Futuristic Zelda - Why so against it?

Originally Posted by IGNIS

LoZ settings since Majora's Mask are hardly worth being described as "medieval fantasy." A lot of the LoZ settings carry fantastical and sci-fi aspects that totally get rid of anything resembling the Middle Ages. :/

It doesn't have to exactly resemble the middle ages. Hence the name fantasy. I do think that some of the games have a bit too much sci fi and technology but as long as it doesn't cross "the line" into futuristic scenery and setting it's still alright with me.

I don't see why this is such a problem. How many Zelda games must we play that are set in a medieval-esque era?

Would it be so wrong to throw in a more advanced setting for the story to take place in?

With good writers, it could be pulled off and not come across as silly or alien to the Zelda series.

i am against this idea because it would be a bit strange collecting three artifacts and getting the super lazer master sword , do you see the paradox we have here?

Originally Posted by theGoronclub

i am against this idea because it would be a bit strange collecting three artifacts and getting the super lazer master sword , do you see the paradox we have here?

Who ever said the Masta Sword would be all lasery?

Everyone who thinks that a futuristic Zelda is going to be like our world, gta or star wars with Zelda themes is an idiot.

In case you haven't noticed, Zelda doesn't take place in our world, it doesn't follow our timeline. Its not in the middle ages, its in modern times. A futuristic Zelda is a game where the current series has progressed much further in time technologically and culturally.

A futuristic Zelda would only have things like guns if it made sense in that world (there is already the seed shooter and the bazooka in TP). The master sword is not going to transform into a light sabre (seriously, why would that even happen?). It is highly unlikely that Link would dress up in a hoody and jeans, he would more likely wear clothes never seen in our world

You can put a sign around a dog's neck that says "THIS IS A CAT" but it isn't a cat, nor will it ever be. In the same way, you can't take a futuristic game and slap on a Zelda logo and say "THIS IS A ZELDA"

Originally Posted by Talhoffer

You can put a sign around a dog's neck that says "THIS IS A CAT" but it isn't a cat, nor will it ever be. In the same way, you can't take a futuristic game and slap on a Zelda logo and say "THIS IS A ZELDA"

Considering you can't really compare a dog to Zelda, your argument is moot.

I've already pwned this point. Give me a new one.

What about a Zelda game where you can go way in the future and way in the past but with the same items you have like a sword and stuff.. your items don't change. It would be interesting but you can only change the time periods in certain areas.

Originally Posted by MrBaconsock

I'm not really against it, but Hyrule's future technology should be much different from ours if they decide to go through with it. Perhaps Magic based technology as opposed to electricity.

Yeah, I would prefer a more magic influenced (yet still advanced) world, then a superior mechanical world... but I'm not completely against the other idea.

Originally Posted by Fulcon

Considering you can't really compare a dog to Zelda, your argument is moot.

I've already pwned this point. Give me a new one.

Considering you just used the term "pwned" in relation to an argument, I'm going to say that you're not worth my time, but just for laughs let's try the analogy with different nouns.

Thing A has a sign on it that says "I am thing B." Is thing A thing B just because it says it is? Nope. The analogy holds true.

You see, it's not about comparing Zelda to a dog, it's about comparing something saying it's something else to something claiming to be something it's not. Much like a game with a Zelda title set in a star wars rip off type setting. Now, if you are so stupid as to not understand this, I will consider all arguments from you to be null and void as you are obviously not competent enough to manage basic logic. The fact that you need this to be explained shows you are already lacking in that department.

Why? Because it's dumb.

Originally Posted by Homosexual

Why? Because it's dumb.

Opinions may be what they are, but posting them just as simple fact is no way to go about arguing. Try backing it up with reasoning. I don't know, make yourself sound semi intelligent.

Originally Posted by Tallhoffer

You can put a sign around a dog's neck that says "THIS IS A CAT" but it isn't a cat, nor will it ever be. In the same way, you can't take a futuristic game and slap on a Zelda logo and say "THIS IS A ZELDA"

You are awesome. And I don't need to back it up. You've got that covered.

Originally Posted by Fulcon

Considering you can't really compare a dog to Zelda, your argument is moot.

I've already pwned this point. Give me a new one.

