A proponent of innovative "gimmicks"

While I respect opinions that transforming into animals or a massive battle wouldn’t feel “classic Zelda” I’m really going to have to disagree. It seems people like to use the “I don’t like a certain idea because it wouldn’t feel Zelda,” but I have yet to hear a coherent explanation of what does and does not feel Zelda. I can only come to the conclusion that what feels Zelda is nothing more than personal opinion.

It is my opinion that transforming into animals or a massive battle could still feel classic Zelda. Zelda games have always relied on a “gimmick” to add a different strategic element than the other Zelda games. Including AlttP and OoT, which are generally considered as the most traditional of the series. AlttP has transportation between parallel worlds, and OoT has time travel.

Please note that I’m not saying there’s any reason to believe the rumors to be true just why I don’t think that the ideas would be abominations to the Zelda series

The animal transformation argument:

At least for me it’s been easy to associate Link with nature and the forest. In my opinion a theme heavy on the incorporation of these elements would feel Zelda. It would not ruin gameplay (I certainly believe that it didn’t ruin gameplay in Majora’s Mask). It would not be a “strange gameplay twist,” an innovation yes, but not anything that stays far from the Zelda formula.

Changing into animals would lend itself very well to a solo wilderness survival theme, which I think is only a natural spin on the exploration motif of Zelda games. Of course dungeons and some semblance of a story would be required. A “free roaming real-life wilderness survival” would obviously not “feel Zelda” (see, I use the ambiguous term too o.O), and it would be absurd to assume that anybody that like the idea of animal transformation and camping is leaning toward that extreme.

That being said I honestly would not want animal transformation in the next Zelda installment: at least not wolves and eagles. The two previously mentioned animals would seem to have the obvious benefit of improved quickened travel. Anything that would take away from the apparent innovative horse mechanics would be disappointing as I am very much looking forward to this addition and hoping that Nintendo makes most of the many possibilities.

The massive battle argument:

Ok, first of all, like I mentioned above, it’s absurd to assume that everyone who likes the idea of a massive battle being incorporated into the game is looking to neglect the exploration factor of the over world and to eliminate dungeons in favor of a Zelda-themed Two-Towers clone.

It seems that a popular element to a Zelda game is an “epic feel.” Players want to feel like the events of the game were momentous to the Zelda history or at least that the threat they defeated was of legendary proportions. A massive battle can very effectively deliver an epic sensation.

The progression of the war would have to develop as a side story along with the completion of dungeons of which if you are ever actually involved in a battle with numerous friendly AI by your side it is minimal enough as to still allow for exploration of the over world.

I imagine a story where Link starts out as common soldier but after a battle or to it is revealed that he is the descendant of the Hero of Time, destined to rise against the recurring cycle of a great evil that threatens the peace of Hyrule. It is then that Link goes in search on the Master Sword or Triforce of Courage or some item that will supposedly realize his potential to defeat Ganon. As the story progresses there are few other key battle that Link becomes involved in, but for the most part his adventuring solo as war wages in the background. At the story’s climax the Hylian army is making their last stand against an obviously superior army, but just as they are looking to be overwhelmed Link shows up. With his newfound powers he fights his way to the back where Ganon commands his army. Some event happens to separate Link and Ganon from the rest of Ganon’s army and the two fight mono-e-mono in a battle of truly epic proportions. Sure the basic idea is very similar to LotR but it’s just one of a nigh limitless number of stories that could be told that effectively incorporate a massive battle without neglect the key elements of Zelda gameplay

So what “feels” Zelda?:

In my opinion what make a game feel Zelda an expansive interactive overworld that encourages and reward exploration with the meat of the core gameplay involved in dungeons.

Also necessary is a Zelda theme. If Hyrule, Zelda, Ganon, the Triforce, and other key Zelda canon elements aren’t included than at least Hyrulean locals and familiar enemies should be incorporated even if only as a parallel allusion. Personally I’d say if a game isn’t “piggybacking” off another game as a side quest sequel (LA to AlltP and MM to OoT) I’d prefer it to be set in Hyrule, but that’s not absolutely necessary.

Another element that has basically become standard is a musical instrument. I think the absence of a musical instrument would now feel awkward in a Zelda Title and make it feel incomplete.

