The Futuristic Zelda thread

Originally Posted by TriforceOfDeath

Just think, if that stupid video hadn't been made we wouldn't be stuck with all these threads...

I respect your opinion,

But its a 'NO' From me

I think you're right.
It wasnt until that damn video that people started thinking of futuristic Zelda ideas.
And lets face it: If that game were real...

There was a video made?

Originally Posted by formula1

There was a video made?

Ugh....
I dont know when, but yah...it was some made up "trailer" for an "upcoming Zelda game".

It was set in the future, and....yah.
Last I checked, that video was removed from Youtube.

^ Yeah, A Wii Tv vid claiming to have news on a new Zelda game.

Originally Posted by Rhalen

Who would that be?

That would be me, though it's a self-given title. I've always been a closet future Zelda supporter, so I like to go around and give reasons as to why it would work.

Originally Posted by Rhalen

Weak? In comparison to what? I see NO arguments to support a futuristic zelda. Mind pointing them out? At the same time, please point out the counter arguments against a non futuristic zelda, which I have asked for atleast twice before.

Your original post was an argument against a futuristic Zelda game. There, example presented.

Originally Posted by Rhalen

I don't really like the term guinea pig. Subject is a bit higher on the food chain thank you.

I'll edit my post in a minute. There are more pressing matters at hand.

Originally Posted by Rhalen

In the fantasy version we have fantasy type dungeons
ergo:
Modern Zelda, Modern Dungeons

I'm sorry, but this made no sense to me. Are you saying that fantasy only applies to a medieval setting? If so, you're very wrong. Look at the Final Fantasy games, especially the 3D ones. They're all fantasy games despite taking place in a more future-esque environment. I dunno, maybe I misinterpreted what you said, but still...

Originally Posted by Rhalen

Replay the game and explain what the three pendants are. K thx bye.

I was referring to the Triforce pieces, not the pendants. My bad, I should've said that.

Originally Posted by Rhalen

Yet I still see no counter arguments. Thereby they are the strongest arguments in this thread. Also, the whole: It worked for this game why won't it work for Zelda? argument sucks. Jumping works in mario, let's make Zelda into a 3D platformer. Light Sabres worked for starwars, let's make Zelda a sci fi epic. First person shooting worked for Halo, let's make Zelda a shooter. See what I'm saying?

I'm not saying that we should make Zelda a shooter or a platformer. Trust me, I don't want to see that in any Zelda game. What I was saying is that different is not always bad, and besides, it would still retain all of the features that make it a Zelda game, with the only major difference being the setting.

Originally Posted by Rhalen

That's my argument restated. I'm saying if you put the hookshot, boomerang, a shield and a sword in a game, it doesn't make it Zelda.

Okay then, so why does this have relevance?

Originally Posted by Rhalen

No matter what era+epic fantasy world=Zelda game? So that means final fantasy is part of the Zelda series! Following your idea, my statement holds true.

I never said that. I said that as long as it takes place in the fantasy world we've come to know and love, it's still a Zelda game, regardless of the era. You, my friend, made that Final Fantasy connection, not me.

Haunt: Metroid Prime still kept the basics of Metroid gameplay. The only real change it made was the transition from 2D to 3D, so bad example.

Exactly. In fact, transitioning from a Medieval Zelda to a Futuristic Zelda should be even less of a dramatic change since they're really only changing the setting.

Originally Posted by JanDeis

[SIZE="2"][b]I am wanting to make a Zelda game based in the future. Please don't post saying that "Zelda is in the past, Metroid is Nintendo's future game" or "Anyone that wants to put Zelda in the future should die" or anything like that. Just give your thoughts on expanding the story or any other ideas that would fit in with this game...

I believe this is what this thread was started for, and I think it should perhaps start to lean back in that direction.

Personally, I would lean away from having a second major hero in the game (in this case, the biker). Draws too much focus away from Link.

Originally Posted by Haunt

That would be me, though it's a self-given title. I've always been a closet future Zelda supporter, so I like to go around and give reasons as to why it would work.

