspired.

Re:In a word... no (1)

7Prime (871679) | more than 7 years ago | (#19168857)

I loved Okami. Just for the record, my top 3 games of 2006 were Twilight Princess, Okami and Tales of the Abyss (with FF12 coming in a distant 4th). That said, Okami had some huge flaws. It's battle system was incredibly uninspired, repetitive, and boring. The final few boss battles FINALLY become interesting, but most of is pretty blah. Thankfully, the concentration on battles was so minor that it didn't really bring down the game... but if you're not going to have decent battles, why have them at all? There were all these wonderful skills that were just really cool to use... but it really took the fun out of them when they really weren't required in the battles, because the battles were so darn easy.

And I completely dissagree with you about the voice acting. You can read my lengthy post about why these titles should never have voice acting, I won't repeat all of it here, but my basic point is that these games rely on a certain level of abstraction... that the voices represent the emotions and state of mind of the NPCs, and are separated from the content. That abstraction is key to the charm of the series. This is a choice by the creators, not a mistake or laziness. That said, Okami's VA was a problem in that it really didn't serve its purpose well. The gibberish would have been great if it reflected the emotion of the character at the time, but it didn't change... every character had a specific gibberish voice, and that was it. In that sense, Zelda was much better.

Overall, the writing in TP was steller... I mean, Lunar or Tales quality writing. Obviously, there's always room for improvement, but TP had some of the best dialog I've seen in games for a while... unfortunately I also played Tales of the Abyss this year, which tops it... oh well, boo hoo.

Okami was extrordinary for a first game in any series. Its polish and charm just was breathtaking. If it had been allowed to continue as a series, I could imagine the third game easilly topping TP, but there were just a bit too many flaws in Okami to do that.

Voice Acting (1)

rlp (11898) | more than 7 years ago | (#19166853)

Twilight Princess was great, but isn't it past time to deprecate text-only dialog.

Re:Voice Acting (1)

Cadallin (863437) | more than 7 years ago | (#19167003)

fuck no! That would destroy so much! You'd never be able to satisfy even a tiny percentage of the fans with the actor choices. Zelda's fine just the way it is.

Re:Voice Acting (5, Funny)

IAstudent (919232) | more than 7 years ago | (#19167771)

Excccuussse me, Princess!

Re:Voice Acting (2, Insightful)

Turn-X Alphonse (789240) | more than 7 years ago | (#19167063)

I completely disagree. If you add voices it changes the characters.

Take for example Link, he got a new voice actor for Twilight princess. The new guy is mostly known for playing Dearka elsman from Gundam SEED Destiny, the old ne was mostly known for Guy from Gaogaigar. The two characters are complete opposites and I personaly felt Link was diffeent in feel because of his voice more than the way he acted.

Apply this to the entire game but removing Japanese voices to English, it'll completely change the world from the original. So until American companies grasp that we don#t want crappy American voice actors replacing the Japanese voices I, for one, am glad for text only games.

Re:Voice Acting (1)

Tofystedeth (1076755) | more than 7 years ago | (#19168431)

Lets not forget those of us that read faster than we listen. I got so frustrated with the scenes in FFX that wouldn't let me click through the dialogue. They were usually the ones with the worst dialogue/acting too. And I don't know if you were saying American voice actors are crappy, or just that dubs of Japanese things tend to get actors that are crappy, or in a completely different vein from what the originals were. The dubs of Miyazaki movies tend to be extremely good. Not to mention we have people like Tree macNeil.

Re:Voice Acting (1)

Tofystedeth (1076755) | more than 7 years ago | (#19168669)

Isn't it odd how sometimes you can preview and still miss really dumb things... It's supposed to be Tress MacNeille

Re:Voice Acting (5, Insightful)

7Prime (871679) | more than 7 years ago | (#19167133)

Bullshit. People seem to approach voice-acting as if it's simply the next step in gaming... as if it is inherently superior, and those who fail to do so are akin to developers who failed to move to creating 16-bit games after the SNES was released.

No. Voice acting is an aesthetic decision, and greatly alters the feel of the game. Some games definitely benefit from voice acting, but others call for a little more abstraction, and thus voice-acting can chip away at their charm, no matter the quality. Zelda definitely falls into that catagory.

