Zelda: Reboot

So, yeah. I was looking at the Castlevania reboot that Konami is working on, and a sudden thought leapt to mind.

Why not reboot Zelda?

The series is being crushed under its own convoluted weight. Staples are being endlessly re-used hideously, the storyline and links between the games are just horrible, all the character are cardboard and emotionless, Ganondorf is about as scary as that yellow thing from Sesame street, etc.

Rebooting the series means there would be the perfect opportunity to a) set-up a decent over-arching storyline, b) the ability to try out new things, and c) no need to be restricted by precedents of the previous games. All a Zelda game needs is Link, exploration, a sword, Stalfos and keys. Anything else you can name has been vacant from at least one Zelda game, pretty much.

Eh.

Don't you feel like Zelda would lose it's mythological scale? Forgoing the fact that a 3D Castlevania is doomed to fail, even with the magic touch of Hideo Kojima, I feel like redoing Zelda would be...pointless?

I mean, most LoZ games generally change art style from game to game. TP does not look similar to Wind Waker does not look similar to OoT does not look similar to LttP.

I mean, you complain about cardboard characters and the like, but how much are you really paying attention anyway?

I found TP Ganondorf to be pretty intimidating. A dark god who wants to unite two parallel universe so he can suck up all of the power? That's freaky. I mean, the bastard got stabbed in the chest, and they still couldn't stop his god-like powers.

You're playing out a Myth, a "Legend" so to speak, and Legends are all about Archetypes and what have you.

I mean, what you're talking about is what ruined comic books and the like...everything has to be riddled with emotional distress and angst for people to find it identifiable or interesting. Somebody's got to die this week, or nobody will care.

Unless you're talking what happend to Jak and Daxter, in which case I have nothing to say.

Changing the art style didn't do anything for the games. Twilight Princess is Ocarina of Time is A Link to the Past. They have near identical plots (do four or so dungeons collecting items, plot twist, three or so dungeons, collect items, fight Ganon/dorf, save princess). Rebooting a series doesn't have to mean giving everyone angst, far from it.

And Twilight Princess Ganondorf wasn't intimidating, because I'd killed him in tWW, in aLttP, in OoT, in OoA/S, in FSA, in tLoZ, etc. He could have been a good character, if TP had been a stand alone game. As it was, Ganondorf was held by back the other games, precisely the reason Zelda needs a reboot.

Oh my god. Not another one.

For the umpteenth time, all Z-Wii needs to be a great game is innovative gameplay, stunning music and visuals which push the system. Nothing which has been done in Zelda's past is preventing that from happening, therefore a reboot isn't necessary.

As long as they have the three aforementioned things (a-la Super Mario Galaxy), then the rest of the game could be UBER cliche and/or overused (a-la Super Mario Galaxy), and it would still be a great game (a-la Super Mario Galaxy).

The series has been stagnating because none of the recent Zeldas have had any of the three aforementioned "ingredients".

I guess that's your opinion, and that's fine and dandy, but isn't the problem solved by approaching each game on their own?

INstead of saying, this is entry #200 in the Legend of Zelda series, why not say "This is 'The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess'".

I don't hold with the argument that OoT is LttP is blah blah blah, it's sort of lazy and completely ignores what makes those games great. It's like saying FFIV is FFVI is FFVIII is FFIX because they are all RPG's.

Also saving Zelda is rarely the true objective. It wasn't in the first Zelda game, or LttP really since you're under the impression for most of the game that you failed to save Zelda, or OoT since you spend most of the game doing her errands, or MM since she's not in it, or The Wind Waker, or TP...catch my drift here?

EDIT: Basically what the poster above me says.

No. That's not enough. Unlike Mario, Zelda does revolve around story these days. Long ago, back in the NES era and to a lesser extent in the SNES era (although aLttP was already beginning to formulate the basic elements of a story), it may not have, but ever since LA, one of the driving forces of Zelda has been the story. Majora's Mask would have been rather pale without the story, Ocarina of Time would have been downright dull, and Twilight Princess would have been unplayable.

But Zelda cannot have a driving story when all the previous game control what it does so much. All the first games of any pairing (OoT in OoT/MM, tWW in tWW/PH, etc) have to contain Hyrule, have to contain Princess Zelda, have to contain Ganondorf. Zelda is the same character almost every time, as is Ganondorf. Zelda has no threatening to villain to drive you on, has no character you want to save, because you've killed that villain so many times before, rescued that princess so often she just starts to piss you off.

If you want a story-less Zelda, or a Zelda with yet another awful retelling of the same old plot, why not go back and have fun with tLoZ for the NES? As for me, I'm going to look to the future.

