Wanting too much from Zelda, and looking too much into Zelda (rant)

I AM NOT POINTING TO ANYONE DIRECTLY, NOR AM I SAYING THAT THE ZELDA SERIES DOESN'T NEED CHANGE.

I've seen so many posts and topics here over analyzing every single thing in the Zelda games (Link being insane in MM and it's all in his mind because he wants to be a hero again so badly, and such), wanting the next Zelda to have Link killed off, put in the present normal world time, put in the FUTURE, giving Link a voice, changing Link into what ever anyone wants, and even one saying that they wanted another "Hyrule Fantasy" game. (it was just the subtitle for the original Zelda in japan. How could that be some kind of different series?)



I feel that people are completely forgetting what Zelda has, and always should (in my opinion) be.


When you take off all the bells and whistles of the timeline, all of the references to some religions, all of that, it all comes down to the simply story of a boy who becomes a man. It's the traditional coming-of-age story. And that was what made the series so charming for me. It's what made the series so charming and amazing for many people. Why does Zelda need to become some kind of MATURE DEEP ADULT series? Why can't it just appeal to everyone like it has for all these years?

Doing things like killing off one of Nintendo's MASCOTS like Link and replacing him would be the WORST IDEA NINTENDO COULD EVER DO. So is putting Link in steampunk ages or even the future. It wouldn't be Zelda. It would be Star Wars. Zelda is not Star Wars.


If these ideas were to be put into the franchise, it wouldn't even be Zelda anymore. It would be an entirely new series. Nintendo could use a good new series, but taking care of their current series like Zelda should be first.

I personally feel that people are growing up and growing out of Zelda. And they want Zelda to "grow up" with them. A series can't "grow up". When you try doing something like that you just get the Jak and Daxter franchise and the Sonic series. Not the best way to go.


Thank you for taking the time to listening to my rant, for those who did.

Woohoo! *Cheers*

Give this man a medal.
I am applauding this.

Why does Zelda need to become some kind of MATURE DEEP ADULT series?

While we're at it, people seem to think that Zelda needs all these convoluted things like voice acting, a new villain, etc.

Zelda doesn't need what hasn't been done before in the history of Zelda. Zelda does not need an overhaul.

Zelda needs what hasn't been done before in the history of gaming.

Look at Super Mario Galaxy. Take away the gravity mechanics and the epic music, and it basically becomes a more linear version of Super Mario 64. Yet it recieved high ratings not because of a deep story, not because of voice acting, not because of a new villain, but because its gameplay was different and new.

All Zelda Wii needs to be is DIFFERENT. You cannot expect what will be in Zelda Wii...

As long as Zelda Wii is as innovative as SMG, it can survive having a rehashed story with the same villain, I promise you...

While I think some of the theories are silly and people do read too far into the game, I enjoy seeing the connections people make from vague details. It makes the series feel more "alive" to me, and that's my favorite structure of game story-- easy to pick up and child-accessable, but with a serious and realistic world that an adult can enjoy, too.

What's more, I think certain Zelda titles DO grow up with people-- I played Majora's Mask as a seven-year-old, and thought it was silly, and a bit odd. Now, I've recently picked it back up, and it both frightens me and makes me think. A child playing the game has a completely different experience than that of an adult, and that's the genious of it. The game DOES grow with you, and reminds you that a game can be dark and mature without sex and guns. This is the same reason I so dearly love the EarthBound series.

Originally Posted by Double A

While we're at it, people seem to think that Zelda needs all these convoluted things like voice acting, a new villain, etc.

Zelda doesn't need what hasn't been done before in the history of Zelda. Zelda does not need an overhaul.

Zelda needs what hasn't been done before in the history of gaming.

Look at Super Mario Galaxy. Take away the gravity mechanics and the epic music, and it basically becomes a more linear version of Super Mario 64. Yet it recieved high ratings not because of a deep story, not because of voice acting, not because of a new villain, but because its gameplay was different and new.

All Zelda Wii needs to be is DIFFERENT. You cannot expect what will be in Zelda Wii...

