A Mature Zelda Title

Originally Posted by Ningan the Lone Ninja

I thought that two women in Castle Town hinted at racial reservations?



Midna's intentions were good, but Zant's were more sinister.

Oh wait... yea you're right about the doctor. Dr. Borville - Zelda Wiki

And sure, Zant's intentions were evil but 1 doesn't equal the whole. Zant was bad from the start, that's why the king of the Twili denied him in the first place.

Midna would occasionally rant about how her people were pushed aside. She even got angry about it a few times. Her original intention was to use Link and only save her people. Both Zant and Midna had a grudge on Hyrule. Link and Zelda made Midna see differently though.

There are some pretty ridiculous posts in this thread rofl

People that only mention to dark themes in TP and MM are somehow forgetting that OoT had the most use of blood in any Zelda game to date, and was also the most violent. Ganondorf spits out blood when he gets defeated, and the Shadow Temple has torture chambers with bloodied up weapons and blood smeared everywhere, not to mention that there were some pretty frightful elements. Zelda is dark enough, lol

People saying that kids wouldn't be able to play Zelda games if they were rated M are pretty silly, too. Do you understand that kids ages 10 to 12 these days are more likely to play a rated M game than any other rating? Have you ever been online games like Halo, Call of Duty, Battlefield, Team Fortress, Quake, or Counter Strike? All of these are games with a lot of blood and violence, generally rated M, yet young kids play it. Please consider that parents in the USA literally don't give a ♥♥♥♥ anymore, and rating would only effect user preference now. Also consider that Nintendo adhears to a "family" and "casual" player base, so it's already out of the question.

Personally, though, if I had my way, I'd have things be a tad more realistic swordplay or something. More emotional, more serious, and uh, if I shoot someone with an arrow, maybe even a tiny, tiny bit of blood? Just a little? Is that too much for you guys?

After learning about game design, I learned that games were meant to provide simulation of experiences that generally couldn't be experienced otherwise. If you want to be a race-car driver, you can play Forza Motorsports. If you want to be a counter-terrorist, you can play Counter Strike. Name a role in life or fiction, and you can play it with a large degree of realism.

But if you want to be Link, whilist using traditional items used through most fictions, you have to do it in unrealistic environments. Go figure.

Originally Posted by Eikelmann

There are some pretty ridiculous posts in this thread rofl

People that only mention to dark themes in TP and MM are somehow forgetting that OoT had the most use of blood in any Zelda game to date, and was also the most violent. Ganondorf spits out blood when he gets defeated, and the Shadow Temple has torture chambers with bloodied up weapons and blood smeared everywhere, not to mention that there were some pretty frightful elements. Zelda is dark enough, lol

People saying that kids wouldn't be able to play Zelda games if they were rated M are pretty silly, too. Do you understand that kids ages 10 to 12 these days are more likely to play a rated M game than any other rating? Have you ever been online games like Halo, Call of Duty, Battlefield, Team Fortress, Quake, or Counter Strike? All of these are games with a lot of blood and violence, generally rated M, yet young kids play it. Please consider that parents in the USA literally don't give a ♥♥♥♥ anymore, and rating would only effect user preference now. Also consider that Nintendo adhears to a "family" and "casual" player base, so it's already out of the question.

That some children have flocked to Realistic Murder Simulators does not mean that games should set out to imitate them. If parents truly "do not give a ♥♥♥♥ anymore", then there would exist no rating system. There would be no demand for one. There would be no angry parents who demand such rating systems exist.

Personally, though, if I had my way, I'd have things be a tad more realistic swordplay or something. More emotional, more serious, and uh, if I shoot someone with an arrow, maybe even a tiny, tiny bit of blood? Just a little? Is that too much for you guys?

The Legend of Zelda series already features violence. No one is complaining about that. What the series does not need is an adherence to "realism".

Remember Unreal Tournament 2004? One of the most over the top first person shooters of all time? Blood and guts, satellite strikes, ridiculous vehicles traveling at a billion miles per hour hour to hunt down a robot carry a shotgun that rips through the air like the slam of God's car door? Did we complain about its lack of realism?

No. We were too busy having fun to care.

After learning about game design, I learned that games were meant to provide simulation of experiences that generally couldn't be experienced otherwise. If you want to be a race-car driver, you can play Forza Motorsports. If you want to be a counter-terrorist, you can play Counter Strike. Name a role in life or fiction, and you can play it with a large degree of realism.

