Aonuma Talks Zelda's Past, Nintendo DS Zelda Plans

Thanks to GameSpy for its interview with Nintendo's Eiji Aonuma on the Zelda franchise, as the EAD deputy manager reveals he wasn't a fan of early Zelda efforts ("I could not stand the original Zelda. When I first played it, I did not know what I was doing. I was overwhelmed by enemies and I got killed right away"), questions the infamous CD-I Zelda titles ("I must admit, they were a strange characterization of the Zelda games"), and mentions future franchise plans, including a previously unconfirmed Nintendo DS Zelda title: "We have a Game Boy Advance Zelda [Minish Cap], a DS Zelda, and this [realistic] GameCube one."

Comments

Not good

[ArmenTanzarian]

He couldn't play/didn't appreciate the original Zelda? IMO he shouldn't be allowed within the same building as a team that's working on a new one. There's a lot of love for the old characters who're still around and fans expect at least some level of character integrity over the years; beating the first game should be part of the application process to touch any future Zelda game.

Re:Not good

[Grey Ninja]

Ordinarilly, I would agree with you. But I very much enjoyed Wind Waker. I think that the man successfully encaptured the SPIRIT of the original game while improving the quality of the franchise greatly.

I would still very much like to know who the director of the new GameCube Zelda is though.

Re:Not good

[fireduck]

seeing as how he was the director for Majora's Mask and was a designer for Ocarina of Time; and was chosen specifically by Miyamoto for these jobs, i don't think there's much to fear.

but that's an interesting point to raise. i wonder how many of the developers working on any of the 3D castle wolfenstein games were required to many through the old top down version? or whether the Duke Nuke'em team had to play the side scroller? Fact is, games and technology evolve and adhering to the original is not always good or possible (did any of the 3D wolfensteins ever involve stealing guard uniforms to travel incognito?)

Re:Not good

[NanoGator]

"He couldn't play/didn't appreciate the original Zelda? IMO he shouldn't be allowed within the same building as a team that's working on a new one."

That's a bit of an overreaction if you ask me. His complaints are more or less legitimate. That game doesn't really have the sense of style that the SNES game he did like had. The sense of direction in that game, at least from initial viewing, is virtually non-existent. Remember the SNES game whose title escapes me at the moment? It immediately immerses you into a story.

Anyhoo, I don't want to spend too long going over that. There's a difference between saying "I didn't like it" and "I hated every single thing about it." He didn't say the latter, but his comment is being interpreted that way.

Re:Not good

[ArmenTanzarian]

Not adhering to the old technology, but at least realizing the core elements that made people love the games in the first place. People didn't play Zelda for the whiz-bang graphics, it was the puzzles and the plot (which was more of a plot framework until later games).

Re:Not good

[Anonymous Coward]

Your point is well conceived. I'd like to make a question out of it for everybody.

Would you rather have new Zelda games be similar to the numerous Zelda games that Aonuma either enjoyed playing and/or had an actual hand in making, or would you rather have new Zeldas follow in the style of the one Zelda game that Aonuma has stated that he didn't like?

The only people with valid concerns regarding the Zelda franchise being in Aonuma's hands are, then, the ones that thought that Zelda took a wrong turn somewhere before the third game. That hardly makes them the kind of Zelda fans who would buy a new Zelda game then, no?

Re:Not good

[kannibal_klown]

Remember the SNES game whose title escapes me at the moment?

How could I forget, it's my absolute favorite game. I still try to play it from beginning to end once a year.

It was The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past

Re:Not good

[Anonymous Coward]

The Zelda games that Aonuma has worked on carry on the legacy of Zelda III: LTTP quite faithfully.

I liked the first two Zelda games very much. But it wasn't until the third that I felt that the series had become a substantial force in the gaming world. And knowing that now, it's not difficult to see how one could dislike the first game but adore the third (similarities notwithstanding).

As for the concern about Aonuma's disdain for jumping games, I'll put forward the controversial notion that one of the things that makes the 3D Zeldas so great as realistic adventure games is the lack of a distinct jump operation. While jump puzzles do exist in these Zeldas, they aren't platformers, and the lack of distinct, platformer-style, user-controlled jumping helps solidify that fact. I doubt the Zelda series will suffer any more under Aonuma than it already has (which is to say, not much, if at all).

Re:Not good

[Captain Rotundo]

I don't have concerns, but I personally think that the first Zelda is the best one. LTTP is close, and Link's Awakening was almost as good as that. But the 3D ones (OOT, MM, WW) just haven't caught the complete nature that the overhead ones had. and I am not an old gamer complaining about progress I don't think its the interface or the dungeons, I think its the weak story.

