Articles anticipating new Zelda for Wii

A few months ago, around the 10th anniversary of OoT and the New Year, ZeldaInformer released a pair of articles about the future of the franchise and the potential in a new Wii Zelda. It introduces some ideas about how a new title might take advantage of Wii's hardware, as well as some ideas about the creative direction of the series. Some of the things there might be controversial- like the idea of a deep and intricate sidequest delving into Link's occupation (it uses his ranching job in Twilight Princess as an example)- but I think most of them are worth considering. (And that's not just 'cause I wrote them!)

Ten years ago Zelda fans saw the release of the first 3D installment in the franchise--Ocarina of Time for the Nintendo 64. Ocarina of Time introduced a jump to the third spatial dimension in the world of Zelda. The Wii promises to extend Zelda to the "fourth dimension"--the dimension of player interactivity. We've seen a taste of what the Wii has to offer Zelda with the Wii iteration of Twilight Princess and most of these changes have been positive ones. What else might the future hold for the franchise?

Ideas:
-Free aiming w/ lock on mechanic derived from Metroid Prime for Wii
-Possible applications of more accurate sword controls
-More environmental interaction a la Myst or Metroid Prime
-Use of Wii-Speak in conversations with NPCs to uncover information
-New uses/more immersive controls for classic items
-Magic controlled by Wii Remote motion controls
-Flight
-Produce main plot/gameplay mechanic from minor plot/gameplay element in a prior game (Nintendo seems to already be doing this in PH with Link as a postman)
-New equivalent to "Bomber's Notebook"
-Going back to well-developed cast of characters like in MM and TWW
-More towns/villages
-More bold, new, memorable locales (most locations in TP were rehashes)
-Develop story independently of gameplay
-No completely empty areas/settlements

Source: Article 1
Article 2

I don't think any of those suggestions are unrealistic or far-fetched. I would like to see all of that in a new Zelda.

But, I think the Wii-speak feature would fail as not all gamers know english/japanese. I don't need to speak with AI characters, I would rather approach them and press a button like usual. But honestly, I don't care. My household just got a DSi (our first DS!) and I am having great fun with the interactivity (speaking, blowing out fires etc) so speaking with AI might be interesting.

I think Nintendo is going to be smart with Wii Zelda and give it true Wii controls, MotionPlus support and all the bells and whistles. Seeing the controls from Wii Sports Resort, the frisbee game seems to have perfect controls for a future boomerang or similar. It has 1:1 sword fighting as well (we'll have to see how it really works and feels when it is released) but this could make it to Zelda Wii as well. Nintendo wants us to buy MotionPlus so it would be natural to make it a requirement to play Zelda Wii and thus give it 1:1 control in some (hopefully many) areas.

The Wiimote resembles a flute, it would be cool if they used a flute as the main instrument in the next game and allowed you to hold it like a flute and press the buttons to play.

It has been discussed before that Zelda should break away from the separate overworld and "underworld" areas and blend them more like in Metroid. I would really want to see a more dynamic and modern Zelda world (modern as in blending overworld/underworld areas) and less of the NES/SNES style worlds.

More towns is a given, I expect there to be more than one city and two measly towns. But knowing Nintendo, they'll probably only include Hyrule town/city and possibly Kakariko or something similar.

Personally, I don't really care what they do with the story. I am just hoping that they improve the gameplay even further and make it less linear than TP. The story is just a plus for me, as Zelda is mainly about gameplay IMHO.

Right then, I'll post my opinions on these things one by one!

Free aiming w/ lock on mechanic derived from Metroid Prime for Wii

Yes, they should definitely put this in, together with the ability to move while shooting like in a traditional FPS.

Possible applications of more accurate sword controls

Agreed. With the Wii Motion Plus coming out, they should use it to full advantage and implement 1:1 sword play into Zelda. They should not, however, overdo it or else not only might the Wii mistake some moves for others (like stabs for swings), but people will start having wrist/shoulder cramps. They should implement motion controls to swordplay only for slashing and blocking, and maybe a few other minor things. Stabs should be done in a different way. Oh, and don't forget, they could implement motion controls for shielding as well!