Ha.

No. Video games have only recently taken on the illusion of realism. They have never been simulations.

But if you want to be Link, whilist using traditional items used through most fictions, you have to do it in unrealistic environments. Go figure.

"Traditional" items? Clawshots? Flying mechanical beetles? Spinny-top-things? Link hardly uses the "traditional" fantasy items. There is no reason for a story of fantasy to constrain itself with "realism".

There are some pretty ridiculous posts in this thread rofl

Your own comment betrays you.

This made me laugh, seriously where did you get that notion that all video games are suppose to be simulations from? So you mean to say that Pokemon is a simulation game? For what?

That some children have flocked to Realistic Murder Simulators does not mean that games should set out to imitate them. If parents truly "do not give a ♥♥♥♥ anymore", then there would exist no rating system. There would be no demand for one. There would be no angry parents who demand such rating systems exist.

Ironically, not too long ago I saw a mom refuse to buy her daughter Grand Theft Auto BECAUSE OF THE RATING SYSTEM.

And I saw another questioning which games would suitable for her 5 year old son, thus showing that she too "gave a ♥♥♥♥" about the rating system.

Hell, I had to convince my mom to buy me Devil May Cry for Xmas 4 years ago, because it was rated M and I was only 13 at the time.

The Legend of Zelda series already features violence. No one is complaining about that. What the series does not need is an adherence to "realism".

Remember Unreal Tournament 2004? One of the most over the top first person shooters of all time? Blood and guts, satellite strikes, ridiculous vehicles traveling at a billion miles per hour hour to hunt down a robot carry a shotgun that rips through the air like the slam of God's car door? Did we complain about its lack of realism?

No. We were too busy having fun to care.

Last year, a duo of women walked into my local GameStop ranting about how OoT was the best game ever. Add them to the billions of other fans who say the same thing. Given the lack of blood in OoT only to be seen in the one scene with Ganondorf coughing up blood which was very little, did anyone complain about its "lack of realism"?

No. We were too busy having fun to care.

Originally Posted by Pinkie Pie

That some children have flocked to Realistic Murder Simulators does not mean that games should set out to imitate them. If parents truly "do not give a ♥♥♥♥ anymore", then there would exist no rating system. There would be no demand for one. There would be no angry parents who demand such rating systems exist.

I wouldn't say adding a tad of realism to the game would be considered imitation. Okay, fair enough. Over-exaggeration. Parents do care, but not even close to the level that they did from the 80s or 90s.

Originally Posted by Pinkie Pie

The Legend of Zelda series already features violence. No one is complaining about that. What the series does not need is an adherence to "realism".

Remember Unreal Tournament 2004? One of the most over the top first person shooters of all time? Blood and guts, satellite strikes, ridiculous vehicles traveling at a billion miles per hour hour to hunt down a robot carry a shotgun that rips through the air like the slam of God's car door? Did we complain about its lack of realism?

No. We were too busy having fun to care.

Originally Posted by Eikelmann

People that only mention to dark themes in TP and MM are somehow forgetting that OoT had the most use of blood in any Zelda game to date, and was also the most violent. Ganondorf spits out blood when he gets defeated, and the Shadow Temple has torture chambers with bloodied up weapons and blood smeared everywhere, not to mention that there were some pretty frightful elements. Zelda is dark enough, lol

Originally Posted by Pinkie Pie

Ha.

No. Video games have only recently taken on the illusion of realism. They have never been simulations.

I'm just going to assume you've been involved with game design and taken game design classes on a college level, since you obviously know what you're talking about. Teach me how to use Unity sometime.

Originally Posted by Pinkie Pie

"Traditional" items? Clawshots? Flying mechanical beetles? Spinny-top-things? Link hardly uses the "traditional" fantasy items. There is no reason for a story of fantasy to constrain itself with "realism".

That's cool that you can include some of the more recent fictional-related items, yet you make no mention to the items included in the first Zelda games, which were obviously the basis for adding more complex items into the mix when LttP came out. Most of the base items aren't as fictional as you'd think.

Fantasy-related things can retain realistic concepts without being ridiculous, as contradictory as it may sound for fiction to be "realistic" or non-fictional. It's all subjective when it comes down to it.