THe first one was pure game, and the second had some minor story to it... for some reason I think the story to WW feels like an annoyance (the game would be better if it just left out all the ridiculous story that isn't important to play anyway)... OOT is actually good, I guess my complaint is that It didn't evoke that same awe that LTTP did for me what it came out.

I think its possible to have a situation like the original with just gameplay and no silly cutscenes and still have a good game. And while only a minor annoyance the silly stuff they bable about in WW doesn't and anything... I pay attention enought to figure out where to go, and then go play (haven't finished yet :)

Re:Not good

[Daetrin]

Obviously tastes differ. I thought the original Zelda was great, as was LttP. Zelda 2 was a little strange, but not too bad.

However i really wasn't that impressed with Ocarina of Time. I got maybe halfway through before quiting in boredom. I wasn't interested in playing Celda, but unlike most people who complain about the game i had no issue with the graphics, but instead was put off by gameplay that seemed similar to OoT and MM.

Re:Not good

[metroid composite]

There's a lot of love for the old characters who're still around and fans expect at least some level of character integrity over the years; beating the first game should be part of the application process to touch any future Zelda game.

Yep, such exciting characterization and dialogue as...

Master using it, and you can have THIS.

It's a secret to everybody.

Dodongo dislikes smoke.

Buy something will you?

I haven't played Super Mario Sunshine, but I'm willing to bet it never once uses the line "We're sorry Mario, but our Princess is in another castle" and that line has far more popularity.

Legend of Zelda was about the innovative gameplay, positively massive world, and being the first NES game to have a save file, NOT the characters and plot. Link's an elf-like character with a sword (just like the rest). Gannon is a loser blobby pig with no lines. Zelda is a Pauline ripoff. Nobody else is really worth mentioning.

Re:Not good

[Guppy06]

" He couldn't play/didn't appreciate the original Zelda? IMO he shouldn't be allowed within the same building as a team that's working on a new one."

OK, we have somebody here who:

1. Thinks drastically different from everybody else about something and
2. Isn't afraid to voice his opinion

And you want him gone? Hell, those two reasons are probably why he's has high in Nintendo as he is, which is as it should be!

Re:Not good

[LeoDV]

Exactly!

"When I first played it, I did not know what I was doing. I was overwhelmed by enemies and I got killed right away. (...) When I played A Link to the Past on the Super Famicom, I really enjoyed that game. I thought it was great."

I had the exact opposite reaction. I remember, the freedom of the NES game was incredible (and a first, mind you). I learned later that Miyamoto tried to recreate the feeling he had as a kid wandering through the forest, which he imagined full of fantasy creatures, without directions or points of reference, and he was dead on. This was exactly what I felt like as a kid playing that game!

So when I bought Link to the Past I was expecting more (better) of the same. If you've ever played that game you still remember how it opens. The story of the Triforce, and princess Zelda talking to you in your dreams via telepathy. I was positively in awe. Then when I could play, I left the house under the rain and started going every which way. And you remember, at the start of the game every road except the road to the castle is blocked by indestructible soldiers in armor (after you save the princess they vanish, never to return). What the fuck? was my only thought (yes, I was a naughty boy). I almost cried (insert nerd joke here).

Don't get me wrong, after I got over my surprise and indignation I thoroughly enjoyed this fantastic game, but this Action/RPG type game wasn't the Zelda I knew and loved. It gave up the freedom which made the original unique for guided gameplay and a good story (part of the charm of the original is you only discovered who you were and what you were doing at the end).

I don't care about realistic vs. cel shaded Zelda (actually I do but that's an other point for an other time), what I want is a Zelda game with the same idea as the original, and with all of the improvements a modern console can give. In the original you woke up in the middle of the map, amnesiac, and you had to figure out who you were, where you were, and what you had to do all by yourself. I don't care about that The One-reincarnation crap we were fed during Wind Waker (which was a fantastic game, but you could've just called it The Wind Waker, 'The Legend of Zelda :' was superfluous).

Imagine how cool it would be if a game opened just like that, with your character in the middle of this huge, beautiful, enthralling 3D world, with all of the explanations left for you to figure out! But nobody, and especially not Aonuma-san, has got the balls to try that.

Not a flame... Just a little rattled.

[Iscariot_]

I'm not flaming or trolling here, I love each and every game in the Zelda series. But is anyone else a little spooked by this interview?

This guy is taking a big, big role on all future Zelda projects, and he's spooked by games that require jumping?!? Thought Zelda 1 was too hard?! Somehow I think Miyamoto's final touches to the last few Zelda games have been much more significant than Aonuma cares to admit...

It's also weird to see how much budget has played a role in the Zelda storylines and gameplay. Then again, I suppose that innovating within restraints is a part of any job.