I strip you of said title.

Your original post was an argument against a futuristic Zelda game. There, example presented.

That's not an example. I mean a freaking reason why a future Zelda is a good idea! I HAVE YET TO SEE ONE! Then show me why my reasoning is wrong. WHICH I HAVE ALSO NOT SEEN! If you wish to have any sort of an argument, give counterarguments for my supposedly weak arguments that just so happen to be the strongest arguments in this thread because they are the only arguments in this thread.

I'll edit my post in a minute. There are more pressing matters at hand.

Like?

I'm sorry, but this made no sense to me. Are you saying that fantasy only applies to a medieval setting? If so, you're very wrong. Look at the Final Fantasy games, especially the 3D ones. They're all fantasy games despite taking place in a more future-esque environment. I dunno, maybe I misinterpreted what you said, but still...

Allow me to reiterate:
Medieval Fantasy game=medieval fantasy dungeons
Modern game=modern levels (can't really do dungeons in modern day can we?)

I was referring to the Triforce pieces, not the pendants. My bad, I should've said that.

The traits were mentioned thereby don't care.

I'm not saying that we should make Zelda a shooter or a platformer. Trust me, I don't want to see that in any Zelda game.

Exactly, that's not part of Zelda.

What I was saying is that different is not always bad,

In this case it is.

and besides, it would still retain all of the features that make it a Zelda game, with the only major difference being the setting.

One of the major features of Zelda is the setting

Okay then, so why does this have relevance?

If you wish to quote me, take it in context.

I never said that. I said that as long as it takes place in the fantasy world we've come to know and love, it's still a Zelda game, regardless of the era. You, my friend, made that Final Fantasy connection, not me.

I was just following your logic.

Exactly. In fact, transitioning from a Medieval Zelda to a Futuristic Zelda should be even less of a dramatic change since they're really only changing the setting.

The setting is one of the staples of the Zelda series. Not a single Zelda has left the medieval fantasy setting, kinda like all Links wear green tunics.

_____________

Originally Posted by ImReallyLink

I believe this is what this thread was started for, and I think it should perhaps start to lean back in that direction.

Personally, I would lean away from having a second major hero in the game (in this case, the biker). Draws too much focus away from Link.

I disagree. The topic of this thread is futuristic zelda. That is what we are currently discussing. Please do not tell me what to post. (I've already explained this to another person, so unless you want to tick me off, stick with the current topic or please don't post.)

kthxbye

Originally Posted by Haunt

ENTER THE DIPLOMAT.

I love looking around this thread and seeing people give the same reasons over and over for why they don't want a futuristic Zelda game, and to be quite honest, they're really weak arguments. I'm not going to pick through them all, so I'll just use Rhalen as my test subject since, you know, everyone else is. Also, I'm adding special formatting. You know, so I can be edgy.

“
Dungeon designs in modern day get repetitive. Skyscraper, office building, military base...

”

Who said they all have to be in a modern setting? In fact, when did the game itself have to be set in a modern world? If it were, then yes, the game would suck: Zelda is not a modern, realistic game, it's a fantasy adventure that takes place in an epic, wondrous land. As long as that core theme is kept for both the overworld and the dungeons, it can be on the moon and it would still be Zelda to me.


“
You hardly even scratched on the Zelda basic plot. Infact there are entire games in the series that go without using the words courage or wisdom (power is probably there because baddies like to brag)

”

Did ALTTP mention any of those traits? No, they didn't. Those three elements (or terms, really) do not make a Zelda game, so they're not needed.


“
Have you even read the list of counter-arguments? Anything after later than the equivilant of the late 1700s is going to be a bad idea.

”

Yes, and they were very weak. People assume things will be bad because they're different. Remember Metroid Prime? Back before it was released, people just knew that it was going to be the worst game of the last generation. Look how wrong they were.


“
I can put items like a boomerang shield sword and hookshot into a bunch of games. Does that make them Zelda?