More environmental interaction a la Myst or Metroid Prime

Agreed once more!

Use of Wii-Speak in conversations with NPCs to uncover information

This can have its uses, but I don't think it will quite work out. The player will have to buy the Wii Speak accessory for one, and I'm not too sure the Wii Speak will be too clear and accurate, especially for people with strong accents. Besides, drop-down menus were never a problem before anyway.

New uses/more immersive controls for classic items

Duh!

Magic controlled by Wii Remote motion controls

Nah. If Link were to have a wide array of spells, the Wii would then detect some spells wrongly and mistake some for others. This is unless of course you treat spells like items and equip them to a certain button on the controller.

Flight

YES, PLEASE! Flight, if executed well, will make Zelda so much better than it already is!

Produce main plot/gameplay mechanic from minor plot/gameplay element in a prior game (Nintendo seems to already be doing this in PH with Link as a postman)

Yup, nothing wrong with that.

New equivalent to "Bomber's Notebook"

Should be, with some originality added some way.

Going back to well-developed cast of characters like in MM and TWW

Yeah! An epic adventure isn't good enough without unique and well-developed characters!

More towns/villages

Yes, once again!

More bold, new, memorable locales (most locations in TP were rehashes)

Yeah! Actually, I was thinking that the overworld could be split into maybe two or three lands, one of them being Hyrule. It would make the game feel fresh and nostalgic at the same time!

Develop story independently of gameplay

Yes, but remember, they should think of the gameplay at least just a bit while thinking up a story, so that the two connect better.

No completely empty areas/settlements

I actually wouldn't mind empty areas and settlements as long as they're supposed to be empty, and there are many lively areas for each empty area!



Yes, yes, I intentionally put a lot of smilies in my post for the fun of it!

Originally Posted by Artemicion

1.-Free aiming w/ lock on mechanic derived from Metroid Prime for Wii
...
2.-Use of Wii-Speak in conversations with NPCs to uncover information
...
3.-Flight
...
4.-Develop story independently of gameplay

1. If you mean what I think you mean, then no. This would kill the entire purpose of Z-targeting. You might as well not Z-target and aim normally. But I might be missing something, please explain.

2. No. Extra cost, possible flaws in technology and human error make this very unlikely.

3. Not necessary, but I don't hate the idea.

4. Not quite sure what you mean here.

^ @ your number 1:

It'd be like in MP3. You'd lock on to a target, but it wouldn't be auto-aim.

Originally Posted by Hombre de Mundo

^ @ your number 1:

It'd be like in MP3. You'd lock on to a target, but it wouldn't be auto-aim.

Could you please go into more detail? The way I see it, Zelda would need to revert to 1st-person every time you targeted an enemy for this to be a reality, in which case targeting would actually be useless for ranged combat, and a large chunk of Z-targeting would be pointless.

The difficulty, or lack thereof, in aiming for an enemy while in Z-target could be fixed by merely allowing more enemies to block arrows.

^ No it'd be easy:

Lock-on works exactly the same way, you press a button, get a little symbol on an enemy. Then when you walk left/right you circle the target, forward and backward would approach and back away from it respectively.

The A button would still function as jumping. Aiming, however is still done with the wiimote reticule. You place the reticule on the target and press B to shoot.

The only difference is that you have to aim and fire instead of just firing.

Originally Posted by Hombre de Mundo

^ No it'd be easy:

Lock-on works exactly the same way, you press a button, get a little symbol on an enemy. Then when you walk left/right you circle the target, forward and backward would approach and back away from it respectively.

The A button would still function as jumping. Aiming, however is still done with the wiimote reticule. You place the reticule on the target and press B to shoot.

The only difference is that you have to aim and fire instead of just firing.

