End of an Era For Zelda

Twilight Princess will represent the end of an era for Zelda games, according to Shigeru Miyamoto.From the Eurogamer article: "'This will be, without a doubt, the last Zelda game as you know it in its present form,' Miyamoto is quoted as saying. He declined to reveal any more details as to how the series will be reborn, but did go on to assure fans that Twilight Princess will be absolutely aces: 'Our goal was to make the best Zelda game ever. The most rich, satisfying and [melancholic]. I worked on it personally, moreso than Wind Waker. I haven't invested as much into any game as I have this one,' Miyamoto said."

Comments

Spoiler

[Anonymous Coward]

Zelda and Link will die.
It's the beginning of the Legend of Ganon.

Zelda FPS.

[AndreiK]

Rather than just making a crap spinoff of such a great series, they should retire it with dignity.

Re:Zelda FPS.

[xenocide2]

When he says that Zelda will not return in classic form, he probably means newer games won't adhere to the standard Zelda design that the first created, a Link to the Past fleshed out, and Ocarina of Time cemented. That form is three dungeons, introduction of the duality of worlds, and seven more dungeons thereafter, leading to a final confrontation of the evil Gannon.

It seems that WindWaker was supposed to carry that theme further, with the Triforce hunt being the grueling 7 dungeon crawl we know and love, and the duality of worlds being above and below water. We see a bit of that duality in the Tower of the Gods and Hyrule Castle, but nothing like LttP demonstrated.

The downside to that epic form is that it takes forever to get out the door. The first came out two years after the NES release, LttP was late, Ocarina was delayed several times, and WindWaker was cut short. Zelda clearly has a strong influence with the gamers, given the strong reactions to the infamous E3 trailer, the cel-shading annoucement of WW, and twilight's expectations to make good on that e3 trailer. As game machines get beefier, the work involved doesn't scale proportionately. Higher poly counts, higher texture qualities and more expansive game worlds crush any time saving benefits the newer machine might yield. They're likely retooling Zelda to something more likely to see release dates on time, and maybe even at release. I don't know if that makes it strictly "better" although it's likely to convice more people to play it and wind up liking/loving it, should it be released with the Revolution on day 1.

I'll miss the classic form, but I do realize that it's an epic form that not many people end up completing. I expect the newer form will be a shorter experience with less of a madlibs rigid game structure, while keeping the emphasis on a single player mode. I could be wrong on this; maybe they've found a way to make Four Swords fun with anonymous strangers on the internet. I know that the Zelda dungeon from SS:M was popular and sparked interest in a Zelda II revival, so that's a possibilty. Hopefully the change makes the franchise cheaper too, so they can use Zelda to push consoles like they can and need to.

What would be most innovative, though, is a Zelda subscription service. I've often said that Link is like the Natty Bumpo of video games; a romantic character who's stories aren't nessecarily internally consistant between them. WW picked up on this same idea (not that I'm saying I've inspired Miyamato somehow). It would be interesting to see an episodic Zelda on their Revolution networking service. Zelda: Wandering Era or something. You'd lose the RPGish aspects of Zelda that can consume people whole, but gain much more back in storytelling potential, ironically.

Don't you just love sensationalism?

[mouse_clicker]

You guys are pathetic. I bet most of you read the title and assumed you knew what the article meant. He means Zelda is changing in the same way it changed between A Link to the Past and Ocarina of Time, and Mario is changing in same way it did between Super Mario World and Super Mario 64. As new features become available, games can take advantage of new gameplay possibilites not available before. The best example of this was the transition between 2D and 3D. Miyamoto is suggesting the Revolution is opening new doors to expand both the Mario and Zelda series. You guys should actually think about what you're saying.

Re:They never should have made it 3D

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

Who considers Ocarina to be one of the worst games of all time? I've played through like 15 times.. I may break out my n64 and play through again now that I'm thinking about it.

What's he mean?

[MilenCent]

I'm going to present a few speculative ideas as to where the series could go after Twilight Princess, but before that, here are the main Zelda games to date, sorted by type and numbered according to release order:

The Legend of Zelda (#1)

Zelda II: The Adventure of Link (#2)

A Link to the Past (#3)
Link's Awakening (#4)
Oracle of Ages (#6A)
Oracle of Seasons (#6B)

Ocarina of Time (#5)
Majora's Mask (#7)
Wind Waker (#8)
Twilight Princess (forthcoming)

I don't count Four Swords Adventures in here (which would be #9) as it was more of a multiplayer action game with levels with a Zelda theme than a "real" Zelda.

Notice, the later eight games don't actually have that much in common with the first two. The three primary developments in the series were, undoubtably, the original NES Zelda, Link to the Past, and Ocarina of Time.

But it's kind of amazing, really, how much the series changed between the original NES game (#1) and LttP (#3). In contrast, the differences between LttP and Ocarina had less to do with gameplay and more to do with control and perspective. Those eight games are what Zelda has come to mean to players: a primary exploration gimmick, sequential dungeons with bosses that usually require the dungeon item to beat and caught up a Heart Container and a McGuffin when defeated, the hunt for hidden Pieces of Heart and minor McGuffins, get-this-to-go-there Metroid-style game progression, and a fairly leisurely game world when it comes to monsters and difficulty.

It's easy to forget, however, that much was changed between The Legend of Zelda to Link to the Past, things that cannot be explained away just by moving to the SNES, or the intervening (and even more different) Zelda II.

The biggest of these are:

1. The game was actually hard. The first Zelda is a good workout, and it gets much tougher (some may say too hard) in the Second Quest. Pieces of Heart are almost meaningless in later Zeldas; I eventually completed all of Ocarina of Time quite easily with only the three hearts I began with, and only had trouble during the fight with Ganon (and Nayru's Love took the edge entirely off of that). But in the original Zelda, the first thing you do is get *all* the Hearts you can easily get before even stepping foot into Level One.

A new Zelda could mark a return to the difficulty the series began with, and was also seen in Zelda II and Link's Awakening. (One problem with that, however, is that the current head of the Zelda series has said he doesn't like the original game's difficulty.)

2. The original Zelda had meaningful choices, something not seen a lot of in adventure games these days. Not that anyone really chose the Red Potion over the Heart Container, of course, or ever picked to lose a HC instead of 50 rupees if they could afford it in one of the Second Quest's infamous Money-Or-Life rooms. But the point is, that adventure games with meaningful failure states are quite rare.

My own personal favorite idea for how this could be made done (something I spent a fair bit of time playing around in Zelda Classic trying to figure out) is a system where each dungeon has *two*, mutually-exclusive, items, which allow the player to reach different areas in each game depending on the choices he's made.

3. As said before, starting with Link to the Past, the design began to resemble Metroid in progression. You get an item (usually in Level One) that lets you reach Level Two, the item in Level Two lets you reach Level Three, and so on. There are places where this skips, but most of the items work like this.

In the original game, however, you could explore, if I count right, 126 of the game's 128 overworld screens before going into even the first dungeon. And there's something to be said for this degree of player freedom, even if it's unfashionable in the game industry these days. The thing I loved best about the original game, that's never been duplicated in any of the later installments in the