Could Nintendo change the series?

During The Great War (WWI for the uninitiated)...that could work.

Originally Posted by LinkdOOd110

If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times: GUNS ARE AN EXTREMELY BAD IDEA FOR A ZELDA GAME!

Why anyone would want guns to make an appearance in a game like Zelda is beyond me! It's a game set back to medieval-like times. No advanced technology at all, if you'd pay attention. This adds a certain feel to the game that wouldn't be there if there were things such as factories, cars, airplanes, and, of course, guns.

Link is the Hero of Time in OoT/MM, known for saving Hyrule through time, and using a great and revered weapon, the Master Sword, Evil's Bane. Many would agree that it's a great story. Link, nothing more than a child who knows nada about sword-play, finds himself facing situations in which he has to save friends, new and old, as well as cast down the evil that is Ganondorf. To do this, he must wield the Master Sword, but can't do it, and so wakes up to find himself 7 years older.

Throughout the game, he faces many enemies, and learns to best them with his sword, one step at a time. He picks up items along the way to help him, and helps others out. And we see all sorts of towns, such as Kakariko, Lon Lon Ranch, Hyrule Castle, and more. And we mustn't forget Link's hard-earned horse, Epona.

Now, imagine a similar game, only with guns, cars, and other modern-day equipment. Good-bye Master Sword, you've been replaced with the Master Gun, the only gun that could ever land a bullet on Ganondorf. Good-bye Epona, you've been a good horse, but Link now has a motorbike and/or car that runs a lot faster than you. Why, hello, Ganondorf. Oh, you're real tough, huh? Yeah, well, I have a gun! Watch as I shoot you down like the pidgeon you are! Now try to imagine Kakariko with factories polluting the air, cars going here and there, and TVs playing in the background.

It doesn't work. With this story, or any other. Why? Because Zelda is a game set back in the medieval-like period. It wasn't made for guns, cars, motorbikes, or otherwise! It was made to give you that feeling of epic adventure with swords and horses, bows and arrows, as well as scenary.

I'm not talking that advanced.. Fable 2 was medieval and had guns, along with crossbows and bows, And it worked perfect, In fact it was one of my favorite game's ever. When I say zelda might have guns someday I don't mean the modern weapons you see call of duty. As long as Nintendo doesn't overpower the gun there wouldn't be a huge problem.

But If your really against it, Don't worry, because zelda wii will be using the sword as its main weapon so Nintendo can sell all its spare motion plus
they got lying around.

Originally Posted by The_Stig

I'm not talking that advanced.. Fable 2 was medieval and had guns, along with crossbows and bows, And it worked perfect, In fact it was one of my favorite game's ever. When I say zelda might have guns someday I don't mean the modern weapons you see call of duty. As long as Nintendo doesn't overpower the gun there wouldn't be a huge problem.

But If your really against it, Don't worry, because zelda wii will be using the sword as its main weapon so Nintendo can sell all its spare motion plus
they got lying around.

Thank you, Stig!

I always thought it'd be nice if one of the newer Zelda games would take a hint from the original Zelda, and just give us a big world to explore.

As I've previously said in my posts: if you want a revamped Zelda that is more current and has massive changes go find another game.

Boats? Trains? Guns? No, just no.

I enjoy Zelda because it's different. I like Zelda because it isn't a shooter game, and because it takes place in a different time period. I play Zelda because I want to play a save the princess/world plot and I want to fight Ganon. That is what defines the series, and the people who want to change the definition of the series can just go find another game. You don't want to see Zelda or Ganondorf anymore? Go play something else... seriously.

I don't like the direction Zelda is going in and I don't believe that I'm holding it back at all. There are things that could be changed, but leave the plot and time period alone. They define the series.

The good feeling I get from playing Zelda games just doesn't happen when I'm playing Phantom Hourglass or Wind Waker. They don't feel like a Zelda game at all, they just feel like cheap rip-offs that used the title for personal gain.

If they revamp Zelda and turn it into another conforming marketing product, I won't buy or support it. You just can't compare these games to other modern video games. They're not the same and they never should be.

Originally Posted by kreebby

You don't want to see Zelda or Ganondorf anymore? Go play something else... seriously.

