Does Zelda Need an Overhaul?

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."

Comments

No way.

[omaha_boy]

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.

[Turn-X Alphonse]

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.

[Purity Of Essence]

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.

[seaturnip]

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

Re:No way.

[edwdig]

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.

[Purity Of Essence]

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.

[Turn-X Alphonse]

Not customisable? You decide what weapons tto use and what tunic for starters.

And Japanese RPGs are stories being told over a long period, not the western RPG definition.

Re:No way.

[sYkSh0n3]

Zelda has had many different looks and styles of game play, Link to the Past being one of my favorites, but as the article points out, since going 3d the games have been basically the same. They feel more like a skinned version of Ocarina then a whole new game. As much as I love Zelda, it is starting to get a little repetitive. So a fresh gameplay system with a totally new way to interact with the land of Hyrule, might not be such a bad idea.

and to the parent:

I remember as a young lad LOATHING the second zelda game, and for the longest time it was the only one I hadn't beaten. But when i got the disc for the GC with the first two games on it, I decided that it was time i beat it just so i could say i had beat them all. It quickly became one of my favorites. So anyone who hated it as a child, might be well served to give it a second chance.

Re:No way.

[OrangeTide]

Zelda 2 was pseudo-RPG. only on the most vague definition of RPG does it match. And if you're into table-top RPG these CRPGs are often nothing like a real RPG.

I think most of the Zelda games are Adventure games. nothing wrong with that, I think the title fits. You certainly go on a pretty amazing adventure in a zelda game. Lots of exploring and searching and stabbing and questing.

Re:No way.

[meringuoid]

I remember as a young lad LOATHING the second zelda game, and for the longest time it was the only one I hadn't beaten. But when i got the disc for the GC with the first two games on it, I decided that it was time i beat it just so i could say i had beat them all. It quickly became one of my favorites.

People hated Zelda 2 because it wasn't top-down like the original. Nintendo went back to top-down with the SNES and Gameboy versions and the fanboys were happy. Then they went 3D. Your beloved top-down format is dead, fanboy! And just to rub it in, what names are these for characters? Rauru, Ruto, Saria, Mido, Nabooru, Darunia...

But Ocarina was so very, very good that everyone forgot it wasn't top-down. Now you play Zelda 2 and you don't see a departure from Zelda 1, you see a precursor to Ocarina, and you don't get the hate on any more.

Re:No way.

[Oktober Sunset]

And I suppose choosing to use the nail gun or the shotgun in quake is customisation too?

Re:No way.

[flooey]

Twilights princess is the same as OoT.

I'd say that's true and yet not true at the same time.

What Nintendo has chosen to do with the Zelda series has seemed to be to evolve it rather than do anything revolutionary. Twilight Princess has the same basic features as Ocarina of Time, for certain. It's very comfortable to the new fans. The game introduces several new and very interesting items that remarkably change the way the game plays as the game progresses, though. Things like the dual-hookshot (clawshot, whatever) and Dominion Rod allow some neat additions to the gameplay that make the game still interesting.

In a lot of ways, the later Zelda games are more like a (very large) expansion to the previous game rather than a new game. It's the same gameplay at the core, but the new details make it different enough that it's enjoyable.

Re:No way.

[diamondmagic]

A "true" RPG features leveling up, often experience, and (though theoretically possible to do without) battles. The name by itself though, role-playing game, implies an epic adventure. Consider the name of the hero, Link. Link was named that because he is your "link" to the game (one of Miyamoto's brilliant but simple concepts). You name Link, and you control Link, though every action and movment. Unlike Final Fantasy, Link will never do anything that you don't tell him to (at least nothing that would affect the plot, the bridge scene in the start of Wind Waker for example). With the same philosophy, Link never says anything, with the exception of a shout in the Wind Waker, but even that is triggered by a button press. "Role play", by dictionary definition, is much closer to that then, say, "adventure". Zelda also features many elements not often found in games besides RPG's: item collection, exploration, puzzles, NPC's, and princesses that need saving (with the exception of Mario).