I don’t have a problem if people disagree with me on what makes a Zelda game feel Zelda. It’s really all a matter of opinion, but I do find it annoying a frustrating when people directly state or indirectly imply that somebody is stupid or ignorant for thinking various ideas such as the two discussed rumors are appealing.

And just a side thought: I wonder how many Naysayers would miraculously switch to animal changing and massive battle enthusiasts if Nintendo were to announce the game actually was going to follow in that direction. Come on, you know there’d be some

I agree with the animal transformation. I'd really want to see more of that. As for the battle, i wouldn't care more or less. One way, Link would be involved, or he could be undercover and not take place in it. Ethier way, LoZ is going to be great!

i think that trying new stuff is what zelda is all about, look at AoL, WW, OoT. ill just have to try and see if this is really true, but we wont know until the game comes out so, lets wait and see

Masssive battle I like, but animal transformation is a little too childish (for the game they are making) and a little too MM.

I agree with what Flabbergasted is trying to say. Think about it. I mean, at first, bet all of us thought a side-scrolling RPG-ish sequel wouldn't 'feel' Zelda.... a sequel where Link relives the same three days over and over and has to stop a falling moon wouldn't 'feel' like Zelda.... a sequel with loads of ocean exploration wouldn't 'feel' like Zelda.... a sequel where Link has the ability to shrink wouldn't 'feel' like Zelda....

And guess what? We were proven wrong. :cool:

I still don't like the animal transformation idea though.

I have yet to hear a coherent explanation of what does and does not feel Zelda.

Oh yeah?


In all seriousness, I agree with you on the animal transformation bit - right down to not wanting in to be featured in this next game. Though you DO say it's innovative, and I disagree. It's not as if animal transformations are a new idea.


But I very much disagree with you, that a large battle or a Hyrule at war would feel Zelda. Zelda has been epic, yes. But Zelda has always been about a young kid exploring an interesting land, a land filled with monsters, but still ultimately a nice one, where the people tend to go about their lives. The only exception to this is MM, and... well, that didn't feel like Zelda, to me. I loved MM, but it was distinctly different from the rest of the series.

I never want to see a largescale battle in a Zelda game.


And you say that the Zelda series has always been epic, and that large battle could only make them more so. But there are more than one kind of "epic"... and a large battle leans closer to LotR than to Zelda.

Exactly.I suppose turning into animals could open up a whole new world of puzzles,I don't think that the idea could be used to perfection.

Usually, there are 2 kinds of zelda. The first one, and the sequel. Loz - Aol, aLttP - LA, Oot - MM. Usually I like the sequel ones better even though they not feel "zelda". So the question you have to ask yourself is, do you want it to feel zelda? If it costs us Great ideas like massive battles and animal transformation, no I dont.

The games feeling Zelda is what makes them so great. If they didn't feel like Zelda, they would just be other games, and I wouldn't really give a damn about the series.

Would I sacrifice "great" ideas like giant battles in order for it to feel like Zelda? Heck yeah. I can find giant battles just about anywhere. I can only find true Zelda games in the Zelda series, and even then they're not prevalent.

I can see how a large battle could be incorporated into Zelda. Lets say, hypothetically, that this was the game where Link fails. Or heck, even if he doesn't. If you weren't in it then it could give you a feeling of failure, of despair. All that you had done was in vain. All the work you had done to stop this impending war in the peacefull land of Hyrule, was for naught.

You were THAT close, but you didn't make it. I can see the new Link looking around at this battle. The look on his face would be as if to say "...No...stop it." " I failed..." " Why?...all that work I had done..". The sound could fade out and become fuzzy during this cutscene or area of the game. For the first time we would see a look of dissapointment in his face. Of depression...of hoplessness in Links face.

He is, after all, only human. He has these emotions too. He can't just be a brave young man, that cares not, and worries not, about the trouble ahead. I beleive this could make a better image of Link being a real person, and being in this world.

Originally Posted by lord-of-shadow

Oh yeah?


In all seriousness, I agree with you on the animal transformation bit - right down to not wanting in to be featured in this next game. Though you DO say it's innovative, and I disagree. It's not as if animal transformations are a new idea.