1. Not intuitive and pretty weird.
Link is circling the enemy and the camera doesn't always follow him. If you aimed at the screen, would the arrow still come from Link or from the general direction of the Wiimote? What if you aimed the cursor behind Link? Would Link face away from his enemy or would he pull some kind of epic gymnastics that allow him to bend backwards?

2. Pointless.
What's the point? Switching Z-target recipients (lol me = bad thesaurus) is far easier than targeting one enemy and aiming for another. The camera doesn't follow the second enemy, so it pretty much sucks for multi-enemy ranged combat.

Originally Posted by Double A

1. Not intuitive

Auto-aiming is more intuitive?

[QUOTE]
Link is circling the enemy and the camera doesn't always follow him. If you aimed at the screen, would the arrow still come from Link or from the general direction of the Wiimote? What if you aimed the cursor behind Link? Would Link face away from his enemy or would he pull some kind of epic gymnastics that allow him to bend backwards?[/QUOITE]
the camera would obviously have to follow Link if such a feature was to be implemented.

A bounding box would solve aiming problems. If you try to shoot the lower right corner you'd shoot at the place closest to that point inside the bounding box.

2. Pointless.
What's the point? Switching Z-target recipients (lol me = bad thesaurus) is far easier than targeting one enemy and aiming for another. The camera doesn't follow the second enemy, so it pretty much sucks for multi-enemy ranged combat.

It works great in MP3, so why wouldn't it work for Zelda? The only difference is that you lose the auto-aim (this is good) and it'd have to be 3rd person instead of 1st, which isn't all that hard to implement.

Originally Posted by Double A

1. If you mean what I think you mean, then no. This would kill the entire purpose of Z-targeting. You might as well not Z-target and aim normally. But I might be missing something, please explain.

Have you ever played Metroid Prime 3? I mean a system literally identical to that one. Projectile weapons controlled in first-person (worked for OoT/MM/TWW, just now with the Wii Remote you can more easily move while shooting in first-person), targeted enemy is centered on-screen, you are still free to aim anywhere on-screen. (You can hit enemies in your peripheral if they appear, you can hit other parts of the enemy besides its "core", etc.)

No. Extra cost, possible flaws in technology and human error make this very unlikely.

Meh, if you say so.

Not quite sure what you mean here.

Right now the philosophy is "develop gameplay first, story later," which has typically resulted in a convoluted mess of a story that appears slapped together (TP).

^ that was the case for part of TP. The first half was solid, the second was meh, the end was a bit wiers... but I'd deffinately not say that's "typically" what happens. PH had a pretty consistent (but not too exciting) storyline.

Originally Posted by Double A

1. Not intuitive and pretty weird.
Link is circling the enemy and the camera doesn't always follow him. If you aimed at the screen, would the arrow still come from Link or from the general direction of the Wiimote? What if you aimed the cursor behind Link? Would Link face away from his enemy or would he pull some kind of epic gymnastics that allow him to bend backwards?

Actually MP3s control scheme is really intuitive.

The camera would still follow Link but you can move it by aiming at the side of the screen, just like Z targeting and using the C stick.
The arrow would obviously come from Link (in MP3 it comes from Samus, not the Wiimote, why think otherwise?) he would just fire where you are pointing the cursor. If you point it at him, he would just fire in the direction of the cursor if he wasn't there.

2. Pointless.
What's the point? Switching Z-target recipients (lol me = bad thesaurus) is far easier than targeting one enemy and aiming for another. The camera doesn't follow the second enemy, so it pretty much sucks for multi-enemy ranged combat.

In MP3 I found being able to lock on to one enemy and still shoot at others to be really easy. It makes more sense than having to switch to another character to lock on just to hit them.
You can lock on to an important enemy that you want to keep your eye on yet still pick off other enemies that might get in your way. For example, the enemy moves around alot so you need to lock on to them to keep track but they also throw lots of small enemies at you which you need to hit before they hit you. Locking on to each of them individually would be frustrating and would make you loose track of the large enemy

Well, when it comes to Wii Speak, it could obviously be optional. PLENTY of Zelda games have optional addons that it can support. The rumble pack/Stone of Agony in OoT, The GBA connector/Tingle Tuner in Wind Waker. (Lol, I can only think of 2) They could bring Wii Speak into the game as an optional part of the game...heck they could also add the Balance Board. Just think about how it could add to the minigames.