Why so? Ganondorf, as it stands, has only been in approximately half of the games, although that number does increase if you factor in the Linked ending of the Oracles, despite the fact that he appeared merely as a monster. Zelda's apperance has also been far from uniform - these elements are trivial and do not define the series. Look at Link's Awakening, considered the best handheld Zelda on this site, according to the poll, and the games' central point is celebrated for what it is.

Originally Posted by Hyperactivity

Why so? Ganondorf, as it stands, has only been in approximately half of the games, although that number does increase if you factor in the Linked ending of the Oracles, despite the fact that he appeared merely as a monster. Zelda's apperance has also been far from uniform - these elements are trivial and do not define the series. Look at Link's Awakening, considered the best handheld Zelda on this site, according to the poll, and the games' central point is celebrated for what it is.

I hated Link's Awakening, but for an entirely different reason (the ending). Ganon's appearance has been in the majority of the games, though not as the same exact character.

Ganon was the antagonist of the original Legend of Zelda game. Adventure's of Link, the sequel to the first one, didn't have you directly fighting Ganon but you were fighting the armies he left over, which indirectly makes him the antagonist. In A Link to the Past, the antagonist appears to be the wizard Agahnim until you find out that Ganon was really pulling the strings.

In Link's Awakening, Ganon is mentioned though not the active Antagonist.

Majora's Mask is a side story off of Ocarina of Time, where Link already defeated Ganon but was searching for a friend.

In Ocarina of Time Ganon is the main and rather blatant antagonist.

Oracle of Ages and Seasons are both similar to Majora's Mask in that Link defeats Ganon and then goes on an adventure to help out distant lands. It is still noted that Ganon was the villain who Link defeated to save Hyrule.

Wind Waker features Ganon, as well as Twilight Princess.

Ganon's not the main antagonist? According to references in every game, he is.

The occasional spin-off is okay, but if you warp the entire series it will lose its meaning and the spin-offs will no longer be as fun as you say they are. You like them because they're different. They would not work as a series though.

Ganon's not the main antagonist? According to references in every game, he is.

I never claimed that Ganondorf was not the main antagonist. I merely claimed that he is not at all required, and the series conveys this.

Originally Posted by kreebby

I hated Link's Awakening, but for an entirely different reason (the ending).

Your opinion is yours, but I will point out that you will definately be in the minority here on this forum. The ending is much loved by most fans of the series, and I would place it as one of the very best, perhaps apart from The Wind Waker (which strangely, you also mention being averse to).

Ganon's appearance has been in the majority of the games, though not as the same exact character.

That is true, but his presentation in most games has been incredibly one dimensional, save Ocarina of Time and The Wind Waker. In most of his other appearances, his character has merely been a generic villian, and any other no-name could take his place. Who cares if it's Ganon's pulling the strings? His importance to the future of the franchise isnt based on sheer number of previous appearances, but how needed his future appearances may be, and the quality of those previous appearances.

In Link's Awakening, Ganon is mentioned though not the active Antagonist.

I thought that one of the Nightmares merely bore resemblance to Agahnim, but I havent completed Link's Awakening in a long while. Needless to say, just like Majora's Mask, Link's Awakening ditched the Hyrule setting for a title, and nothing of value was lost. I would claim that much was gained, actually. Link's Awakening created an Idyllic dreamworld, and Majora's Mask explored themes that could never have occured in a sequel Hyrule.

Majora's Mask is a side story off of Ocarina of Time, where Link already defeated Ganon but was searching for a friend.

Majora's Mask was deeper than Ocarina of Time, and the description of 'side story' implies a lack of importance, which couldnt be further from the truth. Majora's Mask was a worthy title in it's own right.

Wind Waker features Ganon, as well as Twilight Princess.

Now, Wind Waker's Ganon was excellent. A villian with a perogative that I understood and truly sympathised with. A fantastic villian. Twilight Princess, however, pinned Ganondorf to the scene with a staple gun, and he had no depth.

The occasional spin-off is okay, but if you warp the entire series it will lose its meaning and the spin-offs will no longer be as fun as you say they are. You like them because they're different. They would not work as a series though.