But I very much disagree with you, that a large battle or a Hyrule at war would feel Zelda. Zelda has been epic, yes. But Zelda has always been about a young kid exploring an interesting land, a land filled with monsters, but still ultimately a nice one, where the people tend to go about their lives. The only exception to this is MM, and... well, that didn't feel like Zelda, to me. I loved MM, but it was distinctly different from the rest of the series.

I never want to see a largescale battle in a Zelda game.


And you say that the Zelda series has always been epic, and that large battle could only make them more so. But there are more than one kind of "epic"... and a large battle leans closer to LotR than to Zelda.

You have to step out of ALTTP or LA or whatever game you think every Zelda game should be like, and adapt to changes instead of simply rejecting them with the argument that 'It's not Zelda'. The Zelda games should advance in my opinion, and they should turn out original and different pretty often (not always, but it's a thing very warmly welcomed most of the time). TWW is a great example, it uses OoT's system of battling/menues/etc but yet it still brought out an originality of its own. This is what I love.

Of course, it must always feel like Zelda, and so far only AoL has failed to make me feel the true Zelda spirit.

I've lost count of how many people say that to me, as if I'm some old geezer stuck in the past. But that is not the case. I have my standards, but my standards leave a LOT of room to grow and innovate. They leave room for many things. Do I just want another LttP? No. No, I do not.

I am not rejecting change and growth. I am rejecting what I see as deviant or negative change and growth.

If you want an example of ways that I think the series could change while still retaining it's qualities, look at my article that I linked you to there.


And for the record, I love tWW. I love it's ocean, it's graphics, and it's story. All things that are new and different in the series - well, maybe not the story. It's gameplay is not quite up to par, but that's not because of any changes they brought in, really. I am not averse to change, as you and so many others erroneously believe.

He is, after all, only human. He has these emotions too. He can't just be a brave young man, that cares not, and worries not, about the trouble ahead. I beleive this could make a better image of Link being a real person, and being in this world.

Link has never been, and hopefully never will be, a character to break down into depression or hopelessness. None of the Zeldas games have ever featured a glimmer of despair, and I think that portrayal of Link as an innocent hope for Hyrule is one of the most important pieces of the Zelda series' character.


Now, I DO think a large battle could be done and fit the series just fine. My problem is, if they do put a battle in this upcoming game, I do not think they will manage to do so in a way I find satisfactory. They might try to go even further in this LOTR-style epic feeling that they're portraying through the trailor. I love LOTR, but it is not Zelda, and Zelda should never try to emulate it in any way.


EDIT: Let me say one more thing: My desires for the series are really not that strict. There are a few things I feel are necessary: That the series maintains a more or less whimsical feel, that it does not turn too serious or try to become as "epic" as possible, that it nevers gets too dark or dreary, and that it somehow maintains the feeling of adventure that has always been present in the best games of the series.

Those are not exactly EASY things to accomplish, especially in the adventure and exploration department, but they by no means limit possible innovations or growth into new areas. It just means I don't want the series to become too dark, too melodramatic, and too obsessed with it's own epic quality like so many want it to become.

I see I was wrong. It's just that you give off the impression that you want no changes or anything new in Zelda games, which is what I just accused you of saying/thinking. Just a coincidence that ideas you dislike often pop up, then. Happens to me a lot, which is why I myself am accused for liking only Star Wars and Zelda games.

Also, I'd love to transform into an animal or two in a Zelda game. We've done it Majora's Mask, and I loved it so much.

Originally Posted by lord-of-shadow

. It just means I don't want the series to become too dark, too melodramatic, and too obsessed with it's own epic quality like so many want it to become.

I know a lot of people won't agree with me but I'll say it anyway: it actually wouln't hurt if that happened. Why? One word: Maturity. It would mean that video games have evolved past an era when they were not (how to say it?) serious. This is hard for me to explain, but I'll try. Video games are video games, right? What I'm saying is that it wouldn't hurt if they had more in-depth plot (don't quote FF or any other game for that matter, please), more in depth-character. Probably what you're thinking up to this point is: this is not freaking Hamlet or theater plays to be talking about plot and character depth. Yes, it isn't. I agree. Video games are not dramas but, I'm saying that it would be cool if they contained a bit more of it. Zelda is not LOTR, of course. However, I woudn't mind at all, actually I hope, it will contain some of its spirit. Nuff said.

