Oblivion said:
Thanks for responding. However, from what I've seen so far in this thread, the only changes that I would constitute as 'drastic' or 'complete overhaul' would be the more open ended world structure (like Zelda 1/GTA) and the issue about the story.
I guess the thing that irks me the most is that if people (such as those in this thread) would easily dismiss OoT for being nothing more than a LttP clone, despite all the innovation it brought as well, then there is very little that could be done to future Zelda that WOULDN'T disappoint these same people. What I feel they would imagine is something like having some futuristic setting, with a completely different cast, no dungeons, and modify the whole thing so much that it wouldn't even be Zelda anymore.
But then again, I'm way more forgiving than most. I happen to think Nintendo did a great job differentiating every series in the game (don't confuse that with doing a great job with every game btw).
And this I think is something that's part of it. Thank you.
The superficial trappings are less important than a structural shift (and I think a return to an open-ended Zelda is a fantastic idea). And like I said, it's not just the game structure, but the structure of the dungeons themselves. Toss out that progression that invariably follows the tired convention of map -> compass -> mini-boss -> treasure -> big boss key -> boss defeated only with dungeon item. Make some dungeons small; make some dungeons huge. It doesn't matter how big they are -- just vary them. Change the bosses so that they can be defeated a number of different ways using different combinations of items. Like another poster said, go ahead and make the "hub" of the world (and it doesn't even have to be a real "hub," although villages always work nicely) the safest place on the map; the remainder of the map should get more dangerous -- in terms of enemies and environmental hazards -- the farther you go (though few areas should be so difficult that they're
totally inaccessible at the beginning of the game; DQ, for example, forces you to grind to access new areas). Perhaps two or three dungeons can't be reached until Link's acquired some new item or ability -- that's fine. But allow most of them to be completed arbitrarily.
I'm less concerned about the graphics as long as they're colorful and clean. TP had some fantastically beautiful scenes and some downright ugly ones (thanks to the textures). As for story, I don't care how much of it is there (I generally don't care for stories in video games in general) as long as what
is there makes sense. And as for NPCs, I love the more colorful characters of the Zelda games, but it'd be interesting to see a Zelda 1-style world sparsely populated by old ladies, gamblers, and moblins hidden in caves. Not that I'm advocating that, but it would be interesting. Then again, I'd be just as interested in a Zelda II setup with all kinds of little towns tucked away in woods or mountains or valleys. Make it so that it's not essential -- but still very worthwhile -- to travel to most of them.
Like I said, I'm just fine with keeping Zelda in the mythology and universe that it's always resided in (although it doesn't have to be set in the
world of Hyrule). It's always resembled a simple folktale about callow youth and raw courage, which is why I object to depictions of Link tripped out in Godly armor, armed with dual swords, and riding astride a pegasus. Toss him in a world with his little green tunic, a wooden shield, and a slender pigsticker and see what he can do. His skills should rely more on ingenuity than strength.
As for you guys spinning elaborate plots and complicated systems of spells, armor, and weapons, I guess we have very different ideas about what Zelda should embody.