If you really think OoT Zelda and TP Zelda are similar at all, we have nothing to talk about.

Originally Posted by IgnixMadax

If you really think OoT Zelda and TP Zelda are similar at all, we have nothing to talk about.

Are you serious? You do know that TP was made only because the fans wanted a sequel to OoT after the "horrible" WW, right?

So it is based on OoT, it was made to look and play like OoT and it was made to get your money - just like OoT did.

Originally Posted by IgnixMadax

If you really think OoT Zelda and TP Zelda are similar at all, we have nothing to talk about.

You'd be al to ignore the fact they are similar. Look at almost any review by a major games company - one of the things they are quickest to criticize is the fact Twilight Princess was much too similar to its predecessors. Look at the main complaint about Twilight Princess among the fanbase - it was much too similar to its predecessors. Whether you like it or not, the basic underlying plot of the games was extremely similar.

A reboot would indeed be nice.
It doesn't have to be something so completely different that it doesn't even look like Zelda anymore, but it can't be the same old formula again either. They've become so predictable nowadays, to the point where you can almost expect some 'plot twist' half-way through the game, and you can almost predict the number of dungeons left after this 'plot twist'.

I admit the series has changed a lot in recent times, but the innovation that drove this change is seemingly being focused in areas that don't need it.

Are you serious? You do know that TP was made only because the fans wanted a sequel to OoT after the "horrible" WW, right?

So it is based on OoT, it was made to look and play like OoT and it was made to get your money - just like OoT did

Oh, I didn't know that was why it was made. I was under the impression it was made as the next chapter, and took a more serious approach after the Wind Waker lighter approach. You also say "fans" like you're not one of them.

One is a young girl trapped in the political dealings of her father and cursed with premonitions of a coming doom and the fate of her kingdom, a fate that will curse them for ages to come. She's faces the fate of lack of power: Her age prevents her from being able to save her kingdom, until a young hero comes to aid her.

The other is a Monarch. Princess Zelda is actually in charge of Hyrule in Twilight Princess, and it is her decision to surrender to Zant that defines her. Also consider that she also had a weapon; she was prepared to fight for her kingdom, something OoT Zelda never does. She sacrifices herself to save the kingdom from being obliterated entirely. She only slows the inevitable, but is able to find unlikely salvation in Midna, the queen of the Twili and her quest for revenge. She chooses to grant Midna the powers invested in her as the Seventh Sage so Midna could survive.

I don't find these two characters similar. One is more proactive, and one is not. One acts rashly, and because of that action Hyrule falls into chaos, and the other sacrifices herself to save it.

I don't read reviews. Popular reviewers attach arbitrary numbers to games to rate them in some way. There is a scale, sure. THese graphics are better than those, this voice acting sucks, this music is grand...but then there's this number. This game is uhhh......7. How much better is a 7 than an 8? What about a 7.5? Is that WAY worse than an 8, or only kinda?

Originally Posted by Crab Helmet

No. That's not enough. Unlike Mario, Zelda does revolve around story these days. Long ago, back in the NES era and to a lesser extent in the SNES era (although aLttP was already beginning to formulate the basic elements of a story), it may not have, but ever since LA, one of the driving forces of Zelda has been the story. Majora's Mask would have been rather pale without the story, Ocarina of Time would have been downright dull, and Twilight Princess would have been unplayable.

Oddly enough, MM and TP both recieved lower sales and ratings than OoT, which had the least story and the most innovative gameplay of the three (Zelda's pioneer of 3d).

Nintendo's games are never story-centric, they're always gameplay-centric.

Originally Posted by Crab Helmet

But Zelda cannot have a driving story when all the previous game control what it does so much. All the first games of any pairing (OoT in OoT/MM, tWW in tWW/PH, etc) have to contain Hyrule, have to contain Princess Zelda, have to contain Ganondorf. Zelda is the same character almost every time, as is Ganondorf. Zelda has no threatening to villain to drive you on, has no character you want to save, because you've killed that villain so many times before, rescued that princess so often she just starts to piss you off.

And Hyrule can't have a great story? Rescuing Princess Zelda can't have a million twists?

Originally Posted by Crab Helmet

If you want a story-less Zelda, or a Zelda with yet another awful retelling of the same old plot, why not go back and have fun with tLoZ for the NES? As for me, I'm going to look to the future.

How very arrogant. You're implying that Zelda can't be "modern" without this "re-boot".

OoT was my first videogame ever, so I can't "go back" to LOZ.

Double A speaks my language, though he implies that LoZ doesn't have a good story; it does, it's just not the most obvious thing in the world. You kind of have to pay attention, which most people don't. Nobody bothers to connect the dots anymore.

