Do you think there should be a futuristic Zelda game?

Originally Posted by Double A

I say no.

Making a futuristic Zelda can be compared to making a new series (infact, why don't Nintendo just make a new series to make all you BAWWWWWWers happy?). I mean, I know it's bad to cling to tradition sometimes, but the line has to be drawn somewhere...

Drawing a line at a futuristic Hyrule is a bit early.

Now, if Hyrule was a land of Amazon-esque women using male Hylians as slaves and female Hylians as baby makers... And Link must escape their evil feminist government to seek out an ancient Great Faerie in the mountains to help awaken the essence of what was once Hyrule... Well, yeah.. Drawing the line is very much understandable.

Hey, atleast "Amazon-esque" is closer to Zelda's time period than "futuristic"...

Originally Posted by Double A

Hey, atleast "Amazon-esque" is closer to Zelda's time period than "futuristic"...

I certainly hope that you're a dissenter of Spirit Tracks and, to a lesser extent, Phantom Hourglass then. Because steam trains and boats are just not the Middle Ages man. In fact, they're Industrial/Victorian. Wow, that seems a bit out of "Zelda's time period" doesn't it? Except for the fact that they're in a Zelda game, so I guess it's not.

Remember time is relative. Certain technology could be very developed while others could be primitive at the same time. For example transportation(trains) could be up to steam(no pun intended) while weaponry could still be swords, bows, and cannons. Oh and what's futuristic for hyrule could be centuries behind us.

Originally Posted by DakonLink

Remember time is relative. Certain technology could be very developed while others could be primitive at the same time. For example transportation(trains) could be up to steam(no pun intended) while weaponry could still be swords, bows, and cannons.

An anachronism is certainly possible, since yes, it could have developed entirely differently than our universe, but steam power is steam power. If they can use it for trains and boats, they can use it for other things. Some technological advances in our history (and most these days) are direct results of preceding technologies being invented. I assure you that if they have steam trains, they should have plenty of other steam powered devices.

Steam power isn't "futuristic". Part of the credibility for Steam power being displayed in Zelda comes from the fact that it's relatively simple to understand (compared to "real" technology) and it fits pretty well into a medieval fantasy-type era (it doesn't stick out like a sore thumb).

Originally Posted by Double A

Steam power isn't "futuristic". Part of the credibility for Steam power being displayed in Zelda comes from the fact that it's relatively simple to understand (compared to "real" technology) and it fits pretty well into a medieval fantasy-type era (it doesn't stick out like a sore thumb).

I think you are confusing Hyrule futuristic to our-time futuristic. A futuristic Zelda could be something as simple as a steampunk influenced Hyrule, which, according to your definition, would fit right in with a medieval fantasy-type era.

Steam power isn't real? There must be some grand conspiracy.

The steam technology we've seen in Zelda so far may not be futuristic but it is a step forward on their technological scale (discounting TP's Goron Mines in their entirety). Fact is, the way anachronistic technology works well in the currently existing Zelda games, they could easily go farther with higher technology and never feel unfaithful to the series.

Originally Posted by Shinespark

I think you are confusing Hyrule futuristic to our-time futuristic. A futuristic Zelda could be something as simple as a steampunk influenced Hyrule, which, according to your definition, would fit right in with a medieval fantasy-type era.

Okay then. Why not?

Originally Posted by Double A

Okay then. Why not?

Because steampunk often has modern day technology integrated with a Victorian style aesthetic and execution. Such is the general definition of steampunk. And according to your definition of steam power fitting right in with "medieval" (which it doesn't by the way, they're separated by several centuries), steampunk isn't a far stretch. Remember the "Valley of the Deluge" rumor? The whole basis of that idea was steampunk. I don't know if you were opposed to that, but most other people were because it was too futuristic. And yet I see no complaints about a steam powered train or boat.

I'm not complaining about the steam power. I just don't want Zelda to be
"futuristic" in the more well-known sense of the word.

EDIT:

I ought to mention that Valley of the Deluge contained elements of Steampunk which were prominent (it was a "Steampunk World") whereas PH and ST only have few references to Steampunk.

Originally Posted by Double A

I'm not complaining about the steam power. I just don't want Zelda to be
"futuristic" in the more well-known sense of the word.

EDIT:

I ought to mention that Valley of the Deluge contained elements of Steampunk which were prominent (it was a "Steampunk World") whereas PH and ST only have few references to Steampunk.

Fair enough.

I still would love to see a steampunk Zelda as presented in the Valley of the Deluge rumor. I was actually very sad that it was a rumor, even though it was a pretty obvious one from the beginning.

Originally Posted by Double A

I say no.

Making a futuristic Zelda can be compared to making a new series

Because obviously, Castlevania: Portrait of Ruin, and Castlevania: Dawn of Sorrow are totally unrelated to Castlevania: Symphony of the Night, and may as well belong to a different series, retaining absolutely none of the gothic feel and atmosphere, intense gameplay, and compelling plot.

(infact, why don't Nintendo just make a new series to make all you BAWWWWWWers happy?).

Because there's still life in Zelda yet, even if it is dwindling by the minute? Perhaps when Zelda approaches Sonic levels, I'd be more than willing for a new series, but Zelda still has its chances yet.

I mean, I know it's bad to cling to tradition sometimes, but the line has to be drawn somewhere...

