Futuristic Zelda - Why so against it?

Originally Posted by Mandrag

That is not the least bit ironic in any sense of the word.

Quoted for delicious truth.

Originally Posted by Fulcon

Why? It's getting stale imo, and I know I'm not the only one who thinks so.

Originally Posted by Senap

Getting stale, yes. But changing the setting wouldn't automatically "unstale" it.

It's the actual formula (get three artifacts, then master sword, get more artifacts etc) that's getting a bit old combined with the lack of difficulty and "item inflation". There's just too much money and too many hearts in the newer games.

It's just as Senap says. New environment with the some old stale gameplay is not going fix up the series. If its getting stale, the gameplay and formula should be the first thing changed.

Why so against a futuristic Zelda? Because we already have a Sci-Fi Action Adventure series made by Nintendo. It's called Metroid and it's awesome. Be sure to check it out.

I'm not against it.

Originally Posted by Spoon Link

Wow. That just gave me an idea in which Link, Zelda and Ganon wind up in New York City and Ganon tries to find them, using his Triforce of Power to destroy everything along the way. Zelda uses her Triforce of Wisdom to look like a city girl and Link gets thrown in jail for "disturbing the peace" just by unsheathing his sword.

Oh, hey! You know, I just had the same idea! Except why not make it a musical? And perhaps add the voice talents of James Marsden, Amy Adams, and heck, Susan Sarandon too while we're at it! Then it could turn into a charmingly original, slightly self-parodic family ordeal!

^Zelda the Musical: ON ICE!!!

Originally Posted by Senap

Getting stale, yes. But changing the setting wouldn't automatically "unstale" it.

It's the actual formula (get three artifacts, then master sword, get more artifacts etc) that's getting a bit old combined with the lack of difficulty and "item inflation". There's just too much money and too many hearts in the newer games.

Anyway, I'm all for changing the setting to something more futuristic. As long as we're not talking about the space age. Do you really want to see the Intergalactic Kingdom of Hyrule, the Black Hole of Hylia, Epona the Starcruiser and Ganon the Supreme Commander of the Space Gerudos?

Metroid is doing a good job at covering the space age on its own and it's basically Zelda in a futuristic setting, so I suggest you play that if you want some space age action.

Point. And I don't mean 'space age'. That would be way outta what I have in mind.

But I do think that the formula change from 'three dungeons, plot twist, several more dungeons' to whatever we replace it with would feel like a stronger change if the game-enviroment is changed as well. That, and there'd be some new mechanics in play.

And to whoever said 'go play Metroid' (sorry I forgot your name. ) I have played the third Metroid Prime game. It's awesome, but it's enviroment isn't quite what I had in mind for a 'futuristic Zelda'. More like several centuries behind it.

That' s me, though.

Originally Posted by Calypso

Oh, hey! You know, I just had the same idea! Except why not make it a musical? And perhaps add the voice talents of James Marsden, Amy Adams, and heck, Susan Sarandon too while we're at it! Then it could turn into a charmingly original, slightly self-parodic family ordeal!

Precisely. It's not so much about being a purist an not allowing the series to grow as it is realizing that it's not what it is all about. There's this thing about series that glues the together. It's their setting, their overall feel. Zelda is a MEDIEVAL ADVENTURE RPG that has always focused on immersive, top-notch, genre-defining gameplay set in a time long past, hence the legend in the name. Always has been. To prove my point, Zelda's chronology has probably more prequels than any other video game series out there. Shifting it is un-Zelding Zelda. If the series' essence has grown stale, well, the thing to do is grow out of it. Gameplay has changed, villains have changed, even the character that names the series has been absent. However, the setting and style remain somewhat consant, breaking the mold every now and then, while retaining the overall feeling. If it doesn't suit you anymore, it's not like there's a drought of games in futuristic settings out there. As someone said, go for Metroid. The gameplay is similar enough.

What I mean is that making a futuristic Zelda is detemining that the medieval setting is not an integral part of the series. Instead, we're left with a questionably dated "Go into the dungeons, get the amulets, rinse, repeat, beat the boss and the game" routine, a trio of EMBLEMATIC, everchanging characters and three golden triangles. And that's a disservice to a series that many times ignored the "Zelda", but never forgot the "Legend".