Notice that Zelda already has plenty of voice actin. But in this case, "voice acting" isn't about content but expression of emotion. Instead of actually speaking content, the characters make noises that reflect their current state of mind. This splits up the emotion of the voice from the dry content. It is part of Zelda's greater abstraction, which I feel is key to its overall charm. Traditional voice acting would completely distroy that.

IE: Voice acting is an aesthetic decision on the part of the creators. It is not "missing", it was not included because the creators feel (as I feel) that it would partially destroy the games' charm, moving it toward the realm of cinema rather than the animated storybook quality they wish to portray.

Re:Voice Acting (1)

Kelbear (870538) | more than 7 years ago | (#19167537)

Parent is spot on.

I prefer subtitled anime over dubs because the voice actors communicate the emotion properly as I read the subtitles. Dubs are usually done by whoever was willing to take the job for the least amount of money, and the quality of the acting reflects that.

The actual words being said by the Japanese voice actors is pure gibberish to me, just like the gibberish I hear from Midna.

They got the important part of the voice, the tone. I am fine with reading the words. Hell, Simlish communicates pretty well with just the tone and body language, without words.

"I'm gonna kick your ass" means different things depending on how its said. It could mean you're about to get hit, It could be an empty threat during friendly competition, It could even be playful flirting.

Re:Voice Acting (1)

rlp (11898) | more than 7 years ago | (#19168355)

Admittedly, most (english) anime dubs are bad. But not all - I thought 'Trigun' and 'Noir' were both decent dubs. I still think a new Zelda would benefit from good voice acting. For purists (and the hearing impaired), they could provide the option of switching to text.

Do you really think Miyamoto-san would permit Zelda to be released (in any language) with BAD voice acting?

Re:Voice Acting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19168139)

Let's get to the truth of the matter here. If they added voice acting, it would become painfully obvious to even the most deluded fanboy that the dialog is utterly simplistic crap. I'm talking on-par with Dick and Jane here.

Unless they're going to hire some decent writers, they're better off just trying to steer people AWAY from noticing something like this. And that means no voice acting.

Re:Voice Acting (1)

7Prime (871679) | more than 7 years ago | (#19168329)

Well, that's one way of looking at it. And I'd agree for all previous games in the series, and quite a bit of anime (the real reason why I think most people prefer the Japanese, because they don't have to think about how utterly contrived the dialog sounds). But I would completely disagree with TP. TP was the first game in the series to actually have GREAT writing (for video games, at least). I'm talking almost on par with the Tales series (which I consider to have some of the best writing in gaming).

I think you're correct about why some games are better without voice acting, and Ocarina would have been HORRIFIC with VA, because of that. TP, however, could have survived just fine, and I think that's possibly why so many people are sorta wanting VA with it. I'll stick to my guns, though, and say that TP shouldn't have voice acting as a stylistic principal.

Re:Voice Acting (2, Insightful)

Fred Or Alive (738779) | more than 7 years ago | (#19167543)

I personally agree, with Twilight Princess, even though Midna talked random nonesense, I found the nonesense made her a much more endearing character than the others where at most you got some random sound. It doesn't mean that Link has to stop being silent or anything, that probably would be a holy cow too much for the fans, although I do somethimes find the whole "blank slate" bit a little annoying as well.

I also sortof agree with the article, recycling the same themes gets annoying, some more variety would be nice (although I haven't played Majora's Mask much, which does seem to be a bit more experimental).

Master Chief's Helmet (2, Insightful)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 7 years ago | (#19167581)

Isn't it time Master Chief's helmet came off? Or Gordon Freeman talked (or we saw his face in-game)?

Either of those would completely change the character, and depending on how pedantic a fan you are, could kill the series for you.

Re:Master Chief's Helmet (1)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 7 years ago | (#19168851)

Freeman is mute, and Master Chief suffers from terrible acne, you insensitive clod!

Wait, but you want them to retain their dignity by not being forced to reveal their problems -- I'm an insensitive clod!

Re:Voice Acting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19168505)

I don't mind reading the text, but I'm vaguely disturbed that Link himself has no lines, or that his lines are simply not shown. It makes the conversations very strange.

Harder to screw up (2, Interesting)

Valdrax (32670) | more than 7 years ago | (#19168939)

Twilight Princess was great, but isn't it past time to deprecate text-only dialog.

