Saving Zelda

[Vampyr]

http://tevisthompson.com/saving-zelda/

Long article, but well worth the read. About halfway through, I already knew how it would conclude.

The author says, at the end, that Zelda could stand to be more like Demon Souls/Dark Souls.

I think I agree. He doesn't necessarily say the gameplay should be like DS, but rather the world and how the game treats the player. The world is already there when you arrive, it wasn't built for you, and you get the sense that it will continue to be there long after you're gone.

The thing that hooked me on Dark Souls wasn't the combat, or the gameplay, or the high degree of difficulty. It was the sense of wonder that the world provides. You can tell that something bad has happened here. The characters are few and far between, and you're always surprised when you see an NPC, especially one that's locked in a prison cell or something.

I've found myself wondering on occasion, "who put you here? How are you surviving? Are they coming back and feeding you?" When I find another NPC on a journey, I can't help but think, "Man, I had to fight some serious monsters to get here, this is not a safe place to be, why are you here?"

And the world of Dark Souls is so open. You can go anywhere you want, no keys required, no fake barriers or item requirements. If you can see something, there's a way to get there. It's very much like the original Zelda, where you could even beat some dungeons out of "order".

I could see a new Zelda game adopting this. Instead of levelling up and putting points in statistics, though, there would be more of a focus on finding and using different types of items.

A while back we had a thread where the question was, "How should Zelda change to make it new and refreshing?"

This is the answer.

[KillerGremlin]

The original Zelda is hard as fuck. So is the original Castlevania and Metroid. And Mega Man.

There is a whole generation of gamers who are never going to experience the frustration of getting your ass handed to you HARD, and never experience the accomplishment and acclaim of beating a hard game.

I'm not sure what to make of the article. I do definitely agree though. Zelda has gone through the motions for a long time now. The insight into 2D to 3D was interesting...I never thought of it that way. I guess Ocarina is really just a 3D version of ALttP.

It would be cool to have a totally open world...Grand Theft Zelda or something. It's never gonna happen though. Nintendo is the worst company in terms of changing things and coming around.

[Typhoid]

And the world of Dark Souls is so open. You can go anywhere you want, no keys required, no fake barriers or item requirements. If you can see something, there's a way to get there. It's very much like the original Zelda, where you could even beat some dungeons out of "order".

I think this is why it won't happen tomorrow:

Zelda:

ESRB: E10+

Dark Souls:

ESRB: M

Not that I think it would be bad for the franchise in the sense of fun-ability and overall awesometasticness - but no company in their right mind would willingly alienate their younger demographic (along with their younger demographic's parents money) simply to make a "darker game".

Probably not until a few more years pass and we are the parents buying the games for our kids - because we won't give a shit. "Our people" are just starting to have kids, so they're still a few years off of being able to comprehend games. I say as soon as our children are 7-9ish, there will be frequently darker games of lighter franchises. Not to say I believe that light cartoon-y games will completely vanish.


Really though with how far games have come, and the things we in general expect from franchises that aren't Zelda or Mario [Because nobody really expects much from them other than "fun", not like you expect from Mass Effect, Fallout, Final Fantasy, GTA, Gran Turismo]- you could do some very different re-imaginations of those cartoony franchises which probably wouldn't do all too bad.

[BreakABone]

This will tie into a larger rant as a whole.

But I absolutely HATE Zelda fans.. I'm not talking people who play the game and stuff.

But the people who dissect the timeline and all that craziness.

And this article is part of the reason why. Ask any 10 people how Nintendo should evolve Zelda, and you'll get 15 different answers. Some folks want it to focus more on puzzles, some more on exploration, others on combat.

Some want a wide variety of gadgets.. but don't want them to be one-off

They want limited gadgets, but hate that you have to keep re-using the same ones.

They want an open and vast world to explore... but it can't be too vast.. to the point of tedium to travel.