I personally don't see "Leveling Up" or "XP" to mean "RPG", I just see it as one way of a few to control a character inside a game. I do not believe is it that system that directly appeals to most gamers. It is the gameplay style that a level system creates (usually), and Zelda does an absolutely wonderful job creating that style without the need for it. That is how I classify games, it really just comes down to which element found in (true) RPG's means "Role-playing game", and separates it from an action-adventure (or a plain, old adventure).

Many other people have noted Zelda 2 as an exception, with gameplay styled like an action-adventure with RPG-style leveling (the other way around compared to other titles in the series).

Re:No way.

[seaturnip]

In most uses nowadays, "RPG" has diverged from its literal meaning to mean a game where your avatar(s) may increase his power on a long-term basis by performing optional tasks (typically, gaining "levels" by killing randomly generated monsters). In that sense it's a precise and useful term.

Similarly, "adventure" when used in a precise manner refers to the now mostly dead genre of combat-less games where your avatar talks to NPCs and acquires inventory to solve real-world-esque puzzles. Applying it to Zelda reveals a lack of awareness of gaming jargon. Actually the genre Zelda fits best in is "action-RPG", namely an RPG involving elements of skill and generally from a top-down or 3/4 perspective (c.f. Secret of Mana, Terranigma, Crystalis, etc). But this is only approximate since Link doesn't gain levels; in truth it doesn't fit neatly within one of the clearly defined genres. It's at any rate not too useful to invent new, incredibly vague genres that don't correspond to commonly seen gameplay elements.

Re:No way.

[KDR_11k]

Depends, were you playing the cellphone version?

Re:No way.

[heinousjay]

I don't look for bullet-point lists of things I like in a game. I just play for fun. You guys seem to take this really seriously, though.

Am I the odd man out in a hardcore world? I mean, I've been playing games since I was 4 years old, and I feel qualified in saying I'm a gamer, but this kind of analysis puts me out.

In a word... no

[7Prime]

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... no

[hansamurai]

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.

Stagnation

[Reason58]

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!

[aichpvee]

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.

Nothing changed with 3D

[spocksbrain]

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.

[RyanFenton]

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

why do games need to keep changing?

[poot_rootbeer]

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?

[Salamande]

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

Re:Voice Acting

[Turn-X Alphonse]

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.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Voice Acting

[7Prime]

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.

FF are not sequels

[ncmusic]

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.

Re:In a word... absolutely

[Kelbear]

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.

My 2 cents

[Esc7]

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

Funny you should say that...

[SanityInAnarchy]

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.)

Re:Voice Acting

[Fred Or Alive]

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).

Re:Umm no...

[Joe Random]

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.

Master Chief's Helmet

[SanityInAnarchy]

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:In a word... absolutely

[7Prime]

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:Voice Acting

[IAstudent]

Excccuussse me, Princess!

Not an overhaul, but improvements

[Sciros]

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.

Re:In a word... absolutely

[edawstwin]

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.

Short-term memory?

[muel]

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.

Link would probably like a change...

[harlows_monkeys]

Consider the situation from Link's point of view:

The Legend of Zelda: A Pain in my Ass (Part 1)

The Legend of Zelda: A Pain in my Ass (Part 2)

How to make a Zelda Game

[Metroid72]

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...

Harder to screw up

[Valdrax]

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!

Nintendo, read this!

[ghkw]

Hi!

I've created a Slashdot account just to post this comment in a proper way. It really matters to me, because Zelda is one of those games that I grew up with and I've played every single iteration of it.

It is not true to say that there was not enough innovation going on in Twilight Princess (shape shifting, horse back fighting, cinematics). I like the game a lot. Having said this, Twilight Princess really made want to go back and play the original Legend of Zelda once again. Here are the reasons:

• Exploratory gameplay: In early Zelda titles (mostly in Legend of Zelda and A Link to the Past), it is left up to the player to decide in which sequence to complete the game. Especially in the Twilight Princess this has been dropped in favour of having a proper storyline. Having a storyline is great, but only if it doesn't imply that "we need to put some big rocks over here, otherwise the player will advance too much". In the original Legend of Zelda, the only thing that kept you from moving around freely in the world (I'm simplifying things a bit), is that fact that you just didn't go to some regions because the enemies were too dangerous over there given your current skills. Current Zelda titles are lacking behing on this. In all titles after A Link to the Past, the map felt just very small. My recommendation: Make the map huge and allow the player to freely explore the world -- only limited by his own skills -- in a non-linear gameplay.
• Sidequest nonsense: Newer Zelda titles have too many sidequest. In the original Legend of Zelda, I actually cared for finding all heart containers, but with the inflation of fractions of pieces of hearts in current games, it's just a pain. Things get worse when you have to find 100+ spiders or ghosts. It doesn't add to the game and the reward that you get out of these quests is never worth the effort. My recommendation: Integrate sidequest into the storyline and have one single meaningful artifact as reward.
• Difficulty: Zelda has gotten too easy. Without even going through the pain of getting all bottles, I only died once before completing the game for the first time. Especially the dungeon bosses were too easy. So much for the combat, but it's also true for quests. In current games, you just always know where to place a bomb in a dungeon because it's really obvious from the looks of the wall. Solving riddles has come to the point of just doing the obvious. My recommendation: Make the game harder, both in terms of combat and in terms of riddles. Beating a strong opponent is it's own reward, just as working two hours on finding the correct way to solve a riddle is.
• Lack of combat: Zelda has been shifting its focus from pure combat to RPG. This is OK. However, especially in recent titles, there is a distinct lack of good combat. This is partly due to the fact that in 3D, it's harder for the player to focus on multiple enemies at the same time. I assume that for this reason you never have to face more than two or three tough opponents at the same time in Twilight Princess (same in earlier 3D titles). My recommendation: Rework the user interface to allow for improved combat against multiple strong enemies; allow the player to use interesting strategies against them.
• Don't reinvent the wheel: It's true that fans of the Zelda series don't want to see everything changed. So new items are always fine, but not too many. Instead, how about bringing back some items from the previous games: sword throwing, magic wand, rings, etc. Many of these old items or features can be reused in new and interesting ways on the Wii. Think Wii controller + magic wand. My recommendation: Only come up with new items, that are truely new. Reuse existing items (many of which still need to be adapted to 3D gameplay) where possible.

Thanks for listening (hopefully). :)

Re:Nintendo, read this!

[meringuoid]

In the original Legend of Zelda, the only thing that kept you from moving around freely in the world (I'm simplifying things a bit), is that fact that you just didn't go to some regions because the enemies were too dangerous over there given your current skills.

Broadly true, although later dungeons had rooms that were impossible to get through unless you had the Ladder, which IIRC was found in a dungeon you needed the Raft to get to. You could play most of the dungeons a bit out of sequence, but it was rarely a good idea (except that I always left dungeon 6 till last - Bubble, Like Like and Wizzrobe in the same room equal pain.)

My main complaint along these lines is that you get to know the game design, and think 'Right, I picked up this item in the last dungeon, it must be what I use to get into the next one, and it must be essential to solve the puzzles inside it and then probably will never be used again.' Which got me in trouble at the end of Twilight Princess - I'd completely forgotten I had the boomerang and got slaughtered repeatedly by Zant until I finally caught on.

Sidequest nonsense: Newer Zelda titles have too many sidequest. In the original Legend of Zelda, I actually cared for finding all heart containers, but with the inflation of fractions of pieces of hearts in current games, it's just a pain. Things get worse when you have to find 100+ spiders or ghosts. It doesn't add to the game and the reward that you get out of these quests is never worth the effort. My recommendation: Integrate sidequest into the storyline and have one single meaningful artifact as reward.

Sidequests I like, but keep the rewards coming at regular intervals. I'll hunt Skulltulas because every so often I get something cool. Bugs and Poes don't seem to work quite the same way.

Difficulty: Zelda has gotten too easy. Without even going through the pain of getting all bottles, I only died once before completing the game for the first time. Especially the dungeon bosses were too easy.

Dungeon bosses, yes, trivially easy. I never was once threatened by them until (as I mentioned above) I forgot I had the boomerang :-) Those bloody Ironknuckle-descended beasties, though, they were a bit of fun all right. Especially once you'd got the armour off them and they suddenly got very, very quick and good at blocking.