The Zelda team wants to use the Wii to it's full potential just like how it did with the DS, so I wouldn't doubt them taking advantage of all the Wii has to offer...Online minigames like PH?

Originally Posted by Hombre de Mundo

Auto-aiming is more intuitive?

the camera would obviously have to follow Link if such a feature was to be implemented.


It works great in MP3, so why wouldn't it work for Zelda? The only difference is that you lose the auto-aim (this is good) and it'd have to be 3rd person instead of 1st, which isn't all that hard to implement.

1. Last I checked, holding two buttons and knowing what you're going to hit is more intuitive than holding the aforementioned two buttons and aiming for an enemy.

2. and 3. If you were to make it so that the camera follows Link at a specific angle all the time every time you targeted an enemy, it could actually ruin the Z-targeting mechanic. It's more of a matter of don't-fix-what-isn't-broken, and also of don't-copy-other-games'-mechanics.

The way I see it, it only works in Metroid 'coz it's first-person.

Originally Posted by Aleitheo

Actually MP3s control scheme is really intuitive.

More so than Zelda's auto-aim?

Originally Posted by Aleitheo

The camera would still follow Link but you can move it by aiming at the side of the screen, just like Z targeting and using the C stick.
The arrow would obviously come from Link (in MP3 it comes from Samus, not the Wiimote, why think otherwise?) he would just fire where you are pointing the cursor. If you point it at him, he would just fire in the direction of the cursor if he wasn't there.

Because, if you think about it, Samus IS in the general direction of the Wiimote, so it actually makes a little sense.

Again, if you made it so that the camera followed Link, Z-targeting would probably be radically altered. It would be difficult to keep track of enemies that are farther behind you. Again, don't fix what aint broke.

Originally Posted by Aleitheo

In MP3 I found being able to lock on to one enemy and still shoot at others to be really easy. It makes more sense than having to switch to another character to lock on just to hit them.

You can lock on to an important enemy that you want to keep your eye on yet still pick off other enemies that might get in your way. For example, the enemy moves around alot so you need to lock on to them to keep track but they also throw lots of small enemies at you which you need to hit before they hit you. Locking on to each of them individually would be frustrating and would make you loose track of the large enemy

Really? Because in all N64, GC and Wii Zelda games, I found targeting far easier. Do you actually know how easy it is to let go of the Z-button for a split second, nudge the c-stick and hold the Z-button again?

Again, it's actually very easy to switch targets. It you somehow happen to fail to target the right enemy there are probably a lot of enemies around you which are usually all the same so it doesn't matter which one you target.

How the hell would you lose track of a "large" enemy? If anything, locking on to a large enemy which the camera would follow and aiming individually at enemies that might exit the camera range would be frustrating. Not to mention that you are probably open from behind.

Originally Posted by Hombre de Mundo

PH had a pretty consistent (but not too exciting) storyline.

"It is time for you to return to your world."

That's all I'm gonna say.

Originally Posted by Double A

Last I checked, holding two buttons and knowing what you're going to hit is more intuitive than holding the aforementioned two buttons and aiming for an enemy.

So "press two buttons and win" is more intuitive than "press two buttons and use your skills to win"? I mean, obviously it's easier for people to "press two buttons and win," but what I can't get my mind around is why people would enjoy a game like that more than a game where they're the ones controlling where their shots go, not the computer.

It's more of a matter of don't-fix-what-isn't-broken, and also of don't-copy-other-games'-mechanics.

Metroid copied Zelda's mechanic and made it better. That's why we want it in a Zelda game in the first place.