There are already video games that have gone far and beyond normal levels of maturity. And dark and serious does not necessarily mean maturity, anyways.

But if it's this nebulous maturity you want, I think you'd be better served looking at the Xenosaga series, or Metal Gear Solid, or something along those lines. It has no place in the Zelda series, and the video game industry certainly doesn't need ANOTHER old series despoiling it's legacy by going down that route.

Let me put a concrete example of what I think maturity in a video game is. Remember the guy in MM who worried about his chickens? Well, why isn't he worried about his family or thinking why we live for if you can be doomed in three days? Nope, he's worrying about freaking chickens. Another thing people misunderstand is that maturity=no humor. That is wrong. I will use LOTR for an example. It was dark, yet comic relief could be found often. Maturity isn't about taking humor out of something, is about making humor smarter. For example on thing I liked a lot in MM was Captain Viscen's dialogue with Mutoh. Viscen knows what's coming, yet the superficiality of the other characters is too much to make them realize that there is danger. Another thing that made me think was: why are the Bombers League members called mischievers (sp?) when they're trying to help others? Are people ungrateful? It would have been interesting if the game had said something about that. It would have shown maturity. Yet another example: why do we have to give Miss Marie loads of pendants to get something as important as a Triforce map? Is she that superficial? Again, not all people are ethic, but stating the consequences of it or playing around with that idea and developing it is what maturity really is about. I hope my idea has been stated clear enough.

I know what you meant about what maturity is, and we agree on that point. We agree about what makes something mature.

I'm just arguing that I don't want to see it in a Zelda game. I'd rather have that guy worrying about his chickens than his family. I don't want to see some deep dialogue with the teacher, or some deeply emotional cutscene.

In other games, I can appreciate it, to be sure. To refer to my previous examples... I love the Xenosaga games. I just don't think it would fit the Zelda franchise.

Reply to Lord of Shadow

You say changing into animals isn’t innovative, and depending on how you define innovation I’d be inclined to agree. I suppose if you go by dictionary definition then you’re right, changing into animals would not be innovative. I think this is a very good example of what I mean when I say innovative:

“I can honestly say that the Ikana Tower Temple, from Majora's Mask, is the coolest place I have ever, ever, seen. Normal, commonly themed places are cool, but again, variation is the way to go. Even what seems like a slight new twist to the same theme can make a huge difference. Look at the Forest Temple from OoT and then the Woodfall Temple from MM. They're both forest themed, but with a few slight changes, they are completely different experiences. Any common theme, with a few minor adjustments, or a combination of them, can lead to something amazing or new.”

I’d submit to you that looking from the standpoint of a game developer or publisher, innovation is defined as familiar game elements or mechanics incorporated as such as to be a different experience despite recognizable features. Something completely new is seen as untested and risky.

I’m sorry, that was a fastidiously long response to such a small detail.

I read your article and found it an excellent explanation of what feels Zelda if only for a hard-core gamer Zelda fan, but I know many a more-casual gamer would love to see a dark “mature” Zelda. And I have to admit, I wouldn’t mind testing those water either. Not to completely neglect the lighter aspects of Zelda games. The series has never taken all it’s characters seriously (Twinrova, probably the most epical boss in OoT outside of Ganon(dorf) was silly and Tingle... well, need I say more?), and I hope that never goes away. What I do not want is a Zelda game so involved with it’s darker theme that lighter characters and silly side quests would feel awkward and out of place, but I am willing to push that border as far as it can go.

To me, while a significantly darker Zelda obviously wouldn’t feel like some of the other games in the series, it could still manage to feel Zelda. I suppose like I said in my first post it’s the gameplay (the combination of explorative overworld with puzzle-solving dungeons) and theme (familiar characters, mythology, and locations) that are most necessary to making a game sufficiently Zelda.

One thing that seems to be missing in this discussion is the trgeting system. It's worked so well in all of the 3D Zelda games and if you were going to have huge battles there is no way the same system could be used. Therefore the only other option would be to make it a button basing game when it comes to battles which really would take the classic zelda game feeling away

I agree that there shouldnt be a animal transformation but I think it would be cool to have a great war in zelda, if they do it right. It would be exciting and I think zelda like means exciting epic.