To be fair, though: how hard were the old games? Really? The puzzles were obscure because the graphics were too basic to give subtle hints, and the old crones whose job it was to deal out the hints had to be translated from a language where one character can be a whole word, but with no extra space. The combat, though - how hard is it to beat the two Dodongos in the second dungeon in Legend of Zelda? How hard was it to beat them in Ocarina? Go back and play the old games today - they're on Virtual Console if your NES doesn't work anymore. Are they really as hard as you remember, or have twenty years of experience made you really, really good at Zelda games?

Don't reinvent the wheel: It's true that fans of the Zelda series don't want to see everything changed. So new items are always fine, but not too many. Instead, how about bringing back some items from the previous games: sword throwing, magic wand, rings, etc.

Wasn't the dual hookshot great, though? I loved that in the sky city. Spider-Man, Spider-Man, does whatever a spider can...

Sword throwing really works better in 2D, I think. It's still there in the Gameboy games. The Blue and Red Ring roughly correspond to the different tunics you get nowadays. A magic wand would be nice, and could work well on Wii, but it would probably end up being a re-heated Ocarina. Learn spell gestures as you travel around Hyrule. SHIELD, JUMP, LIFE, FAIRY, FIRE, REFLECT, SPELL, THUNDER...

I hate voice acting

[HappySqurriel]

Personally, I hate voice acting in most games ...

Because of the costs associated with voice acting you tend to have very limited dialogue which ends up becoming repetative rapidly, and creates a far more static world. With a text based game you can have every character in the game have several unique things to say at any given time and (as a player finishes objectives) have what they change through out the game. Your development team of (roughly) 6 dialogue writers can quickly fill a town setting with content so that everyone in the town says something funny, interesting or useful towards the game; in most voice acted games every character in the game says the exact same canned saying because no developer has the time, money or storage space to create unique sound clips for every character in game.

Zelda 2 was an action RPG

[Prien715]

Collecting items doesn't make for an RPG, but getting getting experience and gaining levels some people might call an RPG. Not in the same way Final Fantasy is, but in the way that Diablo is.

(Is it just me, or does Zelda II just like the newer Castlevanias?)

Re:No

[meringuoid]

Nope, fans will happily rescue the same fucking princess over and over again

Not always the same princess. Zelda's just a traditional name in the royal family of Hyrule. I make it at least four Zeldas through history. Ocarina Zelda, Twilight Princess Zelda, Link to the Past Zelda (who may or may not be the same Zelda as Sleeping Zelda), and Original Zelda.

Re:Voice Acting

[Ambitwistor]

I hate voice acting. It seems to break immersion for me, rather than keeping me in the game. Plus, it takes too long in dialogue-heavy games; much faster to scroll through text. I guess games seem to me like interactive storybooks, not movies. Plus, Zelda's quasi-speech is endearing.

Re:NO, FUCK YOU

[Puff of Logic]

Fuck fuck fuck you in your fucking shit mother's shitty-ass fucking cockhole, you sperm-soaked fuck cock ass cock. Wow, it's like someone hooked up a speech-to-text translator to Halo voice-chat...

Re:Voice Acting

[freezingweasel]

Talk? Who the hell wants to hear actors talk?

Re:In a word... absolutely

[NonSequor]

It's slow to start. That's Twilight Princess's biggest flaw.

But the first horseback battle was probably the most intense experience I've ever had playing a video game. There are some absolutely amazing moments in this game.

Re:Voice Acting

[7Prime]

I just think that's flat-out wrong. It's an aesthetic choice. I'm a composer, myself, I've arranged music for various ensembles because the style of music fit the instrumentation. Basically what you're saying is that any time I don't arrange for full orchestra, I'm living on the cheap. Sometimes all I really want is piano, bass, and drums, though, because that's what the music calls for.

Come on, man, let's call a spade a spade.

You really think I'm just saying this to defend Nintendo? Fuck you, man. You have the right to your own opinion, but don't pretend to put words in my mouth!

If you don't want to hear the voice acting, turn the Voice volume to zero and the captions on. But there's no reason (other than cheap) to not even hire the actors in the first place.

Fuck that, that means I lose the music too. I'd like to experience a game the way the creators intended for it to be seen. It's up to them whether to put voice acting in, because it changes the overall style, and I'll respect their creative license... and not simply chalk it up to fincancial reasons (voice acting is extremely cheap compared to the amount that gets put into games these days).