Sharp said:
What is up with all the OoT bashing on GAF? Anyway, I'm just glad to know that Aonuma's working on a new Zelda, remake or otherwise, because it's one of my favorite series and more is always welcome! Though honestly "more of the same" would be fine with me, and I'm not not sure why he feels like he needs to change up the formula, but I guess GAF believes that too now so yeah.
The Megaman formula was fine, but the series became unbelievably stale; so many iterations had passed that it was only a matter of time before you faced off against "Rainy Turtloid" (I'm not making that one up).
Likewise, the Zelda formula is fine, but the series has become stale -- everything is too damn predictable. I don't think changing Zelda aesthetically is enough; it's merely a new coat of paint. I do think it should be shook up structurally and probably mechanically too (assuming the next one is on Wii).
There are complaints that Zelda fans don't have any idea what they want, but I have a pretty good idea of what I want, or what I think would do wonders for making the next Zelda game more fresh:
[quote="Tristam]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.[/quote]