Originally Posted by Julian

Precisely. It's not so much about being a purist and not allowing the series to grow as it is realizing that it's not what it is all about. There's this thing about series that glues the together. It's their setting, their overall feel. Zelda is a MEDIEVAL ADVENTURE RPG that has always focused on immersive, top-notch, genre-defining gameplay set in a time long past, hence the legend in the name. Always has been. To prove my point, Zelda's chronology has probably more prequels than any other video game series out there. Shifting it is un-Zelding Zelda. If the series' essence has grown stale, well, the thing to do is grow out of it. Gameplay has changed, villains have changed, even the character that names the series has been absent. However, the setting and style remain somewhat consant, breaking the mold every now and then, while retaining the overall feeling. If it doesn't suit you anymore, it's not like there's a drought of games in futuristic settings out there. As someone said, go for Metroid. The gameplay is similar enough.

What I mean is that making a futuristic Zelda is detemining that the medieval setting is not an integral part of the series. Instead, we're left with a questionably dated "Go into the dungeons, get the amulets, rinse, repeat, beat the boss and the game" routine, a trio of EMBLEMATIC, everchanging characters and three golden triangles. And that's a disservice to a series that many times ignored the "Zelda", but never forgot the "Legend".

My question to you is: How is it a disservice to the series? Focusing on the 'Zelda' part is what makes Zelda...Zelda. As much as I like MM, it was only one third 'Zelda', but retained all of the 'Legend'. I'm just saying we could do the opposite, in that we have all of the 'Zelda' but only a fraction of the 'Legend' and still have it bee a good game. It's what they did with WW! They lost the 'medieval ages' theme and went for a 'Columbus' theme, even having the ships going out to look for new land to boot! (Granted it wasn't for treasure, but still...) WW was one of the best games, IMO, second only to MM (which had some incredible game-play mechanics)!

And any one that says that Metroid has similar game-play hasn't actually played Metroid. Sure it has some similarities (the incredible need to explore is just about the only one), but it ain't anywhere near Zelda in terms of the rest of the game-play.

The series is about an Immortal War-Lord/King of Thieves trying to take over the kingdom, and the re-incarnations of The Hero and The Princess stopping him (and then The Hero, being extremely shell-shocked, goes on adventures by himself which are also really cool)!

Losing these elements without explanation would be smacking the series mythos in the face! Granted, everytime it did lose one of the elements, it had a reason (i.g, Gannondorf was already defeated, Link going away).

EDIT: And besides, seeing this in a game would be awesome, IMO.

EDIT AGAIN: Image isn't mine, fyi. To ensure no confusion.

Having played Metroid, Metroid 2, Super Metroid, Fusion and the thre Primes, I dare say that the basic elements are there. To me, Zelda has always been about exploration and item-bound backtracking. Everything else has been left behind at least once through the series. Of course I'm not blind as to say they're very similar, but that's mainly because a futuristic setting requires changes that would probably render Zelda into a Metroid game with a green armored protagonist. Or else, a futuristic game with swords, which sounds a little weird. I can deffinitely see it working, but it doesn't seem a very logical step for the series, and it could be one that made it hard to progress further or return to the roots. Wind Waker had very limited technology, being, if anything a post-apocaliptical world whose "apocalypse" took place during an already technologically impaired time.

I'm not vehemently against a futuristic game, I just find to be absolutely unnecessary, difficult to digest and harmful to the series in the long term, for it risks having its very identity harmed. It's not something I'm afraid of, for I trust Nintendo's capability to make a great game out of it. I honestly don't think they will though.

"The series is about an Immortal War-Lord/King of Thieves trying to take over the kingdom, and the re-incarnations of The Hero and The Princess stopping him (and then The Hero, being extremely shell-shocked, goes on adventures by himself which are also really cool)!"

I couldn't agree more. It IS indeed a huge element of the series, but I honestly don't think it defines its story in and on itself. There's a huge feeling of looking back in every game, not only to previous games, but from your actual stance as a player. The idea of PAST has always been an important one to the series, which I expressed in how many prequels there are, and only one game, a beautiful one, by the way, was based on looking towards the future. And even that was about rebuilding the medieval society they once had with new ideals and people.

Besides, I think futuristic games tend to be a little too adult and take themselves too serious to really fit the Zelda tone. The picture you sent actually made me even more certain of my opinion. It looks cool? Hell, yeah, but it also seems extremely non-Zelda. Zeldas are lighthearted games with funny characters, charming settings and breathtaking visuals. There's a sense of awe and reconnection with nature in the games. But then again, I'm a little biased, for I actually found Final Fantasy to be in constant decline since they left the medieval setting.