It's harder to screw up a game with text-only dialog than it is to screw up one with voice acting because of the choice of a flat and talentless voice actor or two (or ten). I can think of a few games that I've found seriously hurt by voice acting -- the first Grandia game and Shenmue immediately come to mind.

(Good lord was Shenmue's voice acting terrible. It was like a dry read by tone-deaf people.)

On a related note: Hey, listen! []

Short answer: yes (1)

chrismcdirty (677039) | more than 7 years ago | (#19166861)

Long answer: yeeeesssss.

I love them, but they need to stop relying on the fire temple/water temple/wind temple/earth temple formula. The puzzles are usually good, but they get repetitive when I play them over and over in different games.

Re:Short answer: yes (0, Offtopic)

u-bend (1095729) | more than 7 years ago | (#19167373)

> It's like sex, except I'm having it!

You're having sex while writing Slashdot comments? Two points:
1. Dude, you need to get your mind back in the game, and
2. What's it like? (wink wink, nudge nudge)

Strange answer: Terrahawks (1)

Dogtanian (588974) | more than 7 years ago | (#19167593)

Alternate answer: Heck, yes Zelda needs an "overhaul" if she looks like this [] .

Am I the only person here who grew up associating the name Zelda with the Terrahawks baddie and not some Nintendo character? Particularly as I wasn't even aware that "Zelda" was a real name at the time. Anyway, the two characters seem like chalk and cheese...

BINGO!.... that's your answer! Nintendo can refresh their "Zelda" series by replacing their Zelda with the evil-Martian-android-that-looks-like-a-really-old- person [] namesake from Terrahawks. It'll be worth it to see the expression on the Nintendo fanboys' faces alone.

And they can get Windsor Davies to do the voice for that spherical robot Sergeant-Major, and have a game of Xs and Os for the "Game Over" sequence (Anyone who hasn't seen Terrahawks will be wonder WTF I am rambling about now... do a search at YouTube if you're curious)

Stagnation (2, Funny)

Reason58 (775044) | more than 7 years ago | (#19166865)

All great games eventually get made into a franchise that milks the brand for all it's worth. Take Madden, Super Mario, or even Zelda for example. Game companies exist to make themselves rich, and those games have a proven formula for success. Why would they tamper with that?

YES! (3, Insightful)

aichpvee (631243) | more than 7 years ago | (#19166879)

I've been saying this for years! Zelda's formula has gotten old in 3D. Especially the combat. Despite enjoying Twilight Princess a lot (a huge surprise to me) they really need to do a full refresh of the formula.

The Wii controls helped keep the combat feeling fresh, where the GameCube falls flat. But the advancements other games have made in dynamic since the release of Ocarina just leave the series feeling like something of a dinosaur.

With their vast resources (even before DS and Wii started printing money) and huge talent pool I except more from Nintendo. I seem to remember Miyamoto saying that TP would be the last Zelda game "as we know it." So hopefully that's a sign of big things to come.

Change can be good (1)

Joe Random (777564) | more than 7 years ago | (#19166939)

It's not like Zelda hasn't changed before. I mean, the jump from 2D to 3D was fairly dramatic. And seriously, we've all seen where being formulaic gets you; Just look at the movie industry. That's the type of rut that I'd rather see one of my favorite game franchises avoid, if at all possible. I say, as long as some of the staples are preserved (sword combat, heart containers, and that little "you found a secret!" chime. Just enough to remind you that, yes, this is a Zelda game) then by all means try something new.

Nothing changed with 3D (2, Insightful)

spocksbrain (1097145) | more than 7 years ago | (#19166969)

To be honest, not much changed even with OoT. It was the same "mirror moving, fire-arrow switch activating" puzzles even in the earlier 2D Zeldas. OoT translated the gameplay so well into 3D that the series continued to be extremely popular.

There shouldn't be any reason to change the style of game Zalda has always been, in fact Zelda-type games have, in a way, become a kind of genre all of it's own. As long as people keep enjoying the gameplay and Nintendo keeps the character's, stories and enviroments fresh it will sell.