Multiple future titles without Ganondorf, the Triforce, Hyrule and Zelda won't suffer any problems because of these absences. These characters and plot elements are not imperative, and they are bogging the series down, as it stands. Naturally I don't want to remove them, but a situation in which they appeared in approximately a third of future titles would work wonders in my book.

When I played a Link to the Past, I was freeing maidens from the grasp of an evil titan to gain the power to defeat said titan. I was the epic hero and I enjoyed playing that role. When I played Majora's Mask, I was collecting masks. To defeat... a mask. Woo.

When I played Ocarina of Time, I proved myself to be the hero of three different races and faced death to save them from Ganondorf. When he had acheived his goal of total domination, I returned as an adult to overcome the dark power of Ganondorfs's Triforce by purging his evil abominations from the holy places of Hyrule. I felt as though I was a great hero who protected the innocent, and I wished I could be that cool in real life. When I played Majora's Mask, I was a valiant, uh, valiant mask collecter... who defeated the evil... the evil... mask with my extensive mask collection. That was such an epic role. Yes. I wish I could do that in real life. Not.

Your point is that making a game different makes it better. I disagree. Making a game better makes it better. You're not going to improve the Spider Man movie series by putting Peter Parker in a Robin Hood costume and making him fight the Sheriff of Nottingham, are you? No! We like spiderman because spiderman is a cool hero. We want to watch him defend New York from extraordinary threats and patch up his love-life with Mary Jane Watson. That's what makes Spider Man good. Likewise, Link is a cool hero who uses the hidden treasures of his homeland to defend it from power-hungry incarnations of Ganondorf. If you go for novelties and gimmicks, like let's stick Spider Man in Nottingham or let's put Aliens in Indiana Jones or let's ditch Epona and stick Link on a fricken' train, I would think you might like spin-offs such as Link in a Mask, Link on a Boat and Link with a Train. As for me, I stick with Link with a Sword.

Originally Posted by GoldStud

When I played a Link to the Past, I was freeing maidens from the grasp of an evil titan to gain the power to defeat said titan. I was the epic hero and I enjoyed playing that role. When I played Majora's Mask, I was collecting masks. To defeat... a mask. Woo.

You're collecting masks to stop the moon from crashing into the world, which is being brought down by an evil spirit who takes the form of a mask (or an evil spirit who inhabits the mask; take your pick).

When I played Ocarina of Time, I proved myself to be the hero of three different races and faced death to save them from Ganondorf. When he had acheived his goal of total domination, I returned as an adult to overcome the dark power of Ganondorfs's Triforce by purging his evil abominations from the holy places of Hyrule. I felt as though I was a great hero who protected the innocent, and I wished I could be that cool in real life. When I played Majora's Mask, I was a valiant, uh, valiant mask collecter... who defeated the evil... the evil... mask with my extensive mask collection. That was such an epic role. Yes. I wish I could do that in real life. Not.

When you were playing MM, you were a valiant shape-shifter who used their powers to end an evil power and stop it from crashing the freaking moon into the world. That, and your shape-shifting powers allowed for some seriously crazy-awesome side-quests that were a lot of fun. If you didn't have fun playing the game, that's your opinion.

But if stopping the moon from crashing into the world (effectively saving it) and stopping an evil demon with enough power to make it fall down faster ain't epic in your opinion, nothing can possibly be epic to you.

Your point is that making a game different makes it better. I disagree. Making a game better makes it better. You're not going to improve the Spider Man movie series by putting Peter Parker in a Robin Hood costume and making him fight the Sheriff of Nottingham, are you? No! We like spiderman because spiderman is a cool hero. We want to watch him defend New York from extraordinary threats and patch up his love-life with Mary Jane Watson. That's what makes Spider Man good. Likewise, Link is a cool hero who uses the hidden treasures of his homeland to defend it from power-hungry incarnations of Ganondorf. If you go for novelties and gimmicks, like let's stick Spider Man in Nottingham or let's put Aliens in Indiana Jones or let's ditch Epona and stick Link on a fricken' train, I would think you might like spin-offs such as Link in a Mask, Link on a Boat and Link with a Train. As for me, I stick with Link with a Sword.