”

I can put weapons like Pistols and SMGs and Sniper Rifles into a bunch of games. Does that make them Halo?


“
Everything would not feel the same. Castles have a certain either magesty or foreboding that cities don't really get. Overworlds in modern day suck. Enemies would be totally different. The items would have very little possibilities. Etc

”

As I said in my first point, the Zelda games do not depend on a medieval setting. All they need is to be set in an epic, fantasy world, and no matter what era it is, it's still going to be a Zelda game.

I disagree with you entirely. EVERYTHING about Zelda is based on the medieval setting. Or at least something equivalent to that. Pirates have swords, etc. in the fantastical world of WW... which is not that far removed from the idea of a medieval setting.

From the look of Link himself and how he dresses, to the weapons he uses, the towns he visits... the storyline itself is most interesting due to it's "ancient" type of setting.

You put Link in some kind of lame jumpsuit and give him pistols and rifles... and have a building doubling as some kind of "dungeon," that would take all the spirit out of the game. Even if the gameplay was still good. Because it's stuff like sword battles, castles, horseback riding, etc. that define the series. In a future setting Link couldn't wear his tunics, it would just be lame methinks.

Yeah, I guess you could give him a "laser sword" or something... but still. Realistically that would take a lot out of the gameplay itself because the setting has changed so drastically.

Haunt: I'm uncertain as to what you're point of view is. All I've seen you do is make arguments with others about their points of view.
What's your's?

Originally Posted by Hey! Listen!

I disagree with you entirely. EVERYTHING about Zelda is based on the medieval setting. Or at least something equivalent to that. Pirates have swords, etc. in the fantastical world of WW... which is not that far removed from the idea of a medieval setting.

From the look of Link himself and how he dresses, to the weapons he uses, the towns he visits... the storyline itself is most interesting due to it's "ancient" type of setting.

You put Link in some kind of lame jumpsuit and give him pistols and rifles... and have a building doubling as some kind of "dungeon," that would take all the spirit out of the game. Even if the gameplay was still good. Because it's stuff like sword battles, castles, horseback riding, etc. that define the series. In a future setting Link couldn't wear his tunics, it would just be lame methinks.

Yeah, I guess you could give him a "laser sword" or something... but still. Realistically that would take a lot out of the gameplay itself because the setting has changed so drastically.

Hooray! Someone else gets it!

Originally Posted by Rhalen

Hooray! Someone else gets it!

Believe me...I get it.

Originally Posted by God of Twilight

Believe me...I get it.

Yes, that makes 3 of us. Against 2 of them.

Oh, and could we get a poll in this thread?

Should we have a futuristic Zelda?
-Yes, give link a gun or laser sword
-Maybe, how about 18th century
-Nah, doesn't seem right
-No! It's heresy
-Don't really care as long as it's fun.

Something like that?

Yes.

But really though, what are you saying Haunt?

Originally Posted by Rhalen

Yes, that makes 3 of us. Against 2 of them.

Oh, and could we get a poll in this thread?

Should we have a futuristic Zelda?
-Yes, give link a gun or laser sword
-Maybe, how about 18th century
-Nah, doesn't seem right
-No! It's heresy
-Don't really care as long as it's fun.

Something like that?

Sounds respectable, We'll need a new thread I think...
You care to do the honors?

Originally Posted by formula1

Sounds respectable, We'll need a new thread I think...
You care to do the honors?

can't make a new thread on a topic currently under discussion. A mod can add a poll, and a thread creator may be able to.

Originally Posted by Rhalen

can't make a new thread on a topic currently under discussion. A mod can add a poll, and a thread creator may be able to.

<.<.... good point.....

Anyway....
Zelda+future....

U mean... Ganon never dies....
thus in essence... the fight is eternal...

Originally Posted by Rhalen

Hooray! Someone else gets it!

I totally see you're point; I'm just on the other side of it. You (and Hey! Listen!) make very good points about the setting making Zelda what it is. I do think that if done right, it could make for an interesting game.