No need. (2, Interesting)

RyanFenton (230700) | more than 7 years ago | (#19166981)

Stories are stories, whether interactive or not. Some need to be refreshed over time to maintain value - others become timeless, only increasing in value with the fidelity with which they are told.

The Legend of Zelda series is not completely timeless, but most of it's aspects hold a very high value, even when they are not radically rehashed with each telling. It's a fairy tale where a boy with a sword rescues a princess, with some interesting action, oddness and strategy along the way.

No need to take away any of that when making a new Zelda game - you just have to make sure the core timelessness of the story isn't too overexposed, so that it doesn't become stale. No need to transform it into a guitar-based rock game with pinball elements or anything.

Ryan Fenton

Re:No need. (1)

DJCouchyCouch (622482) | more than 7 years ago | (#19168037)

> No need to transform it into a guitar-based rock game with pinball elements or anything.

Oh my GOD that would be AWESOME!

why do games need to keep changing? (4, Funny)

poot_rootbeer (188613) | more than 7 years ago | (#19166983)

I know another game that's in DIRE need of an overhaul: chess. I mean, it's been played pretty much the same way for like 500 years. Gamers are bound to get tired of it real soon now!

And I don't want them to just add new pieces or change the board from squares to hexagons or anything like that! I mean a significant change that affects the whole structure and gameplay!

Re:why do games need to keep changing? (3, Funny)

liquidpele (663430) | more than 7 years ago | (#19167065)

I give you: Battleship! It's like chess but in water with battleships, and you can't see where your opponent's piece are! So really it's not like chess at all!

Re:why do games need to keep changing? (1)

Dreamlandlocal (978245) | more than 7 years ago | (#19168227)

Interesting aside: LOZ:WW has a battleship game that you can play... for a price... and will net you a piece of heart (IIRC)! Yummy!

The LOZ games, and I am thinking of the 3d ones in particular, were loaded with fun little minigames ... some of which could have been full blown, stand-alone (perhaps budget) titles. I'm thinking in particular about some of the fishing distraction in OoT and TP. I personally love the tried and true approach to the Zelda franchise - I would certainly buy the next release even if they don't make any fundamental changes to the formula.

That being said, I'd love to see what else Nintendo might have in store for the future of the series. Nintendo generally take care of their flagship IPs... I'm sure a reinvented Zelda would get the appropriate level of attention before hitting the market.

Re:why do games need to keep changing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19167997)

Obviously, they just need to move to 3d: ss []

Re:why do games need to keep changing? (2, Informative)

Salamande (461392) | more than 7 years ago | (#19168337)

Bobby Fischer completely agrees with you. I hear Fischer Random chess [] is gaining popularity.

Totally new? Zelda's been there, done that ... (1, Insightful)

div_2n (525075) | more than 7 years ago | (#19166997)

Zelda 2 was radically different and radically sucked. It had side-scrolling action and RPG-like features that were totally alien for Zelda.

Change isn't necessarily bad, but Zelda 2 is the poster child for what can happen if you deviate too far from what makes your series fun.

Re:Totally new? Zelda's been there, done that ... (1)

blaster151 (874280) | more than 7 years ago | (#19167413)

I loved Zelda 2.

Re:Totally new? Zelda's been there, done that ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19168269)

I hated Zelda 2.

please god yes (1)

deathtopaulw (1032050) | more than 7 years ago | (#19167049)

I know I was not the only one to find twilight princess downright depressing
not only had they completely run out of environmental ideas (basically just ocarina of time again)
they'd run out of storyline ideas
(yes, they did in fact COMPLETELY rip off the concept of a wolf from okami, and anyone who thinks otherwise has not read the facts)
and they had long ago stopped even attempting to be new with the temple design

I really enjoyed wind waker and majora's mask, and I believe this is where zelda needs to be short, weird, completely original little games that, even though they're not the hardest in the world, come out at just the right length, and don't feel like they're stealing from past zelda games, or other games in the genre

they seriously need to stop with the "epic huge massive adventure" game, because it's obviously not possible for them to keep it original

Re:please god yes (1)

7Prime (871679) | more than 7 years ago | (#19167347)

Okay, that Okami comment is just wrong. You do realize that Twilight Princess began developement 2 full years before Okami was even concieved, don't you? And that screen shots of Wolf Link first surfaced long before we ever saw the face of Ameratsu?