Wow. My guess at your age is somewhere between 7 and 8 years old.

Talhoffer, your argument is this. All Zelda games are medieval. Medieval games are not futuristic games. Therefore, no Zelda games are futuristic. Or, in simplified terms:

All A = B
All B =/= C
Therefore, All A =/=C

However, your argument falls down at A = B, because the Legend of Zelda series is not defined by its medieval setting. Majora's Mask showed a wide use of technology, including electricity. Various robots, such as the Beamos, have existed since near the beginning of the series. We know steam technology has arrived ever since PH and tWW. This means that the Legend of Zelda series is not defined by its medieval setting, so there is no direct correlation between A and B. Zelda is in fact defined by its gameplay. A better argument would be: Zelda games really on action-adventure gameplay with the established Zelda setting (which doesn't necessarily have to remain in the past). A futuristic game could be set in the Zelda universe, and could have action-adventure gameplay. Therefore, the Legend of Zelda series could become futuristic. Or,

All A = B.
Some B = C.
Therefore, some A = C.

In other words, Zelda could work perfectly well under a futuristic setting.

Originally Posted by Talhoffer

Considering you just used the term "pwned" in relation to an argument, I'm going to say that you're not worth my time, but just for laughs let's try the analogy with different nouns.

Thing A has a sign on it that says "I am thing B." Is thing A thing B just because it says it is? Nope. The analogy holds true.

You see, it's not about comparing Zelda to a dog, it's about comparing something saying it's something else to something claiming to be something it's not. Much like a game with a Zelda title set in a star wars rip off type setting. Now, if you are so stupid as to not understand this, I will consider all arguments from you to be null and void as you are obviously not competent enough to manage basic logic. The fact that you need this to be explained shows you are already lacking in that department.

You gave a totally bad analogy, and it is apparent that you don't know how to reason. Stop trying to make yourself look smart while bashing others.

Originally Posted by Crab Helmet

Talhoffer, your argument is this. All Zelda games are medieval. Medieval games are not futuristic games. Therefore, no Zelda games are futuristic. Or, in simplified terms:

All A = B
All B =/= C
Therefore, All A =/=C

Or perhaps I was waiting for a lead in. The way I see it "futuristic" is set in the future from now in a sci fi space marines duking it out with laser pistols star wars rip off type scene.

Also, I never said Zelda should stay 100% medieval. I merely said it should not be futuristic as I defined it to be above.

So, keeping this in mind, let's continue:

However, your argument falls down at A = B, because the Legend of Zelda series is not defined by its medieval setting. Majora's Mask showed a wide use of technology, including electricity. Various robots, such as the Beamos, have existed since near the beginning of the series.

The only part in majora's mask that uses electricity is goht. While indeed, we cannot disregard him, he can be considered an outlier in an otherwise constant trend. Also note that MM takes place not in Hyrule, but Termina which is an alteration of reality, the existence of which could be brought into question, by saying it was a reflection of Link's memories and inner turmoil. Somewhat also like the phones in LA. Koholint was a dream land made by Link's subconscious, why not Termina?

The beamos have unknown inner workings. If they truly ran off of strictly electricity, why do they blow up? Perhaps they actually run on a combustible fuel source.

We know steam technology has arrived ever since PH and tWW. This means that the Legend of Zelda series is not defined by its medieval setting,

And as I've said, I am not defining Zelda as strictly medieval. Just not futuristic.

so there is no direct correlation between A and B.

When A and B are defined under your definition.

Zelda is in fact defined by its gameplay.

We both know there are a lot more defining aspects to Zelda than the gameplay. Iconic figures, symbols, themes, etc.

That is somewhat besides the point though.

A better argument would be: Zelda games really on action-adventure gameplay with the established Zelda setting (which doesn't necessarily have to remain in the past).

The way I see it, although a Zelda game would be 'plausible' in a futuristic setting, I think it would be better not to give such a game the Zelda title.

Here's my thought though:

A futuristic game could be set in the Zelda universe, and could have action-adventure gameplay. Therefore, the Legend of Zelda series could become futuristic. Or,

All A = B.
Some B = C.
Therefore, some A = C.

In other words, Zelda could work perfectly well under a futuristic setting.