Originally Posted by Double A

1. Last I checked, holding two buttons and knowing what you're going to hit is more intuitive than holding the aforementioned two buttons and aiming for an enemy.

Not really how it worked in MP3. In the earlier primes, you lock on to an enemy, you are rigidly aiming at that one specific spot. In MP3, you keep that enemy in your sights but you are still free to take on any other threats that may arise.
If anything is the definition of intuitive, its being able to keep track of one yet deal with all

2. and 3. If you were to make it so that the camera follows Link at a specific angle all the time every time you targeted an enemy, it could actually ruin the Z-targeting mechanic. It's more of a matter of don't-fix-what-isn't-broken, and also of don't-copy-other-games'-mechanics.

I don't remember anyone saying that the camera would be at a fixed angle. Infact in my first post I said you could move it easily by aiming at the edges.

The way I see it, it only works in Metroid 'coz it's first-person.

The way I see it, perspective doesn't make a difference, the camera is not at a fixed angle when you are in 3rd person

More so than Zelda's auto-aim?

It is much easier overall being able to freely aim. The problem with Z targeting as it is right now is that you can only deal with one target at a time. If an enemy comes up behind you then you have to quickly untarget, move the camera and then retarget which uses valuable time in battle. If you have free aiming then you don't have to do any of that, you jus have to point at the enemy behind you and attack. The Z targeting is merely a priority setting.

Because, if you think about it, Samus IS in the general direction of the Wiimote, so it actually makes a little sense.

Again, if you made it so that the camera followed Link, Z-targeting would probably be radically altered. It would be difficult to keep track of enemies that are farther behind you. Again, don't fix what aint broke.

No idea where you are getting this whole "fixed camera" idea from

Really? Because in all N64, GC and Wii Zelda games, I found targeting far easier. Do you actually know how easy it is to let go of the Z-button for a split second, nudge the c-stick and hold the Z-button again?

Doesn't pressing Z realign the camera, thus making the whole let-go-of-Z, move-c-stick, press-Z thing a waste of time?
Why can't you just move the camera while Z targeting?

Again, it's actually very easy to switch targets. It you somehow happen to fail to target the right enemy there are probably a lot of enemies around you which are usually all the same so it doesn't matter which one you target.

Lets say there are 3 enemies, one right in front and two behind. Lets say one of the ones behind is charging a powerful attack that is difficult to dodge yet easy to prevent. If you let go of Z, turn around and quickly press Z again you could select the wrong enemy and that wrong move would mean it is too late and the other enemy unleashes their attack.

Now imagine if you had free aim while in Z targeting. You hear one of the enemies behind you charge an attack, you quickly turn while still Z targeting and fire at the one that charging the attack to prevent it.

How the hell would you lose track of a "large" enemy? If anything, locking on to a large enemy which the camera would follow and aiming individually at enemies that might exit the camera range would be frustrating. Not to mention that you are probably open from behind.

If the smaller enemies exit the camera range you aim towards where they went and hit them. If there is an enemy behind you then you can quickly turn the camera and shoot.

Where are you getting the idea that free aim means fixed camera? In a 3rd person game like Zelda, the camera is free to move around so why would free aim lock it down?

Metroid Prime 3 forced you to use your skill, despite it having a targetting system. In 3D Zelda, everything is semi-automatic and takes away a lot of the challenge of actually hitting the monsters. What's next, arrows that automatically track enemies?

No, Zelda should go back to its roots, get rid of the OoT-based Z-targetting system and replace it with something else. They did some progress with TP for Wii, as you had to manually aim with the bow in some cases. We need to get our hands dirty again and not rely so much on automatic systems.

Originally Posted by Aleitheo

Not really how it worked in MP3. In the earlier primes, you lock on to an enemy, you are rigidly aiming at that one specific spot. In MP3, you keep that enemy in your sights but you are still free to take on any other threats that may arise.
If anything is the definition of intuitive, its being able to keep track of one yet deal with all.

It is, admittedly, far more intuitive to know what you are aiming for in advance, rather than physically aiming for it. It also makes better use of the Z-targeting function. Prove me otherwise.