Okami was incredible, but the fact that both featured wolves was, believe it or not, a complete coincidence. If anything, Ameratsu was fashioned AFTER Wolf Link, but I highly doubt it, as I'm guessing that both games sat in the mind of their creators for a good couple of years prior to developement.

Twilight Princess may have done NOTHING to develope storyline or gameplay, but it highly developed something MUCH more need of updating: storytelling. The story may have been rehash and simple, but the storytelling was so greatly improved, it's not even funny. The dialog was fresh, the characters actually were given personality and developement! Hell, this was the first Zelda game where I've ever given two-shits about the characters. Before, they were just an excuse for gameplay, now, I actually care about them.

Video games desperately need to work on storytelling. Many of the best novels and films out there have very simple, unoriginal stories, but what makes them incredible is the way they present them. Twilight Princess is exactly that. I almost always hate games with really original, complex stories, because they usually use them as a crutch and become distracted from really evolving the human elements of the narrative, which is really the only part that matters anyway. A story is nothing without its characters... no matter how good it is.

Re:please god yes (1)

deathtopaulw (1032050) | more than 7 years ago | (#19167837)

no, if you look around on google you'll find an interview with one of the okami designers
it turns out okami had been in development since 2000,
while TP was only started in 2001

the guy even says that he got really angry at first when there was this announcement of the wolf
but because okami hadn't been announced, and was just in early development, people were going to think just like you do

it's very frustrating

Re:please god yes (1)

7Prime (871679) | more than 7 years ago | (#19168125)

Then tell me this, then... if it hadn't been announced, then how did Miyamoto and his boys get ahold of it? It's not like theres a magical link between Capcom and Nintendo these days.

I dunno, it's possible, but I think highly unlikely.

Re:please god yes (1)

xenocide2 (231786) | more than 7 years ago | (#19168279)

People were going to think that the two projects were coincidentally similar? Or was he worried that people would think that Nintendo didn't rip him off? Unless he showed Okami to them sometime before Nintendo decided to put it in TP, I don't see where he'd have any convincing argument to say "Nintendo ripped me off".

Re:please god yes (1)

7Prime (871679) | more than 7 years ago | (#19169193)

To be fair, though, even if Miyamoto did take the wolf idea, it's sort of like Apple stealing a windows idea... seriously, I love Okami, but there was SO MUCH TAKEN FROM WIND WAKER, that it's really silly to call Miyamoto a thief in return.

Re:please god yes (1)

moderatorrater (1095745) | more than 7 years ago | (#19167879)

Wind Waker and Majora's Mask didn't do so well at OoT or TP and weren't as enjoyable to play for the majority of people that I've talked to. The general consensus was that they needed to move away from those games.

FF are not sequels (2, Insightful)

ncmusic (31531) | more than 7 years ago | (#19167183)

Final Fantasy introduces a totally new cast, setting and theme with each sequel and continues to please fans.

I'm pretty sure that's not a sequel as much as just reusing a trade mark for new games. There have been a couple of sequels notibly, X2 but for the most part each new FF game is just that and Not a sequel.

Sequel - a literary work, movie, etc., that is complete in itself but continues the narrative of a preceding work. []

My 2 cents (3, Interesting)

Esc7 (996317) | more than 7 years ago | (#19167311)

I've played nearly every Zelda game ever made, just not the gameboy ones and that horrid skeleton in our closet on the CD-I. I've saved the eponymous princess countless times. And i can tell you that I do have sympathetic feelings for the writer of this article. This latest Zelda did feel "new" but nothing really TRULY surprised me like when I found out what the blue Ring did in the original Legend of Zelda. The sameness of elements in the game are beginning to not be interesting anymore, and that's truly a shame. But you have to consider the consequences of "updating" Zelda. Could you even call a game part of the series if it doesn't pay tribute to its predecessors? Take out the Master Sword? Get rid of boomerangs and bombs? No more temples/dungeons/labyrinths? Why even have the main protagonist a green clad boy named Link? Make it a high-powered business woman set on mars. There we go. Change for change's sake. What I'm trying to say is that Zelda has basically completely defined a whole genre of action/adventure/puzzle game. How many times have you heard the adjective "Zelda-like?" The game itself defines other games that copy its gameplay mechanics. We can't change that core of the game, that IS the game. If you are tired of exploring dungeons and getting items that give you new abilities, well stop playing this goddamn game then. (Also take a good hard look at all the other games you have to play too) And don't take out that tired line that they don't change the specific settings and elements. Zelda 2: the adventures of Link had nearly nothing in common with the first, and now the things it's introduced have become standard. Majora's Mask changed the way you played the game. And Wind Waker completely changed the setting and introduced new characters and items. So piss off. Leave my game alone. I like knowing that in this world, this game will always have things that are the same. We all enjoy it. And the day we stop enjoying it and get tired of it I sure hope to hell they don't create a new edgier, flashier update called Shadow the Link where Link has a gun and a emo haircut. When we get tired of elements of Zelda, we will be tired of Zelda itself and it will end