As long as Zelda Wii is as innovative as SMG, it can survive having a rehashed story with the same villain, I promise you...

I agree. When people keep demanding DIFFERENT ZELDA like they are to Nintendo, they will get the idea that they want an entirely new series. And people will realize how crazy some of their ideas were and wish they could take it back.

Originally Posted by Seen

I personally feel that people are growing up and growing out of Zelda. And they want Zelda to "grow up" with them. A series can't "grow up". When you try doing something like that you just get the Jak and Daxter franchise and the Sonic series. Not the best way to go.

If you're trying to stress the Jak and Daxter series as having lost the slightest bit of quality through the choice of adding a slightly more adult-oriented atmosphere to its presentation, then I find that patently rediculous. That's what made the Jak and Daxter series (in its own particular case at least) better. It just proved that edginess doesn't detract from an element such as humor, and that was proven with how Jak game tended to be funnier and deeper than the last. In the case of the Jak and Daxter, it benefits it, as well as the plot and characters. I'm on ground to say it was one of the better franchises of its generation.

What I'm saying here is not that the same can be done with something like the Zelda series, as it really doesn't make its place through elements like what Naughty Dog tends to make with its games. I'm saying that Jak and Daxter in particular is what I would consider an exception to what you'd stated of growing up. It's when things try to actually tone down on certain elements that makes their presentation intolerably less tasteful than before in favor of not just light-heartedness, but outright kiddieness, case in point the borderline that the Ratchet and Clank series seems to often be teetering on, despite their additions to the core gameplay. My biggest example to ths rule is the live action Ninja Turtles trilogy. What started out as a faithful, fairly accurate portrayal of the comic books (which were seriously pretty dark and edgy) turned into a live-action rendition of what would've been better off as a story arc for the old cartoon (the CG one seemed like kind of a medium between said two, as did the second live action flick).

On the subject though, I feel that people tend to look at a term like "innovation" and see it as a requirement of every subsequent title Nintendo releases. Maybe that's why people who were disappointed with say, TP voice their complaints over it so much more often. But what it didn't "innovate", it refined, and that was the whole point behind that game. It may be due in part to Nintendo oft throwing the word around, but perhaps its intention had been misinterpreted. Not to say that I could really put my view on it into words (yet), but I think it's important to really know how people view the term individually. Doing something like, amongst your examples, killing Link off is hardly my idea of innovation so much as it is an example of misinterpreting the intention of innovation.

That said, I'm not against modernizing a few aspects of the series such as adding voice acting to the series for the sake of presentation. I can go the entire series with Link being a mute, but I'm not gonna say that I haven't envisioned voices for the fellow mainstays and the other characters (Steven J. Blum as Ganon can totally work ).

It needs something there are chemical reactions less formulaic than LOZ.

It's past it's prime.

Majora's Mask was a step in the right direction.

Originally Posted by Seen

I AM NOT POINTING TO ANYONE DIRECTLY, NOR AM I SAYING THAT THE ZELDA SERIES DOESN'T NEED CHANGE.

I've seen so many posts and topics here over analyzing every single thing in the Zelda games (Link being insane in MM and it's all in his mind because he wants to be a hero again so badly, and such), wanting the next Zelda to have Link killed off, put in the present normal world time, put in the FUTURE, giving Link a voice, changing Link into what ever anyone wants, and even one saying that they wanted another "Hyrule Fantasy" game. (it was just the subtitle for the original Zelda in japan. How could that be some kind of different series?)



I feel that people are completely forgetting what Zelda has, and always should (in my opinion) be.


When you take off all the bells and whistles of the timeline, all of the references to some religions, all of that, it all comes down to the simply story of a boy who becomes a man. It's the traditional coming-of-age story. And that was what made the series so charming for me. It's what made the series so charming and amazing for many people. Why does Zelda need to become some kind of MATURE DEEP ADULT series? Why can't it just appeal to everyone like it has for all these years?

Doing things like killing off one of Nintendo's MASCOTS like Link and replacing him would be the WORST IDEA NINTENDO COULD EVER DO. So is putting Link in steampunk ages or even the future. It wouldn't be Zelda. It would be Star Wars. Zelda is not Star Wars.