Originally Posted by Aleitheo

It is much easier overall being able to freely aim. The problem with Z targeting as it is right now is that you can only deal with one target at a time. If an enemy comes up behind you then you have to quickly untarget, move the camera and then retarget which uses valuable time in battle. If you have free aiming then you don't have to do any of that, you jus have to point at the enemy behind you and attack. The Z targeting is merely a priority setting.

If you're free aiming and something's far behind you and approaching, you have to turn the camera the whole way around which wastes even more time in battle.

How would this camera work? I'm confused. For this mechanic to be realistic in ranged combat, the camera would have to be behind Link or be Link himself, so the arrow could actually come from the direction of both the Wiimote and Link's bow. If the camera was just floating around, the way I see it, it would look unrealistic aiming for something and having the arrow come from a different angle. Not to mention that it could lead to some serious complications.

Originally Posted by Aleitheo

Doesn't pressing Z realign the camera, thus making the whole let-go-of-Z, move-c-stick, press-Z thing a waste of time?
Why can't you just move the camera while Z targeting?

I meant that letting go of the target button, nudging the c-stick and hitting the target button once again is far faster than hitting the target button and waiting for the screen to turn around. Not to mention that you could easily miss your target if you swung too far or too little.

Why can't we move the camera while in a Z-target? Because it makes Z-target pointless. While Link is in a Z-target, the camera focuses on the target. Why fix what aint broken with something that's from a different game?

Originally Posted by Aleitheo

Lets say there are 3 enemies, one right in front and two behind. Lets say one of the ones behind is charging a powerful attack that is difficult to dodge yet easy to prevent. If you let go of Z, turn around and quickly press Z again you could select the wrong enemy and that wrong move would mean it is too late and the other enemy unleashes their attack.

Now imagine if you had free aim while in Z targeting. You hear one of the enemies behind you charge an attack, you quickly turn while still Z targeting and fire at the one that charging the attack to prevent it.

Yup... three enemies. One in front and two behind. One of the ones behind are charging a powerful attack that is difficult to dodge yet easy to prevent.

You're telling me that nudging the c-stick backwards and hitting Z x number of times (because that's how you toggle between x number of targets, it works) is slower than waiting for the camera to turn around? You forget that the camera focuses on a specific enemy whenever you target, and if it were otherwise, then Z-targeting would be useless.

And Nintendo, considering their recent games, wouldn't be that sadistic. I need an example.

Originally Posted by Senap

Metroid Prime 3 forced you to use your skill, despite it having a targetting system. In 3D Zelda, everything is semi-automatic and takes away a lot of the challenge of actually hitting the monsters. What's next, arrows that automatically track enemies?

No, Zelda should go back to its roots, get rid of the OoT-based Z-targetting system and replace it with something else. They did some progress with TP for Wii, as you had to manually aim with the bow in some cases. We need to get our hands dirty again and not rely so much on automatic systems.

You are missing the heart of the problem. The problem is that it's too easy to hit an enemy with Z-target. This could easily be fixed by allowing more enemies to block/dodge arrows, or by allowing certain enemies to only be hit by magic arrows (so one would need to replenish ammo AND magic).

The Z-targeting mechanic is fine, don't mess with it.

Originally Posted by Double A

It is, admittedly, far more intuitive to know what you are aiming for in advance, rather than physically aiming for it. It also makes better use of the Z-targeting function. Prove me otherwise.

You still know what you are aiming at with free aim. When you lock on you can still aim at what you locked on to, its just free aim means you are free to pursue other targets.
Its better use of Z targeting if you are not forced to hit only what you are targeting and nothing more

If you're free aiming and something's far behind you and approaching, you have to turn the camera the whole way around which wastes even more time in battle.

Much less time than unlocking a target, turning the cammera and relocking onto the new target.
With free aim, all you have to do is move the camera, without it, more time is wasted

How would this camera work? I'm confused. For this mechanic to be realistic in ranged combat, the camera would have to be behind Link or be Link himself, so the arrow could actually come from the direction of both the Wiimote and Link's bow.