Hasn't Changed That Much Since 2D either!!! (1)

kisrael (134664) | more than 7 years ago | (#19167345)

(have not yet RTFA, just responding to the summary)
The funny thing is, even the jump from 2D to 3D was a lot less of a paradigm shift than with, say, Mario or Metroid...
I kind of missed out on the original Zelda, but liked Zelda 2 a lot.

My next games was Zelda:OoT. When after that i went back to the first game, I was amazed at how similar the dungeon puzzles etc felt!

Unlike Mario and Metroid, early Zelda was in a kind of 3/4 perspective, with a few light 3D-ish elements. So it's just not that big a shift. (FWIW, I feel the same way about GTA2->GTA3)

Actually, Zelda 2 is probably the stand out of the lot, a bigger difference than the 2D/3D switch...

Umm no... (1)

the dark hero (971268) | more than 7 years ago | (#19167387)

Final Fantasy games have made about as much change as any Zelda game has. One thing final fantasy has up on zelda is that it is a "new story" with "new characters" each time. The combat in Final Fantasy has been the same for ages much the same as zelda hasn't changed much. The only difference in combat has been gradual upgrades to the same battle system before it. Final Fantasy games have increasingly offered more character customization, but the same spells and summons are always used. Zelda games have added more moves to link's repertoire, but its still a lock on slash and parry affair. Not much is changing either way, but the games are getting better and better. Boo to those who can't live past the "glory" of FF7 and boo to those who can't live past the "glory" of Zelda: Ocarina of Time. FF 9, 10 and 12 have been great games and Windwaker and Twilight Princess gave just as much if not more than what Ocarina of time had to offer.

Re:Umm no... (4, Interesting)

Joe Random (777564) | more than 7 years ago | (#19167549)

boo to those who can't live past the "glory" of Zelda: Ocarina of Time.
Bah. Everyone knows that "A Link to the Past" was the greatest Zelda game. Even though I thoroughly enjoy the 3D Zelda games, I'd love to see what a 3/4 isometric view could look like on modern hardware.

Re:Umm no... (1)

xenocide2 (231786) | more than 7 years ago | (#19168089)

Umm, I imagine it would look a lot like Four Swords [] .

Re:Umm no... (1)

the dark hero (971268) | more than 7 years ago | (#19168903)

Oh God yes! The game could display soooo many sprites! It was fun too, but not your typical zelda adventure.

Re:Umm no... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19168119)

That's interesting. I was pretty sure that everyone knew that "Link's Awakening" was the best Zelda game. It's kinda weird that we both know how everybody else knows different things.

Not a wholesale change (1)

leather_helmet (887398) | more than 7 years ago | (#19167685)

But I would like to see some variations to their overall 3D approach - Mixing both 2/3D gameplay & throwing in 3/4 would be very interesting in various scenarios - IMHO, the overall storyline and general gameplay is what has always kept me and the other legion of fans coming back for more - I certainly enjoyed the graphical twist with Wind Waker which added some spice to the look of Zelda, but the original charm of the series has always been kept intact

yes it does. (1)

Truekaiser (724672) | more than 7 years ago | (#19167697)

i had a recent discussion with a friend of mine over the exact same issue, that nothing much if anything at all has changed in the zelda series since the big leap to 3d. all the gameplay was the same dispite minor tweaks in it or story made limits(the 3 day limit in Oot's sequal). or stylistic choices like the cell shading in the game cube game version. he refused to see that at the basic game play level all zelda's are the same.
inital sword aquireing event -> dungeon -> boss -> dungeon -> new item needed for said dungeon -> boss -> (repeat for 5~7 times) -> final dungeon -> gannon or equivilant boss.