Technically, my point is that keeping the same theme would be rehashing the old games, not allowing it to grow. If we don't rehash, Zelda will grow and each game will have it's own identity; each with it's own unique game-play experience...that's the thing: Making it different will allow for new and interesting game-mechanics thus making it better. If the two happen to coincide, then we have something! Same with same and better (not many different ways to do this) and different and worse (with Nintendo in charge, I doubt it'll happen).

If you prefer Link in the middle ages, that's fine; that's personal preferance. Sadly, you probably have that preferance irrationally (imo), and I think we should explore just how many directions Zelda can go before expressing preferance...preferably before the series dies. Though when it does die because of it's adherance to the medieval thing due to lack of identity, you can go down with the ship, Captain.

Originally Posted by GoldStud

When I played a Link to the Past, I was freeing maidens from the grasp of an evil titan to gain the power to defeat said titan. I was the epic hero and I enjoyed playing that role. When I played Majora's Mask, I was collecting masks. To defeat... a mask. Woo.

When I played Ocarina of Time, I proved myself to be the hero of three different races and faced death to save them from Ganondorf. When he had acheived his goal of total domination, I returned as an adult to overcome the dark power of Ganondorfs's Triforce by purging his evil abominations from the holy places of Hyrule. I felt as though I was a great hero who protected the innocent, and I wished I could be that cool in real life. When I played Majora's Mask, I was a valiant, uh, valiant mask collecter... who defeated the evil... the evil... mask with my extensive mask collection. That was such an epic role. Yes. I wish I could do that in real life. Not.

Your point is that making a game different makes it better. I disagree. Making a game better makes it better. You're not going to improve the Spider Man movie series by putting Peter Parker in a Robin Hood costume and making him fight the Sheriff of Nottingham, are you? No! We like spiderman because spiderman is a cool hero. We want to watch him defend New York from extraordinary threats and patch up his love-life with Mary Jane Watson. That's what makes Spider Man good. Likewise, Link is a cool hero who uses the hidden treasures of his homeland to defend it from power-hungry incarnations of Ganondorf. If you go for novelties and gimmicks, like let's stick Spider Man in Nottingham or let's put Aliens in Indiana Jones or let's ditch Epona and stick Link on a fricken' train, I would think you might like spin-offs such as Link in a Mask, Link on a Boat and Link with a Train. As for me, I stick with Link with a Sword.

You basically just said everything that needed to be said. You read my mind.

Miyamoto said himself that the idea of Zelda is to be based on a childhood dream. When you played with swords in your back yard and wanted to be a hero. Everyone basically wants to change the plot, and the characters that represent the series, because they think it will still be the series except better.

No, it won't. That's like taking Star Wars, replacing Darth Vader, ditching the jedi and the light sabers, and making it take place somewhere other than the Galactic Empire.

Is it still Star Wars? No. Not at all.

Zelda won't be the same either. Sounds like all of you need to find a new series.

Originally Posted by kreebby

You basically just said everything that needed to be said. You read my mind.

Miyamoto said himself that the idea of Zelda is to be based on a childhood dream. When you played with swords in your back yard and wanted to be a hero. Everyone basically wants to change the plot, and the characters that represent the series, because they think it will still be the series except better.

No, it won't. That's like taking Star Wars, replacing Darth Vader, ditching the jedi and the light sabers, and making it take place somewhere other than the Galactic Empire.

Is it still Star Wars? No. Not at all.

Zelda won't be the same either. Sounds like all of you need to find a new series.

Zelda isn't Star Wars.

Ganondorf hasn't been the main villain in every Zelda game, no matter what you may think. Sure, he's in roughly 50% of games, but that hardly makes him the main villain. One thing about Zelda is that it's not completely dependent on one villain to make it great. It's had Bellum, Majora, and others take over as the final boss in other games. Heck, it doesn't even have Zelda herself in every game! Again, we have games like Majora's Mask with only Link's memories of her, and it's still a great game.

Will changing the time period, setting, and otherwise make it not Zelda anymore? This depends.