If it's fun, point it my way.

Originally Posted by Double A

Oddly enough, MM and TP both recieved lower sales and ratings than OoT, which had the least story and the most innovative gameplay of the three (Zelda's pioneer of 3d).

Because Ocarina of Time caught the tail end of the 3D movement. It had nothing to do with how good OoT actually was, and everything to with the fact it was 3D. See also: Super Mario 64, which suffers from the same over-hype. Plus, the only thing Ocarina of Time pioneered was the Z-Targeting system. Everything was a natural translation of aLttP's mechanics into 3D, or stolen from Super Mario 64's engine.

Nintendo's games are never story-centric, they're always gameplay-centric.

Fallacial and irrelevant appeal to tradition. Just because things always have been this way, doesn't mean they should be this way. Zelda would be drastically improved by having a decent story. Also, Zelda is story-driven. What would you do if Zelda didn't exist in Twilight Princess? If Midna didn't exist? If Ganondorf didn't exists, except as a boss battle? It'd be even more dull than it already is, you'd simply be going from point A to point B for no apparant reason. This is acceptable in a non-linear game, because you get to make choices, in a linear game like the Zelda series, this stupid.

And Hyrule can't have a great story? Rescuing Princess Zelda can't have a million twists?

No, it can't. No matter how many twists you have, it's still just saving Zelda.

How very arrogant. You're implying that Zelda can't be "modern" without this "re-boot".

And here is the number one sign you know you've lost this argument, resorting to ad hominem.

And yes, Zelda can't be modern without, if not a reboot, at least a severe change. Good modern games have indepth stories, they have amazing graphics, the vast majority of them have voice-acting, they have deep characters, as well as amazing gameplay. Twilight Princess, even fro a Gamecube game, seems increasingly like a throwback, or some monstrous N64 game resurrected long past its sell by date.

OoT was my first videogame ever, so I can't "go back" to LOZ.

Go back to Ocarina of Time, then. The series needs change, and if you don't want change, stick to what you have.

EDIT: And yes, Ignis, I say "fans" like I'm not one of them, because I'm not. The Zelda series is increasingly losing its allure for me. Why should I like a dinosaur, a decadent and increasingly outdated series that refuses to stick with the times?

First off the "Fans" thing was aimed at Senap, but I suppose it applies as heavily to you.

What are "The Times" precisely?

Mediocre games continually feeding into the mindset of "Graphical Development", "Innovation", etc. without an actual definition for these things will eventually lose track of the original purpose of these flashing pixels on screen: Fun. Consider Halo 3, a hyped up, graphically charged and rushed story development sequel to an overhyped series. Is that what you want, really? Or how about seriously story heavy games like Xenosaga, which are mostly heavily ignored for being TOO story heavy? I'm not sure I get what you mean.

You keep claiming Zelda is failing you in some manner without really talking about what you mean. It's a common thing on this forum, nobody seems to know what they want.

I don't know why Double A is so anti-story, but I'm really not. People seem to ignore the story that LoZ has because it's a "Throwback" or what have you. Even if it is, so what? It's a gorram legend. That's what a LEGEND is. You're obviously playing the wrong game series.

And claiming OoT's popularity because of the "3d" hype is lazy and close-minded. There's a reason that game is so popular, and it's because it's damn near perfect. Sure, it didn't stretch the N64's graphical power, but who gives a damn? It was a wonderful blend of gameplay, music, and story. In fact, the story and gameplay often intertwine, a mark of a truly great game.

Z-Targeting, First Person Aiming, Music as a puzzle solving element, Active player controlled time travel, and most importantly for me, structuring the ancient Lore and Mythology of Hyrule.

The connection between the games are so loose that every time Link is replaced it's already like a reboot.

Originally Posted by IgnixMadax

First off the "Fans" thing was aimed at Senap, but I suppose it applies as heavily to you.

And I answered it. I'm not a fan.

What are "The Times" precisely?

The time is the 21st of June, 2009. We are currently in the seventh generation of video gaming, in which graphics are becoming increasingly impressive, and music is making the leap to orchestration, voice acting is becoming much more common, and storylines are becoming indepth.

The time is not the 21st of Novemeber, 2008. We are not in the fifth generation of video gaming, in which graphics have barely reached 3D and are style crude, music is tasteless midi, and the small size of the video game market means voice acting is almost unheard of, and storylines are badly implemented.

Mediocre games continually feeding into the mindset of "Graphical Development", "Innovation", etc. without an actual definition for these things will eventually lose track of the original purpose of these flashing pixels on screen: Fun.

