Food for Thought: What if Zelda offered story-altering choices in game?

A concept that has become more and more popular in videogames (When done well) is offering the player a choice that will choose what content they will have access to later in the game.

This is a concept that has been noticeably absent from recent Zelda Games (I haven't had the opportunity to complete the ones for the older Nintendo systems, so please correct me if I am wrong)

I feel that making Zelda more than a linear storyline would be a nice change to the series.

thoughts?

I have always wanted that in a zelda game. For re-playability reasons. But people will think it is a Fable rip off

Yeah ive been wanting that. I can name off maybe 5 games that already have that in them! If they added that into The Zelda series, ill bet they'll make a bunch more money.

MM has some of that, but having nothing to do with the main plot (outside of letting the moon crash). OoX has a little something different depending on which game you start it with. Neither has as much depth in choice as Fable did though. I would welcome the concept.

Originally Posted by Acid

I have always wanted that in a zelda game. For re-playability reasons. But people will think it is a Fable rip off

How would that be a Fable rip-off? Not only was story choices in games way before Fable but it doesn't really have story altering choices.

Fable 1;
Choose to kill Whisper = If you kill her, she dies. If you let her live, she leaves
Choose to kill Thunder = If you kill him, he dies. If you let him live, he leaves
Choose to kill your sister = If you kill her, you get a fancy sword and she dies, if you let her live, you get a different sword and she leaves

So no change of story there, only a few lines of conversation

Fable 2;
3 choices at the end = You either get to keep your dog and family, get a million gold or a statue of you in an obscure place
Westcliff = Either it stays the same or it gets a bunch of shops
Oakfield = You either leave it and the temple gets bigger or you change the colour of the sky and the temple is destroyed.

If you want games where choices make an impact, look at Fallout 3 or Mass Effect (where your choices carry over to the sequel)

Originally Posted by Aleitheo

How would that be a Fable rip-off? Not only was story choices in games way before Fable but it doesn't really have story altering choices.

Fable 1;
Choose to kill Whisper = If you kill her, she dies. If you let her live, she leaves
Choose to kill Thunder = If you kill him, he dies. If you let him live, he leaves
Choose to kill your sister = If you kill her, you get a fancy sword and she dies, if you let her live, you get a different sword and she leaves

So no change of story there, only a few lines of conversation

Fable 2;
3 choices at the end = You either get to keep your dog and family, get a million gold or a statue of you in an obscure place
Westcliff = Either it stays the same or it gets a bunch of shops
Oakfield = You either leave it and the temple gets bigger or you change the colour of the sky and the temple is destroyed.

If you want games where choices make an impact, look at Fallout 3 or Mass Effect (where your choices carry over to the sequel)

I was just saying that because I brought this idea up before, yet a lot of people said they didn't like the idea because they didn't want Zelda to be "too much like Fable". That's where I got that statement from. I've never really played Fable.

I'd definitely want something like that. Taking decisions throughout the game that would alter the main storyline could weild some very interesting results.

Originally Posted by Acid

I was just saying that because I brought this idea up before, yet a lot of people said they didn't like the idea because they didn't want Zelda to be "too much like Fable". That's where I got that statement from. I've never really played Fable.

There is a hell of alot more stuff that makes Zelda and Fable different than just storyline choices. Adding them into Zelda would not make it too much like Fable

Timeline will get messed up.


You can have a game with only one story without it getting too linear

Originally Posted by Seen

Timeline will get messed up.


You can have a game with only one story without it getting too linear

Having choices in the story will not mess up the timeline unless said choices are things like "go after Ganon, leaving Zelda to die/save Zelda, leaving Ganon to escape"

For example, at some part of the game, the path would split in two where you have 2 temples to go to. If you choose path A, the journey there and the temple itself would be different than if you want on path B first.
After doing both temples, the paths merge again.

Still, why do you care if the timeline will get messed up when we can barely make sense of it to begin with?

I think for reply value, this is an exceptional idea.
...not to mention, it would give a wide variety of character development.

I say, it would be awesome!!!

I don't think the in-game choices should be so black and white, such as "Kill Ganon, Let Ganon live"; the LOZ game with this feature should not have a plethora of endings based on the choices, but rather allow the player to choose how he gets to the (singular) end.

The conclusion of this Zelda game should be the same, but only in broad strokes (As no two chains of choices can lead to the same outcome) Thank you for reminding me that MM had this feature, although it was based in time travel.

Rather than having choices that alter the game's story, how about giving the player freedom to do what he wants whilst sticking to a single storyline, ala The Elder Scrolls? How about having various activities to do that alter the game's world?

In fact, they could even rig it to where doing something for one person would prevent you from doing something for someone else. This would give the game some replay value because you would be tempted to go back and experience the other person's activity.

Originally Posted by Aleitheo

There is a hell of alot more stuff that makes Zelda and Fable different than just storyline choices. Adding them into Zelda would not make it too much like Fable

I'm not the one who said that. Someone else did.

I think that story-altering would work quite well, but only if implemented correctly.

Let's use the dungeons as the benchmarks for story altering situations.

I'm going to use Twilight Princess for this example.

Let's say that you have a choice between the first three dungeons:

Forest Temple, Goron Mines, Lakebed Temple.

The meeting with Zant and the way the game works would change depending on which one you go through, so you'd have a total of 9 different ways to approach this part of the game.

Forest - Goron - Lakebed

Forest - Lakebed - Goron

Goron - Forest - Lakebed

Goron - Lakebed - Forest

Lakebed - Forest - Goron

Lakebed - Goron - Forest

Right? So, let's say if you go to the Lakebed Temple first, you can save Queen Rutela during the execution. Or let's say you go to the Goron Mines last, Darbus ends up too corrupted, and dies, and thus you have to find another way through to the Hidden Village later.

Originally Posted by Acid

I'm not the one who said that. Someone else did.

I never said you said it, I was saying that what those people were saying was not true

Originally Posted by TheBattler

I think that story-altering would work quite well, but only if implemented correctly.

Let's use the dungeons as the benchmarks for story altering situations.

I'm going to use Twilight Princess for this example.

Let's say that you have a choice between the first three dungeons:

Forest Temple, Goron Mines, Lakebed Temple.

The meeting with Zant and the way the game works would change depending on which one you go through, so you'd have a total of 9 different ways to approach this part of the game.

Forest - Goron - Lakebed

Forest - Lakebed - Goron

Goron - Forest - Lakebed

Goron - Lakebed - Forest

Lakebed - Forest - Goron

Lakebed - Goron - Forest

Right? So, let's say if you go to the Lakebed Temple first, you can save Queen Rutela during the execution. Or let's say you go to the Goron Mines last, Darbus ends up too corrupted, and dies, and thus you have to find another way through to the Hidden Village later.

Whether a character lives or dies is too drastic.

With my idea where you can take either path A or B first and the other second, depends on how the situation is on that path.

For example, on path A, a village has just been attacked and one or two people are kidnapped if you go there first. If you go there after path B, the situation would be more dire with some ruined buildings (that gradually get rebuilt after its over) and more people kidnapped.
Because the attacks have had more time, they have settled in better and its harder to take them out and you have to do it differently than if you got there earlier

I think that it might be okay, it might be a little annoying though. Why? Cuz it'd be hard to pick the right choice, and you might not get a certain item or something.

But it'd be another reason to play the whole game again to see what happens if you picked different options than before.

Originally Posted by Aleitheo

I never said you said it, I was saying that what those people were saying was not true

Alright then we don't have any problems.

This would add much to the replay-value of the game.