EDIT:You're right, we should get a poll in here.

Originally Posted by God of Twilight

But really though, what are you saying Haunt?

I'm saying I support the Futuristic Zelda idea because I feel that Zelda needs to change. Also, considering I'm in a hurry, I'll get around to defending my views later.

EDIT: Nevermind. Let's get this show on the road.

I disagree with you entirely. EVERYTHING about Zelda is based on the medieval setting. Or at least something equivalent to that. Pirates have swords, etc. in the fantastical world of WW... which is not that far removed from the idea of a medieval setting.

From the look of Link himself and how he dresses, to the weapons he uses, the towns he visits... the storyline itself is most interesting due to it's "ancient" type of setting.

You put Link in some kind of lame jumpsuit and give him pistols and rifles... and have a building doubling as some kind of "dungeon," that would take all the spirit out of the game. Even if the gameplay was still good. Because it's stuff like sword battles, castles, horseback riding, etc. that define the series. In a future setting Link couldn't wear his tunics, it would just be lame methinks.

Yeah, I guess you could give him a "laser sword" or something... but still. Realistically that would take a lot out of the gameplay itself because the setting has changed so drastically.

And the idea I'm getting at is essentially the same. We still have swords (not laser swords), we still have tunics. The setting is just different than the other games; one with a more futuristic vibe.

I strip you of said title.

In Soviet Russia, title strips YOU!

That's not an example. I mean a freaking reason why a future Zelda is a good idea! I HAVE YET TO SEE ONE! Then show me why my reasoning is wrong. WHICH I HAVE ALSO NOT SEEN! If you wish to have any sort of an argument, give counterarguments for my supposedly weak arguments that just so happen to be the strongest arguments in this thread because they are the only arguments in this thread.

In that case, here you go. (Yes, I know it is a different thread, but you never specified whether or not it had to be from this thread or not.)

Allow me to reiterate:
Medieval Fantasy game=medieval fantasy dungeons
Modern game=modern levels (can't really do dungeons in modern day can we?)

Again I say, it doesn't have to be modern. For example, take Lost Odyssey.



*will continue later. must dash!*

Originally Posted by Haunt

I'm saying I support the Futuristic Zelda idea because I feel that Zelda needs to change. Also, considering I'm in a hurry, I'll get around to defending my views later.

Does it really need a setting change? Of all the things that could change about the Zelda series... seriously, a futuristic setting? I think there's many ideas that could make the medieval setting BETTER than what we have now to make it more interesting. And nobody go on about giving places new names, what difference would that make? The places are different in every game even if you don't call it Death Mountain or Lake Hylia, etc. We just needs some new ones perhaps, in addition to those. Some new towns, etc. Or a different land besides Hyrule... which we've had before anyway.

Besides, everyone keeps forgetting that WW was a HUGE DRASTIC change that happened in 2003. That wasn't really THAT long ago. It changed the art style, the setting, etc. It was a great game. But do we really need to do that again so soon? And the future?

I just really don't think Zelda needs to change as much as you think it does.

Originally Posted by Haunt

I'm saying I support the Futuristic Zelda idea because I feel that Zelda needs to change. Also, considering I'm in a hurry, I'll get around to defending my views later.

We know it needs to change, but is future really the way to go?

EDIT: Nevermind. Let's get this show on the road.

Oh boy actual arguments!

And the idea I'm getting at is essentially the same. We still have swords (not laser swords), we still have tunics. The setting is just different than the other games; one with a more futuristic vibe.

Define futuristic... because what you describe is totally contradicting itself.

In Soviet Russia, title strips YOU!

Soviets are dead

In that case, here you go. (Yes, I know it is a different thread, but you never specified whether or not it had to be from this thread or not.)

Saw reasons it shouldn't be futurized, didn't see why it should be...

Again I say, it doesn't have to be modern. For example, take Lost Odyssey.

contradicting yourself yet again

*will continue later. must dash!*

continue what praytell... surely not arguing for you have yet to do as such.