Noun
innovation (plural innovations)

1. The act of innovating; the introduction of something new, in customs, rites, etc.
2. A change effected by innovating; a change in customs; something new, and contrary to established customs, manners, or rites.

New things are fun. Old things are repetitive. It isn't "fun" fighting Ganondorf. How do I get fun from doing something I've done 7 times before? It isn't fun saving Zelda. How do I get fun from doing something I've done 7 times before? It isn't fun finding four generic items, having a plot twist, finding three more generic items, plot twist, final boss, as I've done 10 times before. Zelda is no longer "fun", at all.

Consider Halo 3, a hyped up, graphically charged and rushed story development sequel to an overhyped series. Is that what you want, really?

No, I do not want that, primarily because Halo 3's story was ****, and the gameplay was worse, and it had absolutely no innovation from Halo 2. I think the example you were looking for here was "Half Life 2", a hyped, game play AND graphically charged and amazingly indepth story sequel to a justly hyped series, which is most mostly definitely what I want.

Or how about seriously story heavy games like Xenosaga, which are heavily ignored for being TOO story heavy? I'm not sure I get what you mean.

That isn't an inherent flaw with story telling, that's a flaw with one particular game's story. That's like calling capitalism stupid because Hitler was a capitalist.

You keep claiming Zelda is failing you in some manner without really talking about what you mean.

I've said what I mean multiple times. Please learn to read. I'd like: Zelda to stop whoring out the same old story cliches. I'd like: Zelda to stop using ****ty MIDIs. I'd like: Zelda to stop whoring out the same old items. I'd like: Zelda to stop having incredibly weak dialogue. I'd like: Zelda to stop having 2D characters. I'd like: Zelda to stop being linear.

I've said It's a common thing on this forum, nobody seems to know what they want.

See above, and learn to read people's posts more carefully.

I don't know why Double A is so anti-story, but I'm really not. People seem to ignore the story that LoZ has because it's a "Throwback" or what have you. Even if it is, so what? It's a gorram legend. That's what a LEGEND is. You're obviously playing the wrong game series.

Not really. I loved Majora's Mask and Link's Awakening, and why? Because their stories are radically different from those of the main stream games. Majora's Mask doesn't mention Ganondorf, features Zelda once, doesn't take place in Hyrule, and if you ask the increasingly disillusioned older generation of fans what their favourite game is, you'll find it is extremely likely to be Majora's Mask.

And claiming OoT's popularity because of the "3d" hype is lazy and close-minded.

No, it's brutal truth.

There's a reason that game is so popular, and it's because it's damn near perfect. Sure, it didn't stretch the N64's graphical power, but who gives a damn?

Me.

It was a wonderful blend of gameplay, music, and story. In fact, the story and gameplay often intertwine, a mark of a truly great game.

Precisely, story is incredibly important, which is why you can't abuse the same old story. The music is good, but the gameplay was just natural progression of aLttP into 3D, and the story was incredibly similar (rescue sages/maidens by switching between two worlds, dark/light or old/young, then fight Ganon/dorf).

Z-Targeting, First Person Aiming, Music as a puzzle solving element, Active player controlled time travel, and most importantly for me, structuring the ancient Lore and Mythology of Hyrule.

Z-Targeting was new and impressive, yes. First-Person aiming, however, was neither new, nor innovative, it was the obvious way of implementing projectile weapons. Music had been used as a puzzle before, especially in Link's Awakening. The time control was extremely limited, and was really just away to limit items for plot use, and change scene. It wasn't a game mechanic as such. Also, if you think that's Hyrule mythology is structured, than you must be having a laugh. The timeline is cluster**** of stupidity and apparent contradictions.

Man, I just don't get the Majora's Mask worship in this place. It's nothing special, nor is it "Radically different" it's just more blatant and laid out for you. It's just like all the other BS we get fed these days. ANGST MAKES IT REAL FOR ME GUYS. For the record, I am the older generation. My father introduced me to LoZ when I was very very young, and it was the very first game I ever beat. Don't pull that elitest BS on me.

No Zelda Music is tasteless, it's some of the best composed stuff in the industry. It's up there with Mitsuda and Uematsu. You know, actual game composers with actually good music.

As for me, I enjoy the mythology they've set up and I don't consider it a cluster****. It's pretty straight forward if you think about.

I can read just fine, your points are just unclear. You don't specify anything, and none of the points you've given out have any actual evidence. Just repeating the same bull**** all the naysaysers say these days.

As for my examples, I gave examples of specifically unsuccessful (In the case of Halo 3, not monetarily but as a game) games for a reason. THe things you asked for do not equal greatness. Half-Life 2 is the exception, not the rule. Valve basically prints gold.