Yes and no. (1)

Bongo Bill (853669) | more than 7 years ago | (#19167731)

Yes in that there's only so many ways that you can kill Ganon and save the princess. And, as it so happens, Eiji Aonuma has said quite specifically that any further games in the series will be a substantial departure. (Personally, I'm hoping for a successor to Majora's Mask).

No in that the fundamental mechanic - enter dungeon, get new item, solve puzzles with item, defeat boss, find stuff on overworld, get to next dungeon - is unlikely to ever get old. As long as the surrounding narrative and premise aren't stale, then that particular progression of play is solid and timeless.

Not an overhaul, but improvements (4, Interesting)

Sciros (986030) | more than 7 years ago | (#19167789)

I think that Zelda games are indeed "formulaic," but it's a decent formula that really suffers not so much from repetition as from the fact that everything besides the gameplay gets so little attention. The stories in Zelda are extremely basic and weak, and do little more than tie one dungeon/temple to the next. That's not a big problem, but when you have that AND no voices AND old-school-midi-quality music in a title that was released just recently, it starts to feel like, well, *there can be more to it.*

Even improving two of those three things would do wonders for Zelda and it's feeling of being an "aging" series. An epic, cd-quality orchestral score for once? That shouldn't bee too much to ask, after all games like Battlefield and Medal of Honor get that privilege, not to even mention the blockbusters like Final Fantasy and Halo.

Zelda's core gameplay -- making one's way through cleverly designed dungeons -- is STILL its greatest strength! And far from what makes a Zelda game feel like it's "lacking" in something. The reason it feels a bit outdated is that in many OTHER respects it truly IS. While no-one has been able to match Zelda's level design, when it comes to other aspects of gameplay -- combat, NPC interaction, even boss design and horseback riding controls -- Nintendo's greatest really has been outdone. Ninja Gaiden, DMC3, God of War -- these games have put others to shame in terms of combat. Oblivion's NPCs (and even those in games like the new Godfather) are far superior in AI and interactivity to those in Twilight Princess. Boss design -- look to Shadow of the Colossus for a lesson in "epic battles."

The summary calls for an overhaul of the core gameplay. That I believe is a MISTAKE. It's all the other stuff, which is admittedly *minor* in comparison to the gameplay that sets Zelda apart from everything else, that needs to catch up by about 9 years.

I'd say she does! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19167981)

I mean, look! []

Wait. There's a game called Zelda?

Look at the sales (1)

Kelbear (870538) | more than 7 years ago | (#19168039)

The game sold very well. It seems pretty obvious that no overhaul is necessary.

Could sales be improved by a change? Possibly. Could they have been harmed by a change? Just as possible.

It's Zelda. The sales were very good and the game made money. That shows that there is room in the market for more of the same Zelda gameplay. If they want to change it, they can also make spin-offs.

Better yet, I would rather that they make a new game, entirely without Link, Hyrule, etc. and create a new IP. Don't just "tweak" or "refresh" the gameplay. Go the distance and come up with something new. No need to cover a new game with an old IP.

Yup, nothing changes for Link (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19168289)

He keeps saving the princess. He doesn't get princess nookie.

Frankly, I'd be saying 'if she's so dense that she keeps getting in trouble, let the gene pool get thinned'.

Re:Yup, nothing changes for Link (1)

Applekid (993327) | more than 7 years ago | (#19169037)

Not according to all those fan comics....

And with others still, Link gets all sorts of nookie, male or female.

In my mind I still haven't decided which ones are sadder: the furries or the fanbois.

Zelda deja vu (1)

StephenW (972389) | more than 7 years ago | (#19168313)

I love Zelda games, so I hate to agree with this assessment. However, I noticed while playing Twilight Princess that I instinctively knew the answers to most puzzles and boss fights. Heck, I even walked into dungeons and started guessing the sort of obstacles I'd face and the sort of treasures I'd find based on familiar themes. I'm sure I can't be the only loyal fan suffering from Zelda deja vu. Don't get me wrong; I still love the series and plan to continue playing the games as long as they keep coming out, but I think the "same old, same old" criticism is perfectly valid.