Originally Posted by keyaki

This made me laugh, seriously where did you get that notion that all video games are suppose to be simulations from? So you mean to say that Pokemon is a simulation game? For what?

Describe to me why you played video games when you were younger, and I mean that. Couldn't because it simulated an experience that you enjoyed, right? A role that you wanted to play in this game, maybe? I'm confused what you define video gaming as.

Originally Posted by keyaki

Ironically, not too long ago I saw a mom refuse to buy her daughter Grand Theft Auto BECAUSE OF THE RATING SYSTEM.

And I saw another questioning which games would suitable for her 5 year old son, thus showing that she too "gave a ♥♥♥♥" about the rating system.

Since you work at a Gamestop location, how often do you see parents refuse their children a game based on a rating that isn't catered to them as opposed to the opposite scenario? And how often do you think that you don't get to see that opposite scenario acted out?

Originally Posted by keyaki

Last year, a duo of women walked into my local GameStop ranting about how OoT was the best game ever. Add them to the billions of other fans who say the same thing. Given the lack of blood in OoT only to be seen in the one scene with Ganondorf coughing up blood which was very little, did anyone complain about its "lack of realism"?

No. We were too busy having fun to care.

Okay, so it's clear to me you didn't read much of my post and just picked out the parts you disagreed with to scrutinise me on or else you wouldn't have said what you said here at all lol

Also I wouldn't be here if I didn't enjoy Zelda games. If I felt SO STRONGLY that Zelda games REQUIRED realism, I would be hating on it.

Describe to me why you played video games when you were younger, and I mean that. Couldn't because it simulated an experience that you enjoyed, right? A role that you wanted to play in this game, maybe? I'm confused what you define video gaming as.

Simply, because they were fun. That's all. I enjoyed games like Pokemon and Legend of Zelda just because I enjoyed it and they seemed different than the other games of the time. Not really any specific role that I myself personally wanted to take part in.

Since you work at a Gamestop location, how often do you see parents refuse their children a game based on a rating that isn't catered to them as opposed to the opposite scenario?

Truth be told? All the time. Seriously. All the time.

Okay, so it's clear to me you didn't read much of my post and just picked out the parts you disagreed with to scrutinise me on or else you wouldn't have said what you said here at all lol

Believe me, I did read your comment and I'm not here to criticize so don't get defensive and snotty. Its just a simple debate.

My point still stands. Why would a "mature" Zelda game be needed in the first place? Its probably been said here a lot of times already, but a lot of games like Zelda still keep the fantasy part of it and yet its still enjoyable.

And how often do you think that you don't get to see that opposite scenario acted out?

Originally Posted by Eikelmann

And how often do you think that you don't get to see that opposite scenario acted out?

Again, all the time I've seen the rating system enforced. Meaning not once have I not seen anyone not care.

I guess where I live its just a different case. But there are parents who do care, its not as "non-existent" as you claim. Sure there are parents who do buy 10 year olds games like Grand Theft Auto, etc. But unless we can rack up those parents with the ones who do pay attention, we really don't have much to argue with.

Originally Posted by Eikelmann

I wouldn't say adding a tad of realism to the game would be considered imitation. Over-exaggeration. Parents do care, but not even close to the level that they did from the 80s or 90s.

Yet enough still do that it's still an issue.

Your point is moot.

I'm just going to assume you've been involved with game design and taken game design classes on a college level, since you obviously know what you're talking about. Teach me how to use Unity sometime.

Pinkie Pie is just going to assume that you know that your experience in game design does not make your opinion greater than the other members here. The ability to analyze a game's appeal and intent is not connected to one's experience with game design.

Teach Pinkie Pie how to write some time. It's just as relevant.

That's cool that you can include some of the more recent fictional-related items, yet you make no mention to the items included in the first Zelda games, which were obvious the basis for adding more complex items into the mix when LttP came out. Most of the base items aren't as fictional as you'd think.

Yes, back when the series was on a more primitive system, the items were simpler. However, the moment The Legend of Zelda jumped to the Super Nintendo, they grew to become fantastical.

Fantasy-related things can retain realistic concepts without being ridiculous, as contradictory as it may sound for fiction to be "realistic" or non-fictional. It's all subjective when it comes down to it.

"Realistic" does not equal "fun". Just because some few people who think there needs to be a basis for the function

Describe to me why you played video games when you were younger, and I mean that. Couldn't because it simulated an experience that you enjoyed, right? A role that you wanted to play in this game, maybe? I'm confused what you define video gaming as.