You need head-scratching puzzles.. but a way for the game to show you the light

You need more engaging combat.. but you need dumb enemies to mow over.

You want a different setting.. but where's Hyrule Castle and Ganong...

They want it to be different.. but not too diff because they want it to be Ocarina of Time or a Link to the Past... but they don't want it to be those games either.

The collective fanbase has no freaking clue what they want from the series... they just know they want change.

(I also loathe Sonic, Smash Bros and Final Fantasy fans for similar reasons)

[Vampyr]

Originally Posted by Typhoid

I think this is why it won't happen tomorrow:








Not that I think it would be bad for the franchise in the sense of fun-ability and overall awesometasticness - but no company in their right mind would willingly alienate their younger demographic (along with their younger demographic's parents money) simply to make a "darker game".

Probably not until a few more years pass and we are the parents buying the games for our kids - because we won't give a shit. "Our people" are just starting to have kids, so they're still a few years off of being able to comprehend games. I say as soon as our children are 7-9ish, there will be frequently darker games of lighter franchises. Not to say I believe that light cartoon-y games will completely vanish.


Really though with how far games have come, and the things we in general expect from franchises that aren't Zelda or Mario [Because nobody really expects much from them other than "fun", not like you expect from Mass Effect, Fallout, Final Fantasy, GTA, Gran Turismo]- you could do some very different re-imaginations of those cartoony franchises which probably wouldn't do all too bad.

Saying that the game could be more like Dark Souls in no way suggests it should be a mature game. You can make a game that looks like Wind Waker and has its charm and still be more like Dark Souls.

This will tie into a larger rant as a whole.

But I absolutely HATE Zelda fans.. I'm not talking people who play the game and stuff.

But the people who dissect the timeline and all that craziness.

And this article is part of the reason why. Ask any 10 people how Nintendo should evolve Zelda, and you'll get 15 different answers. Some folks want it to focus more on puzzles, some more on exploration, others on combat.

Some want a wide variety of gadgets.. but don't want them to be one-off

They want limited gadgets, but hate that you have to keep re-using the same ones.

They want an open and vast world to explore... but it can't be too vast.. to the point of tedium to travel.

You need head-scratching puzzles.. but a way for the game to show you the light

You need more engaging combat.. but you need dumb enemies to mow over.

You want a different setting.. but where's Hyrule Castle and Ganong...

They want it to be different.. but not too diff because they want it to be Ocarina of Time or a Link to the Past... but they don't want it to be those games either.

The collective fanbase has no freaking clue what they want from the series... they just know they want change.

(I also loathe Sonic, Smash Bros and Final Fantasy fans for similar reasons)

Fine, but series do have to change. FFXIII did it the wrong way, to pretty much universal agreement. Are there an infinite number of opinions on how to change it? Sure.

This guy has one, but the reason I felt it was appropriate for singling out is that he doesn't really advocate radical change, just a return to the core of Zelda. He also doesn't say that the new Zelda games are bad games, just not what Zelda was originally about.

The guy says in the article that a game which has changed in the right way is Mario, and he's absolutely right. Look at Mario Galaxy and compare it to the original Super Mario bros. So many things are different, but there is still that core Mario experience that hasn't changed: jumping. It has also received pretty much universal acclaim.

So some change is required, and if you do it right, people will let you know. You can't really listen to all your fans, because so many people have so many different opinions, but one person with a vision could really accomplish something unique.

[KillerGremlin]

It's a conflicting article for me, because I enjoyed A Link to the Past, I enjoyed Ocarina of Time, I enjoyed Majora's Mask, and I enjoyed Wind Waker. I kind of jumped ship with Twilight Princess...maybe my threshold for "going through the motions" was reached.

It's easy to see how each new Zelda title is basically a rehash of the A Link to the Past formula, with maybe the exception of Majora's Mask.

I don't know how you remedy this. In Metroid Prime, the game alerts you and tells you where you need to go next after you unlock an item. I have to imagine that the author who wrote this article would feel like Metroid Prime suffers from similar issues?