If these ideas were to be put into the franchise, it wouldn't even be Zelda anymore. It would be an entirely new series. Nintendo could use a good new series, but taking care of their current series like Zelda should be first.

I personally feel that people are growing up and growing out of Zelda. And they want Zelda to "grow up" with them. A series can't "grow up". When you try doing something like that you just get the Jak and Daxter franchise and the Sonic series. Not the best way to go.


Thank you for taking the time to listening to my rant, for those who did.

well said. i agree 100%.

Originally Posted by Seen

Why does Zelda need to become some kind of MATURE DEEP ADULT series? Why

My nitpick on this;

First off; Deeper Games tend to have more of an impact on society
Second off; Deeper Games tend to actually involve some more though
Third; Deeper Games present better story telling
Fourth; Deeper Games provide actual Human Flaws, and make the character more then just a cardboard cutout running around a paper thin room.
Fifth; Deeper Games provoke Radical new ideas for gameplay example
Say;
In a normal game your actions don't change one thing
Let's say you make the game more deeper, and decide to make it a more human like experience, then the player finds that blowing up the country side in a crazy tail spin of fury provides the consequence of everybody hating you.

I will agree that Maturity is another story..
Deeper isn't always bad, because it provides better experiences
Maturity of Killy, Sweary, fun are just making things shallow and messy.

Long Rant Short
Maturity when it means Deeper good
Maturity when it means Shooty, Sweary bad.

I didn't even read the OP. Not because it was stupid, but because I strongly agree by default.

I'd love to see all of the Nintendo fanboy's faces if Nintendo said "**** you, you can't be pleased. We're scrapping Zelda". Honestly, there'd be so much sucking of peripherals it would be hilarious.

Deep and mature games aren't neccessarily violent or dark. LA and OoT did the deep and mature just fine.

Why are people asking for Zelda to be deep and mature? This is Nintendo.

Originally Posted by GK: 4895/9999

Why are people asking for Zelda to be deep and mature? This is Nintendo.

Exactly.

Why aren't we complaining this to the Mario games?

The main problem people have with Zelda nowadays is that most of the creative and design work fails to come off as truly original. People are tired of seeing remixed Forest, Fire, Water, Desert, Ice, Tower, and Sky dungeons. (All of these have at least three incarnations in the series already.)

Not to say that these dungeon types can't be original (Great Bay, Stone Tower, Snowpeak Ruins), just that at this point they seem to have lost their novelty.

People want to keep the Boomerang, Bow, Bombs, Hookshot, Mirror Shield, etc., but they want new items to occupy the dungeons. TP introduced lots of new items, which was good, but most people feel those items barely carried through past the dungeon we found them in, extending to one puzzle after the dungeon and a couple Heart Pieces in the overworld.

> ZU Forums > Zelda > Future Zelda
---> This is what Zelda needs.

Every other day. Fanboys cannot be pleased. That is the problem.

Originally Posted by GK: 4895/9999

> ZU Forums > Zelda > Future Zelda
---> This is what Zelda needs.

Every other day. Fanboys cannot be pleased. That is the problem.

This.

Ow and hype. I still hope I can play TP one day with a clear mind, without over the top expectations to see what I really think of the game.

I think we need the Zelda franchise to be scrapped. It'd be awesome.

Originally Posted by Eternal Legend

Exactly.

Why aren't we complaining this to the Mario games?

Huge, massive difference. Unlike Zelda games that have had deep, mature, engaging storyline for nearly 20 years now, Mario doesn't really try. And when they did (Sunshine), backlash was huge.

Only Zelda games don't have those story lines. They also don't need them. People play Zelda for the dungeons, at heart.

Originally Posted by GK: 4895/9999

Only Zelda games don't have those story lines. They also don't need them. People play Zelda for the dungeons, at heart.

Not sure what drugs you are taking, but they seem to be working. Every Legend of Zelda game since aLttP has had a heavily featured storyline that is impossible to ignore.