What? No it wouldn't, that makes no sense

If the camera was just floating around, the way I see it, it would look unrealistic aiming for something and having the arrow come from a different angle. Not to mention that it could lead to some serious complications.

Complications? What is complicated about pointing towards what you want to hit?
Its easy. Get a laser pointer, point towards what you want to hit and Link shoots at it. If there is something inbetween Link and the target, how is fixed Z targeting going to make the slightest bit of difference? With normal Z targeting, you can see your target plainly but shoot and end up hitting something in the way.

I meant that letting go of the target button, nudging the c-stick and hitting the target button once again is far faster than hitting the target button and waiting for the screen to turn around. Not to mention that you could easily miss your target if you swung too far or too little.

Letting go of Z would lose your lock on the target, moving the C stick would be totally pointless as once you press Z again the camera would move back.
Since we don't have a C stick we have to rely on moving the pointer and it isn't too slow either or FPS games on the Wii wouldn't work. Infact many FPSs on the Wii have adjustable sensitivity and they let you choose the size of the blind box.

Why can't we move the camera while in a Z-target? Because it makes Z-target pointless. While Link is in a Z-target, the camera focuses on the target. Why fix what aint broken with something that's from a different game?

Because that different game has taken the same method, tried something new with it and come up with something much easier to use and better.
Moving the camera while Z targeting does not make Z targeting pointless at all. Sometimes the camera can focus at a bad angle or you want to see the target from a better angle

Yup... three enemies. One in front and two behind. One of the ones behind are charging a powerful attack that is difficult to dodge yet easy to prevent.

You're telling me that nudging the c-stick backwards and hitting Z x number of times (because that's how you toggle between x number of targets, it works) is slower than waiting for the camera to turn around? You forget that the camera focuses on a specific enemy whenever you target, and if it were otherwise, then Z-targeting would be useless.

Nudging the C stick backwards merely pulls the camera back, in order to turn it around you have to move it to the side and in MP3 you can do a full 360 faster than you can turn around 180 in Zelda with the C stick, which we no longer have.

Z targeting sets a priority target, it is not useless if it still lets you target other enemies. What it would do would keep a good eye on that enemy letting you use opportunities to attack it within an instant and keeping off other enemies inbetween.

And Nintendo, considering their recent games, wouldn't be that sadistic. I need an example.

You are missing the heart of the problem. The problem is that it's too easy to hit an enemy with Z-target. This could easily be fixed by allowing more enemies to block/dodge arrows, or by allowing certain enemies to only be hit by magic arrows (so one would need to replenish ammo AND magic).

The Z-targeting mechanic is fine, don't mess with it.

The problem with Z targeting is that it is only fine with a single enemy. With multiple enemies, thats a different story.

There is no problem with how easy it is to hit enemies with Z targeting, its only easy for the one you are targeting, not for the ones you aren't

Tell me, have you played any of the first two Prime games aswell as MP3? If so, it is clear that MP3s targeting is highly superior and addresses many flaws that the previous games had.

MP3 had no problem with speed of turning (much faster than Zelda with the no-longer-existent C stick. It was adjustable too), it allowed the player to deal with multiple targets easily without having to constantly switch just to hit them. It also let you lock on and start attacking enemy behind you faster than you can in any Zelda game.

Its people like you that stand in the way of progress. Something you need to know is that if it ain't broke, it will eventually through use and will need upgrading.

But, I think the Wii-speak feature would fail as not all gamers know english/japanese. I don't need to speak with AI characters, I would rather approach them and press a button like usual. But honestly, I don't care. My household just got a DSi (our first DS!) and I am having great fun with the interactivity (speaking, blowing out fires etc) so speaking with AI might be interesting.

If they were to implement such a system, I doubt the feature would go past the player saying simple things like "Yes" or "No" to choices.