At any rate, Metroid Prime has a cool feature where you can turn off the guide that tells you where to go. So in that sense the world is completely in your hands to explore. Of course, the world is not completely open, you still need new items to explore new parts of the world. Honestly, I don't have an issue with that. In the original Zelda, you needed to unlock new items to fully have access to the overworld. So items are kind of an integral part of the game. I was a bit confused by that part of the article.

I think the author's main point is that Zelda shouldn't be Metroid or Castlevania. Zelda is not a game where you have to get bombs in Dungeon 3 to unlock the next section of the overworld. The game should have epic continuity, and a huge flowing overworld. But you still need to have some non-accessible parts....right?

[BreakABone]

Originally Posted by Vampyr

Fine, but series do have to change. FFXIII did it the wrong way, to pretty much universal agreement. Are there an infinite number of opinions on how to change it? Sure.

This guy has one, but the reason I felt it was appropriate for singling out is that he doesn't really advocate radical change, just a return to the core of Zelda. He also doesn't say that the new Zelda games are bad games, just not what Zelda was originally about.

The guy says in the article that a game which has changed in the right way is Mario, and he's absolutely right. Look at Mario Galaxy and compare it to the original Super Mario bros. So many things are different, but there is still that core Mario experience that hasn't changed: jumping. It has also received pretty much universal acclaim.

So some change is required, and if you do it right, people will let you know. You can't really listen to all your fans, because so many people have so many different opinions, but one person with a vision could really accomplish something unique.

And, this goes back to my original point. Everyone has a different definition of what Zelda was originally about.

And a legit case could be made for all camps I feel.
And that's always the problem with "Change" with this franchise.

You said Mario Galaxy is a great evolution of the formula. There are people who believe it is a terrible evolution of the franchise.. I think those people are insane... but they prefer the school of Mario 64.. which emphasized exploration and wide open spaces.. over linearity.

Same with FF XIII, I think the changes made were interesting.. mostly because I think the battle system was an advancement over the turn-based stuff... but I'm in the vast minority with that.

[KillerGremlin]

Originally Posted by BreakABone

And, this goes back to my original point. Everyone has a different definition of what Zelda was originally about.

And a legit case could be made for all camps I feel.
And that's always the problem with "Change" with this franchise.

But how many definitions can you have? The original Zelda was simple....and it pretty much only fits one or two definitions. I think Vampy's article hit the nail on the head in terms of capturing what the original Zelda was all about.

You have to kind of hop in your time machine, and think that people were playing Zelda before Gamefaqs. So there was a learning curve, and element of exploration, and a lot of secrecy. Back in the day finding secrets in video games was much more magical.

[TheSlyMoogle]

Don't forget it was also so magical because you remembered all that stuff too. Remember when you found something secret in Zelda or mario or something like that? You remembered it. I can go back and play those games to this day and be walking down a screen in zelda and go "Oh yeah, can't I bomb this wall here for a heart piece?" Bam! Heart piece. Same with Mario and warp pipes and hidden areas.

You also used to talk about these things with other kids you knew. I would see someone on the bus with a game or something and be like "Oh yeah, you ever played that? Oh did you find that heart piece right next to where you start the game? Oh you didn't? Oh you bomb the top wall and it's under the rocks!"

Then the two of you would spend the next couple of weeks discussing secrets of the game.

[Angrist]

I remeber talking about the secret flutes in SMB3. How the first kid found out I have no idea...


Anyway, about Zelda... With Skyward Sword I really don't think the series needs to be 'saved'. It's still awesome. Sure, there are so many ways to improve it, but I don't think such updates are too important.

Like BaB pointed out, it's just so hard to steer Zelda into a new direction and still have all fans like it.

For the U version, I think HD graphics will make a huge difference with the mass gamers. The kind of guys who bought Skyrim en masse.