It's undeniable that TWW has taken a turn to technological progress as the series advances. In TWW we had simple, same-as-always Zelda items and technology; in PH we had a boat that worked with an engine; now in ST we are getting a train. Believe it or not, this is the direction Zelda is taking. Whether it be for good or for bad, it's really up to Nintendo to not screw this up.

However, there's also the fact that if it goes too far, I will lose a lot of respect for the game series, as well as for Nintendo and their judgment. Right now, I'm trying to keep an open mind to everything that's happening in the game. I might be able to accept a gun, but that depends on how Nintendo choose to implement it, as well as other things. One thing I will not be able to accept, however, is if it goes too futuristic. By this, I mean all techy. This would take away a lot from the gaming experience, in my opinion. If the game proceeds too far, it will definitely lose some, if not a lot, of its luster. For example, if we go to today's age, everything Link uses would be out of place and completely useless when compared to what everyone else is using.

These things aside, it is possible for Zelda to make technological leaps, in my opinion.

Firstly, I wholeheartedly agree with your post Fulcon.

Zelda won't be the same either. Sounds like all of you need to find a new series.

But Kreebby, none of those 'classic' plot elements make Zelda what it is. The core of Zelda is it's specific, enjoyable gameplay formula.

Your point is that making a game different makes it better.

No, that certainly isnt my point, at least. You are wrong there. My claim, Goldstud, is that the series should free itself to create new plot elements, new locations, new formulas. Majora's Mask was still basically a core Zelda - dungeon gameplay, a balance of puzzles, enemies and minor plot. But it benefitted from the shifted focus. I don't think different is better, rather that the freedom to create new ideas is bound to lead towards positive innovation, something the series still desperately needs.

When I played Majora's Mask, I was a valiant, uh, valiant mask collecter... who defeated the evil... the evil... mask with my extensive mask collection. That was such an epic role. Yes. I wish I could do that in real life. Not.

That is your opinion, and you are entitled to it. I for one loved Majora's Mask - and firmly believe that you don't understand it. It was a title with a very stong message, provided you were open to it. Perhaps it's just me though. For example, I enjoyed finally witnessing Anju's wedding more than seeing Ganondorf stabbed.

My opinion? Link's role in Majora's Mask was epic, but it was also humble, and personal.

Nevertheless, from a strictly gameplay perspective, Majora's Mask, and it's subsequent forms, are the most stunning, varied enemies in the franchise, outstripping even Zant. The Mask forms too, allowed for gameplay unmatched in variance since.

And Majora's intention wasnt the only element floating around the final portion of the game. The comments of the moon children get right to the core, questioning friendship, truthfulness, and happiness, themes that occur throughout the many sidequests of Majora's Mask. The moon itself is an interesting construct, a beautiful, childlike playground trapped behind a face of anguish.

Could Nintendo change the Zelda franchise?

Sure they could.

Would many fans accept this change?

Probably not, at least not for a while.

Miyamoto said himself that the idea of Zelda is to be based on a childhood dream. When you played with swords in your back yard and wanted to be a hero. Everyone basically wants to change the plot, and the characters that represent the series, because they think it will still be the series except better.

Hyperactivity, when you think of The Legend of Zelda, you think of a series of games with the same name. When I think of Zelda, I think of the feeling I got when I played the games, the feeling that I wasn't just playing with pretend swords in my backyard, but I was a real hero living out a real legend. That feeling is so closely associated with the Legend of Zelda in my brain. When I am stressed or upset with life, I like to play Zelda to fall back into that legend and experience life as a brave swordsman. That is why I play Zelda, to have my childhood fantasies on a screen under my control. You, on the other hand, are looking for a beautiful, childlike playground trapped behind a face of anguish. You play Zelda when you are questioning friendship, truthfulness, and happiness, when you want an experience that is humble and personal.

Do you go to a restaurant to buy a car? Do you go to a deli to buy carpeting for your house? Do you go to a movie theatre for medical treatment? If instead of showing movies, a movie theatre decided to 'shift its focus', stop showing movies and begin treating injures, would it still be a movie theatre? No! It's a hospital. It's fine to build a hospital, its fine to treat injuries. Just don't call it a movie theatre anymore! I feel the same way about Zelda. If you want a new game, with a new 'focus', new villains, new plot and a new Link, then make it! Make a new game. But it's not a Zelda game, just like a hospital is not a movie theatre. So calling it Zelda is pointless.