Also, that story makes little to no sense and you know it.

Meh.

You're obviously looking to hate it, so I'm done arguing with you. If it's not fun for you anymore, then don't play it. It confuses me to find someone looking for something that isn't Legend of Zelda on a Legend of Zelda forum.

Originally Posted by IgnixMadax

And claiming OoT's popularity because of the "3d" hype is lazy and close-minded. There's a reason that game is so popular, and it's because it's damn near perfect. Sure, it didn't stretch the N64's graphical power, but who gives a damn? It was a wonderful blend of gameplay, music, and story. In fact, the story and gameplay often intertwine, a mark of a truly great game.

If Ocarina of Time was released first in 2D, what's worse would be at the same time as Super Mario 64, it would have never, ever been as praised as it is now. It really was the 3D.

Z-Targeting, First Person Aiming, Music as a puzzle solving element, Active player controlled time travel, and most importantly for me, structuring the ancient Lore and Mythology of Hyrule.

If they aren't something that's practically been done before, it's a primarily standard function of 3D gameplay.

Originally Posted by IgnixMadax

Man, I just don't get the Majora's Mask worship in this place. It's nothing special, nor is it "Radically different"

So having indepth characters isn't radically different? Changing the whole dungeon format isn't radically different? Changing a core gameplay mechanic by introducing a timer isn't radically different?

it's just more blatant and laid out for you. It's just like all the other BS we get fed these days. ANGST MAKES IT REAL FOR ME GUYS.

I've said before angst doesn't make it better. What makes things better, is seeing the effect on the characters. In Majora's Mask, as time progresses, you can see the characters responding to this. In Ocarina of Time, this happens once, when you switch times. In Majora's Mask, it happens every hour.

For the record, I am the older generation. My father introduced me to LoZ when I was very very young, and it was the very first game I ever beat. Don't pull that elitest BS on me.

As I said, learn to read. I mentioned the "disillusioned older generation". You aren't disillusioned, therefore you do not fit in this group.

No Zelda Music is tasteless, it's some of the best composed stuff in the industry. It's up there with Mitsuda and Uematsu. You know, actual game composers with actually good music.

I never said Zelda music was bad, I said midis were bad. Learn to read.

As for me, I enjoy the mythology they've set up and I don't consider it a cluster****. It's pretty straight forward if you think about.

Because obviously, the timeline has a perfect order, and obviously, only the Silver Arrows can kill Ganondorf and only the Master Sword can kill Ganondorf at the same time, and obviously, the events of the Phantom Hourglass make perfect sense. [/sarc]

I can read just fine,

I'd like to contest that point.

your points are just unclear.

I've said what I mean multiple times. Please learn to read. I'd like: Zelda to stop whoring out the same old story cliches. I'd like: Zelda to stop using ****ty MIDIs. I'd like: Zelda to stop whoring out the same old items. I'd like: Zelda to stop having incredibly weak dialogue. I'd like: Zelda to stop having 2D characters. I'd like: Zelda to stop being linear.

You don't specify anything, and none of the points you've given out have any actual evidence. Just repeating the same bull**** all the naysaysers say these days.

Evidence: seven out of fourteen games feature Ganondorf trying to take over Hyrule. Evidence: ten out of thirteen games feature four dungeons, plot twist, three dungeons, plot twist, final boss dungeon(s). Evidence: every Zelda game to date has used MIDI, which would have been acceptable up until the GameCube generation, but we've had two of those now. Evidence: the Boomerang, the Bow and Arrow, the Clawshot/Hookshot have been used in at least eight games each, with almost no changes to their base mechanics. Evidence: No Zelda game to date has used voice acting, which would have been acceptable up until the Gamecube generation, but we've had two of those now. Evidence: the neither of the last two Zelda console games had any opportunity for non-linearity among the dungeons.

Meh.

You're obviously looking to hate it, so I'm done arguing with you. If it's not fun for you anymore, then don't play it. It confuses me to find someone looking for something that isn't Legend of Zelda on a Legend of Zelda forum.

You know what?

I would love to sit down, and play the next Zelda game, and say "**** me. That was incredible. Actually stunning". I would love to enjoy the next game the same way I enjoyed Majora's Mask, the same way I enjoyed Link's Awakening, the same way I enjoyed A Link to the Past". But I can't, because people like you hold the series back, obsessed with what the series has been like, and not what it could be like. The only thing Zelda needs is a) Link, b) a Stalfos of some sort, c) exploration, d) keys, and e) a sword. Everything else has been absent from at least one game, normally the early ones. But by now, games like Twilight Princess just use the same old layout, and it sickens me.