Here's my thought on the matter

A=all that is Zelda
B=the Setting
C=all the other elements that make a Zelda

From this we get A=BC

Now let's make it so that we replace B with D keeping in mind that B and D are not equal but infact quite different.

DC=/=A but due to the major factor C, which will be considered a greater influence on the outcome, we will say that DC=E where E is comparable to A.

In the end, after going down this rabbit trail, I think of all the lands Zelda has visited before. Admittedly many were new territories, but none was so large of a step as to waltz into millennia after another game.

Originally Posted by Lloyd Irving

You gave a totally bad analogy,

On what grounds is it bad? The way I see it, that's a baseless statement that you made only after a much more competent argument was posted just in an effort to ride the coat tails of said argument.

and it is apparent that you don't know how to reason.

Says the person giving no reasoning.

Stop trying to make yourself look smart while bashing others.

Says the one trying to appear intelligent by making baseless statements.

Originally Posted by Talhoffer

On what grounds is it bad?

Based on the fact that you are presenting bad analogies and are reasoning in circles, not to mention the lack of understanding of deductive arguments (as seen just recently).

The way I see it, that's a baseless statement that you made only after a much more competent argument was posted just in an effort to ride the coat tails of said argument.

Jesus-- I hadn't even seen Crab Helmet's post before I responded. Crab Helmet appears to know syllogisms and deductive argument rules. On the other hand, I can only assume that it is the case that you are not informed on the subject of reason. You are disqualifying the say-so of others by attacking directly. I can further argue that I may as well disqualify your authority since you are evidently misinformed with anything regarding logic.

Sorry for deviating the subject here, but so many people in ZU insist in citing the word "logic" when they have no idea what it is.

Says the person giving no reasoning



Says the one trying to appear intelligent by making baseless statements.

The fact that the above is unreasonable doesn't need to be mentioned. For your further contemplation of this subject, please try approaching it objectively along with a clean slate. Question your stance on this little LoZ issue and consider what others have to say more carefully.

If I could find my "tautology, mother****er!" picture, I'd be posting it now. I can't, so I'll just agree with IGNIS.

Originally Posted by Talhoffer

Or perhaps I was waiting for a lead in. The way I see it "futuristic" is set in the future from now in a sci fi space marines duking it out with laser pistols star wars rip off type scene.

You see thats your problem right there, you aren't thinking of Zelda at all, you are thinking of some horrible mess with Zelda painted on it.

Futuristic is something that is further ahead in the future than normal. A futuristic Zelda would very clearly not be like our world, it would be a Zelda which has advanced further ahead in time. Who says that a futuristic Hyrule would invent laser pistols? Who says they would ever end up sending soldiers into space?

Use some common sense

Originally Posted by Talhoffer

Considering you just used the term "pwned" in relation to an argument, I'm going to say that you're not worth my time, but just for laughs let's try the analogy with different nouns.

Thing A has a sign on it that says "I am thing B." Is thing A thing B just because it says it is? Nope. The analogy holds true.

You see, it's not about comparing Zelda to a dog, it's about comparing something saying it's something else to something claiming to be something it's not. Much like a game with a Zelda title set in a star wars rip off type setting. Now, if you are so stupid as to not understand this, I will consider all arguments from you to be null and void as you are obviously not competent enough to manage basic logic. The fact that you need this to be explained shows you are already lacking in that department.

You see, you're mistaken. I've already said that Zelda is a set of plot devices 'Hero, Triforce, Ganon, ect. ect.' and the era and setting is interchangable.

A futuristic Zelda wouldn't be Star Wars because the things that shaped the worlds (Magic for Zelda, Tech for Star Wars) are inherintly different.

Besides, the futuristic I have in mind only involves a single planet.

And when I used 'pwned' in the argument, that was your cue to re-read over it and find where I so 'pwned it'.

EDIT: And if you thought that a futuristic Zelda involved Space Marines similar to 'Halo' or 'Alien Invasions' you arn't even trying to put Zelda in the context of a Futuristic Enviroment.

EDIT AGAIN:

Originally Posted by GoldStud

Wow. My guess at your age is somewhere between 7 and 8 years old.

It's okay, I'm sure the Mental Asylum has reserved spots for people with IQ's in the negatives.