It simulated something for people, but that did not make the game simulation. The definitions are not the same.

Since you work at a Gamestop location, how often do you see parents refuse their children a game based on a rating that isn't catered to them as opposed to the opposite scenario? And how often do you think that you don't get to see that opposite scenario acted out?

And yet it still causes enough of a stir for the rating system to exist. Point = moot. Stop relying on it.

It simulated something for people, but that did not make the game simulation.

Which goes back to your stance on illusion of realism...if I'm reading that right?

Originally Posted by keyaki

Again, all the time I've seen the rating system enforced. Meaning not once have I not seen anyone not care.

I guess where I live its just a different case.

That's not what I'm saying. Most un-informed people are going to come into a store in person to gain their information on games, so of course people that agree with the rating system will come to Gamestop. What I asked was, how often do you think that people who are more liberal about their children playing mature games make choices opposite from what your consumers do?

Originally Posted by keyaki

My point still stands. Why would a "mature" Zelda game be needed in the first place? Its probably been said here a lot of times already, but a lot of games like Zelda still keep the fantasy part of it and yet its still enjoyable.

Quote me where I say that it's needed, and that I whole-heartily support a complete realistic makeover of a Zelda game, or that I feel it needs more than just a tad of realism aside from what has already been offered.

That's not what I'm saying. Most un-informed people are going to come into a store in person to gain their information on games, so of course people that agree with the rating system will come to Gamestop. What I asked was, how often do you think that people who are more liberal about their children playing mature games make choices opposite from what your consumers do?

You got me there, when I'm there I see parents who pay attention and I haven't heard of any parents or seen any parents who are more ignorant or liberal with the system.

Quote me where I say that it's needed, and that I whole-heartily support a complete realistic makeover of a Zelda game, or that I feel it needs more than just a tad of realism aside from what has already been offered.

I wasn't asking you that, it was a general question.

Originally Posted by keyaki

I wasn't asking you that, it was a general question.

I knew it was rhetorical haha but I assumed you stated that point in response to something I had said.

So, anyone have good plot ideas for a mature Zelda?

I just say show the truest form of humans. When you are endangered, you will fight tooth and nail, stopping at nothing to get back up to a stable position.

If you set out to make an M-rated title instead of make a great game and it gets the rating that it gets, you're doing something wrong.

it's nice but i find it common, then again... it could work, but yes, i would like to see Zelda with a higher standard for once... no affence or anything, but i agree. As for a suitable title, idk... it sould have to match with the game, obviously but i'm not sure that the whole plot triggers enough... in me anyway

I don't want to see a "mature" Zelda game defined as being bloody, gory, and "dark" just for the sake of it, but rather a Zelda game with a real threat (like the falling of the Moon or the fading of Hyrule into the Twilight Realm) and threatening enemies (I'm looking at you, SS Bokoblins!). If a real sense of threat is given, then it's much easier to care for the people in this world and immerse yourself in the game. That's what Zelda needs!

Originally Posted by Kyrie

I don't want to see a "mature" Zelda game defined as being bloody, gory, and "dark" just for the sake of it, but rather a Zelda game with a real threat (like the falling of the Moon or the fading of Hyrule into the Twilight Realm) and threatening enemies (I'm looking at you, SS Bokoblins!). If a real sense of threat is given, then it's much easier to care for the people in this world and immerse yourself in the game. That's what Zelda needs!

This. This exactly.

What any good story-intensive series needs is weight, not 'fake 'maturity' for fake adults'.

Just remember that being dark just for the sake of being 'mature' will just kill anything it touches.

Don't believe me? Look at how well anyone who actually gave a care about Transformers (I mean the ones who are actually open to change, so long as it wasn't pandering) reacted the the Bay movies.

If that's not enough QED for you, I suggest you look at Extra Creditz's latest episode here: Penny Arcade - Extra Credits – Hard-Boiled

(Yes, I realize that technically counts as a plug, but it addresses the point of this thread better than I probably could gather myself to.)

Originally Posted by Phyrior

Don't believe me? Look at how well anyone who actually gave a care about Transformers (I mean the ones who are actually open to change, so long as it wasn't pandering) reacted the the Bay movies.

What point are you trying to make here? I'm not sure whether you're supporting or disagreeing with the Bay films.