Argumentum ad antiquitatem

(the argument to antiquity or tradition).

This is the familiar argument that some policy, behavior, or practice is right or acceptable because "it's always been done that way." This is an extremely popular fallacy in debate rounds; for example, "Every great civilization in history has provided state subsidies for art and culture!" But that fact does not justify continuing the policy.

Because an argumentum ad antiquitatem is easily refuted by simply pointing it out, in general it should be avoided.

Sup.

Originally Posted by Crab Helmet

Because obviously, Castlevania: Portrait of Ruin, and Castlevania: Dawn of Sorrow are totally unrelated to Castlevania: Symphony of the Night, and may as well belong to a different series, retaining absolutely none of the gothic feel and atmosphere, intense gameplay, and compelling plot.

I fail to see the argument...

Originally Posted by Crab Helmet

Because there's still life in Zelda yet, even if it is dwindling by the minute? Perhaps when Zelda approaches Sonic levels, I'd be more than willing for a new series, but Zelda still has its chances yet.

Again, if they just made a new series, with all of your requirements, wouldn't we both be happy?

Why force Nintendo to reboot one of their classic franchises when they can please both of us.

Originally Posted by Crab Helmet

Sup.

Yo wat up C-dawg. Wats crakalakin in yo neck ov da hizood???

All I was saying that a series can only handle so much change before it might as well become a completely new series.

Originally Posted by Double A

I fail to see the argument...

I suggest you buy a sarcasm detector. I was pointing out Castlevania made an excellent transition into the future, while still being entirely recognisable as a Castlevania title, and still excellent, worthy additions to a series that has otherwise been rooted in the past.

Again, if they just made a new series, with all of your requirements, wouldn't we both be happy?

Why force Nintendo to reboot one of their classic franchises when they can please both of us.

Because they're highly unlikely to? Why would they create another action adventure franchise when they've already got one?

Yo wat up C-dawg. Wats crakalakin in yo neck ov da hizood???

All I was saying that a series can only handle so much change before it might as well become a completely new series.

It isn't a drastic change though. Imagine an Ocarina of Time, where the Master Sword put Link to sleep for a thousand years, not seven. Imagine him waking up to the future Ganondorf has brought, where Hyrule Field is a charred wasteland, Castletown is made up of factories, belching smoke, a bizarre mix of Stalfos and robot patrolling the perimeters. It's still obviously "Zelda" - it has Ganondorf, Link, a Master Sword, Zelda, which is more than say, Majora's Mask, arguably the best title in the series - it just has a new setting.

Originally Posted by Crab Helmet

It isn't a drastic change though. Imagine an Ocarina of Time, where the Master Sword put Link to sleep for a thousand years, not seven. Imagine him waking up to the future Ganondorf has brought, where Hyrule Field is a charred wasteland, Castletown is made up of factories, belching smoke, a bizarre mix of Stalfos and robot patrolling the perimeters. It's still obviously "Zelda" - it has Ganondorf, Link, a Master Sword, Zelda, which is more than say, Majora's Mask, arguably the best title in the series - it just has a new setting.

I'm sorry, this just made me laugh a bit.

Now I want you to tell me why the hell Link would need a sword when he can get a gun. Also, are you going to replace temples with factories? The Water Factory? Screw the clawshot, just use an elevator.

You know what else has "Ganondorf, Link, a Master Sword and Zelda?" Cmon, you know what it is... and it isn't really a "Zelda" game per se, but it would be a "Zelda" game by your definition.

EDIT:
Incase you didn't know by now, I'm not really a fan of futuristic games. Something about them turns me off.

Originally Posted by Double A

EDIT:
Incase you didn't know by now, I'm not really a fan of futuristic games. Something about them turns me off.

So then, by your own admission, you don't want a futuristic Zelda on principle, rather than actual gameplay features offered by a futuristic installment? Is that what we're to understand from this statement?

Originally Posted by Shinespark

So then, by your own admission, you don't want a futuristic Zelda on principle, rather than actual gameplay features offered by a futuristic installment? Is that what we're to understand from this statement?

I can't put my finger on it, but a futuristic Zelda would have gameplay that is not to my liking.

Don't ask me to elaborate.

How the **** would the gameplay change? It'd still be action adventure, it'd still focus around dungeons, etc. A change to the future wouldn't necessitate a change in gameplay at all. Now you are just being obtuse, vague, and unwilling to admit you are wrong.

And Link may use a sword because a) in this alternate future, guns may not have developed, b) he has a personal preference for blades, c) guns may be slow and unweildy, more suited to long range combat as a bow replacement rather than general usage. And yes, what is wrong with a factory? Explain.

Originally Posted by Crab Helmet

How the **** would the gameplay change? It'd still be action adventure, it'd still focus around dungeons, etc. A change to the future wouldn't necessitate a change in gameplay at all. Now you are just being obtuse, vague, and unwilling to admit you are wrong.

Meh, gameplay has to somehow adapt to the new setting, I mean they might as well keep it in the past if gameplay doesn't benefit from the new setting (considering Nintendo has always been gameplay first).

If not the gameplay, then the story, and I like past-based (edit: medieval fantasy) stories. They have a certain "pure" fantasy charm to them that isn't tainted by too much technology. I want my huts, not buildings dammit!!!