Here's to hoping that Zelda continues to entertain for years to come!

This logic worked for Deus Ex II !!

[LordPixie]

It would appear that the developers behind DEII really didn't like the original Deus Ex. Hence the unified ammo, lack of skills, no depth, poor voice-acting, etc.

With such a rock-solid gameplan, what could go wrong ?!?


--LordPixie

Re:This logic worked for Deus Ex II !!

[kannibal_klown]

"It would appear that the developers behind DEII really didn't like the original Deus Ex. Hence the unified ammo, lack of skills, no depth, poor voice-acting, etc. With such a rock-solid gameplan, what could go wrong ?!?"

Arrggghhh!!!

Don't mention that game, EVER!

As far as I'm concerned, there is no such game. Its existence should be stricken from all record books, and all copies melted into something more useful, like shoe horns or something.

DX:IW game was a DISGRACE to the original. They really sold out with that game. The general "universe" was the same, and some elements were there, but they took away a lot that made DX a great game, and turned it into a run-of-the-mill console shooter. I'm not talking about unified ammo, but "hacking into consoles" was gone, looking for keycodes was gone, A LOT was removed.

Thief III, on the other hand, was quite well done. IMHO, they followed the original formula quite nicely, and thus a good product was formed.

Re:This logic worked for Deus Ex II !!

[KDR_11k]

The difference is that Warren Spector admitted in interviews that he was against the changes but the team overruled him. Miyamoto apparently has some form of veto right (in his GDC presentation Aonuma called this "upending the tea table") if the game deviates too heavily from his ideas. That means there's no chance you're going to steal horses and pick up hookers in the new Zelda.

Zelda

[kannibal_klown]

I think Zelda is by far the greatest commodity Nintendo has (ok, maybe Mario is greater, but it's just my opinion). They need to make sure they treat it with respect. I don't think they did that with Wind Waker.

My favorite Zelda game still has to be "A Link to the Past" on the SNES. The graphics were alright (for the SNES), but it was the gameplay that drew me in. The puzzles were good, the monsters were a little more bad-a$$ (except in dark world, where pumpkins and cucumbers roamed the earth). It was just an overall fun experience that a 7-year-old or a 20-year-old can enjoy.

Personally, I LOVE cel shading, so it wasn't the art that made me dislike "Wind Waker." I think cel shading is a better approach to some games; stop going for pure realism (because it's hard to do, and would sort of suck), and go for a cartoon look (like anime). Though "Robotech: Battle Cry" was a poor game, it was AWESOME to jump into action and have it act like the cartoon.

What I didn't like about Wind Waker was it just didn't feel like Zelda. You travelled via boat, and all of the enemies acted like they were in a kiddie cartoon. The game was alright, it just didn't appeal to me as much. Guys running-in-place in mid-air, kiddy enemies, talking boats, playing hide-and-seek, etc just didn't appeal to me.

In short, I hope they maintain the dignity that the Zelda franchise deserves. If they have kick-ass graphics, then good. But they better have a good story and great gameplay. Otherwise we may have to wait years (and console-generations) for another title. Until then, I remain skeptical.

Re:Zelda

[jasonditz]

The problem is Zelda games are time consuming to make. The brand needs a lot more handholding from the big name Nintendo developers and at best they can produce 1-2 titles a year.

Even then a top notch title like Wind Waker did not sell as many copies as Pokemon Colosseum, and both are dwarfed by the handheld RPGs.

In fact, in the 8 years since Pokemon arrived on the scene, there has not once been a year in which a Zelda title was not outsold by some Pokemon title.

Even Ocarina of Time, the breakout Zelda title of the last decade, was outsold in Japan in its year of launch by the two year old original Pokemon RPG. Not just by a little either, it was a two to one margin.

Pokemon is the 800-lb gorilla of the video game industry. Nothing else comes close, not Grand Theft Auto, not Final Fantasy...

Re:Not a flame... Just a little rattled.

[Guppy06]

"This guy is taking a big, big role on all future Zelda projects, and he's spooked by games that require jumping?!?"

Zelda is supposed to be about exploring and adventuring, not falling off a ledge for the umpteen-millionth time because you didn't time your jumps juuuust right. That's why God gave us Castlevania 64.

"Thought Zelda 1 was too hard?!"

OK, bright boy, answer me this: Without 20 years of hindsight, without Nintendo Power, without the Official Nintendo Player's Guide, without The Legend of Zelda: Tips & Tactics, without friends who already knew, without calling up a Nintendo game counselor, without even breaking the seal on the partial map that came with the game...

How the heck are you supposed to find the 7th and 8th labrynths?