Short-term memory? (3, Insightful)

muel (132794) | more than 7 years ago | (#19168369)

Isn't this pretty much what Nintendo attempted w/ The Wind Waker? Not just the graphics--though those did seek to create a new level of emotional expression unseen in the previous games--but also the obsession w/ the sea and expansion of the world? That wasn't a massive overhaul, sure, but everyone cried foul and begged for another Ocarina-style game. Just a few years later, they got it. Make up your minds, critics.

My Suggestion (1)

rdforsyth (1039844) | more than 7 years ago | (#19168425)

Would be to come up with a version where you're Gannon and you have to kidnap Zelda. Wait, is Gannon still around? Even better, you could actually be Zelda and save Link. Wait, is it still link? Man, I haven't played Zelda since A Link To The Past. Now THAT was a good game. I tried Orcana of Time, but I just couldn't get into it.

Maybe they should come up with a game where Mario and Link join forces because Koopa and Gannon joined forces and captured both princess'. That would probably be the second most amazing game ever. Jeopardy Jr. for the NES still reigns supreme for this hard-core gamer.

How to make a Zelda Game (2, Interesting)

Metroid72 (654017) | more than 7 years ago | (#19168607)

Follow these steps:

1. Intro Scene - Make sure to contrast the menace and the hero, motivational, showcase some of the graphics
2. Opening Scene - Ambiance, small village, child hero, innocent life.
3. Strange Things - Make sure the motivation is there, encourage exploration
4. Build-up - Make sure the exploration leads to a larger plot, explain main quest.
5. Quest for Critical Items - E.g. Master sword, shield, etc. Include minor versions of dungeons.
6. Start of Main Quest - Once hero is equipped, unleash the main goals
7. Unleash Main Motif - Could be darkness (inverted worlds), modes of transportation, transformations, graphics or console unique engine etc. Make sure that Main motif is an intricate part of the game.
8. Side Quests - Include plenty, make sure that you confuse the player by making him/her pursue items that may or may not have a definite usage to the main quest.
9. Fake End Boss - Build the momentum with a fake sense of victory.
10. Ending - Make it inspirational, but open... after all, this is another instance of the hero overcoming evil.

Ever since 'A Link to the Past' this has been the formula, and the Motif basically changes. The ALTP was reused in Link's awakening to a very good result (to me probably the best of the 2D Zeldas), however, Ocarina of Time introduced a new engine with the 3D Motif, but OOT (3D), MM (Masks) and WW (Art and Mode of transport) are to me the same game (I have yet to play Twilight as I can't find the time to commit to it), but from what I've seen there's the possibility of it being the same as the prior games with the new controls being the motif.

I love this series, but I must say that I'm more excited about Phantom Hourglass than I am about Twilight, just because the portable platform makes them deviate from the formula a bit (portables are played in bursts of time).

I think Zelda can have some good spinoffs, a 'Tactics' game comes to mind. I would also like to see a remake of "The Adventure of Link" in 2D with upgraded graphics (A la New SMB), who knows, maybe even a Paper Zelda version with the Flipping ability.

This is not meant to be critical, I like the formula, but I must say that I don't get as excited as I used to before.

Oh well...

Yes, but NEVER (1)

Applekid (993327) | more than 7 years ago | (#19168795)

Nintendo will never change the Zelda formula. They tested the waters with Windwaker and the fanbois all screamed bloody murder. Not over some major game mechanic change or dramatic change in roles of Link/Ganon/Zelda. No, they lit the torches and sharpened the pitchforks because of the ART DIRECTION.

It's silly, of course. Yet, N is always redefining Mario. Donkey Kong was one type of game. Mario Bros. is another type of game. Super Mario Bros. 1 - 3 + World were essentially the same thing (not counting rebranded and polished Doki Doki Panic). Yoshi's Island. Super Mario 64. And I'm completely ignoring the games that are just Mario themed for simply for Mario franchise's sake: Mario Kart, Super Mario RPG, so many more.

Maybe if Zelda fans would be less drooly they could let Nintendo explore new directions and, in the end, they'd get a great Zelda game again. And a great Zelda game is already a LONG time coming.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?