Through all this rant, I think I found the ONE argument to justify my stance:Nature. There's a god-like beauty in nature, as in it is something we cannot create or control. Zelda's been about gods and powers being our own. And Nature is the most tangible of all of them. Putting Lost woods next to a steampunk tower would harm its beauty, its essence. Building an underground city with subways in Death Mountain would take away its power. Making Lake Hylia's waterfall a freaking electrical powerplant would tame its natural strength.

Zelda is, to me, a return to a point where people were smaller and more insignificant. It's about having a huge sprawling world that feels like sentient beings have barely scraped its surface. It's about discovering ancient things that lie above even more ancient things, while the huge power that is Nature oversees your actions. The fields, the forest, the waterfalls, the mountain, the lake in Ocarina felt alive and stood as the most powerful things in that world. The sea in Wind Waker was a force in itself and grew on you, becoming one of the main elements and almost a character in and on itself.

Yeah, I'm gonna stick with the nature argument. For it is the expression of the Goddesses. and the Goddesses, their will and the Triforce through which they test the "Immortal War-Lord/King of Thieves trying to take over the kingdom, and the re-incarnations of The Hero and The Princess stopping him" that you talked about are what define the games' story to me.

Personally, I think it would be wierd to see Link riding a Hoverbike or even a Motorcycle.

I think that when people think about a futuristic Zelda, they automatically associate it with what our popular idea of the future would be. What we need to realize is that Hyrule's furture can be different than any other 'future' we have seen. It dosn't have to develop the same way the real world developed. It's an entirely different universe. Their future technology could be way different from ours.

Originally Posted by Julian

Or else, a futuristic game with swords, which sounds a little weird. I can deffinitely see it working

Erhm... Final Fantasy?

Anyway, I don't really like the idea of a futuristic Zelda, I just think it wouldn't work, I wouldn't mind a OMG THAT'S DIFFERENT change, but futuristic is just too much, I wouldn't mind a slightly more advanced technology though, and it actually seems we are slowly getting into that, the best example being the train, but still, a lot of people seem to hate it for some reason...

Well... A lot of people seem to hate a lot of things for some reasons.

Originally Posted by MrBaconsock

I think that when people think about a futuristic Zelda, they automatically associate it with what our popular idea of the future would be. What we need to realize is that Hyrule's furture can be different than any other 'future' we have seen. It dosn't have to develop the same way the real world developed. It's an entirely different universe. Their future technology could be way different from ours.

Thank you, MrBaconStock!

@Julian: So it's about preferance, then? I can respect that. I can't understand it, but I can respect it.

Me? I hate the smell of flowers, so I'd be biased against nature in general. I'm not saying it wouldn't have it's place (bio-domes, or magically turning trees into houses), but I want a change in scenery.

I adore stories that mix fantasy and sci-fi elements, and I'd love to see how a futuristic Zelda would work.

Problem is, Zelda may have the *****iest fanbase ever, so I doubt it'd happen.

Originally Posted by Peri SC

I adore stories that mix fantasy and sci-fi elements, and I'd love to see how a futuristic Zelda would work.

Problem is, Zelda may have the *****iest fanbase ever, so I doubt it'd happen.

Peri, thou dost speak the truth!

I heard it was bad before I joined the forums, but never dreamed it was as bad as I've found. They are *stops and takes a deep breath* anyway...

Any ideas for items, anyone? Or are we still debated weather or not it's a good idea in the first place?

Originally Posted by Fulcon

Thank you, MrBaconStock!

Your welcome

and speaking of mixing fantasy with sci-fi, has anyone seen the trailer for Avatar? It looks pretty cool.

... and why does everybody ALWAYS get my name wrong?

Originally Posted by MrBaconsock

Your welcome

and speaking of mixing fantasy with sci-fi, has anyone seen the trailer for Avatar? It looks pretty cool.

... and why does everybody ALWAYS get my name wrong?

I have not seen the trailer...and people get your name wrong on purpose because it's easier to say than 'MrBaconStock'.

I would be up for it, and I was just coming in here to post this topic. I don't need it to be anything like Halo or any sort of conventional human world. I'd want some things to remain extremely Hyrule.

• No aliens. Still Hylians, Gorons, Zora, Gerudo, etc.
• Link still uses a sword, even if it's sort of advanced sword that can keep up with guns and lasers
• Landmarks remain the same: Death Mountain, Lake Hylia, but now it's a Castle Town filled with skyscrapers, etc.
• Like someone else said, the technology should run on magical energy, not electric energy

I imagine it would have much the same feel as the thoroughly awesome and underrated Star Fox Adventures.

Why can't there be electricity? I'm pretty Twilight Princess shows people using electricity. Especially the Gorons.