The phrase 'Legend of Zelda' defines more than a group of games that share a name. The Legend of Zelda is the feeling of becoming the hero you dreamed you could be as a child. Please turn your thoughts again to Spider-man. Spider-man was originally a comic book. He was born as an artist's idea for a super-hero with his own setting and story. A lot of people enjoyed reading about him, and were inspired by his courage and heroic acts. These people wanted more of this feeling. Some of these people tried by changing spider-mans focus, throwing in novelties like boats and trains. This resulted in things like Spider-Pheonix, Metal Spiderman, Cyborg Spidey, and Spider-Man 2211. Did these keep the Spider-Man franchise alive? How many of them had you even heard of, honestly? Neither Changing Spider-Man's focus, nor giving him weird gadgets and futuristic settings kept his story alive. I beleive you will be shocked at how they did keep the web-slinger in action, because it does not involve replacing villians, questioning friendship, truthfulness, and happiness, or even throwing a hero into a futuristic setting. None of the things you have suggested for Zelda. Instead, they told the story of Spider-man, only better. Instead of telling it again with pictures on paper, they made it into a cartoon.

So you see? You don't make Zelda better by changing it into a hospital, just like you don't make a movie theatre better by changing it into a hospital. You make it better by making it better. The Zelda story of link collecting treasures to save Zelda from Ganon is what Zelda is, just like getting bit by a radioactive spider and gaining awesome powers is what Spider-man is. If you have Link get bit by a radioactive spider, throw out of all the main characters and have Ganon be your fairy, it may be innovative- but its not Zelda anymore. Different is not a virtue in itself. Different can be better or worse. So if you want to improve Zelda, do what the Spider-man series did. Just as Spider-man went from comic to cartoon to live action movie, so Zelda goes from 2-d to 3-d to Wii controls and beyond. The game improves as the Zelda experience grows more real. You gain nothing by changing the Zelda experience into the Halo experience, or vice-versa. People don't buy Grand Theft Auto because they want to be a hero with a sword. They play it because they want to steal and murder. So why then would Grand Theft Auto change its focus to saving innocent people from murderers and theives? Because then it would be Zelda! You don't make a game better by turning it into a different game. You make a game better by making the experience more real. You improve Spider-man by making a movie, with the best special effects to make it more convincing. You improve Zelda by using Wii Motion Plus to make your experience as a hero more convincing, and giving it better graphics and controls. Gameplay innovations are great for Zelda, just as storytelling innovations are great for Spider-man.

That is your opinion, and you are entitled to it. I for one loved Majora's Mask - and firmly believe that you don't understand it.

A very true statement.

Originally Posted by GoldStud

Hyperactivity, when you think of The Legend of Zelda, you think of a series of games with the same name. When I think of Zelda, I think of the feeling I got when I played the games, the feeling that I wasn't just playing with pretend swords in my backyard, but I was a real hero living out a real legend.

Aside from your descriptions, you shouldnt assert mine. Needless to say I experience a strong, specific feeling of fantasy from the franchise, too.

You play Zelda when you are questioning friendship, truthfulness, and happiness, when you want an experience that is humble and personal.

Um, no, those are the themes that I sensed throughout Majora's Mask alone, and they don't make up my reason for playing, although they are a strong factor among many. Again, please don't tell me what I am saying. I say what I want, and then you respond to that in context, please.

Do you go to a restaurant to buy a car? Do you go to a deli to buy carpeting for your house? Do you go to a movie theatre for medical treatment? If instead of showing movies, a movie theatre decided to 'shift its focus', stop showing movies and begin treating injures, would it still be a movie theatre? No! It's a hospital. It's fine to build a hospital, its fine to treat injuries. Just don't call it a movie theatre anymore! I feel the same way about Zelda. If you want a new game, with a new 'focus', new villains, new plot and a new Link, then make it! Make a new game. But it's not a Zelda game, just like a hospital is not a movie theatre. So calling it Zelda is pointless.

This analogy you pose is hopelessly irrelevant. For one, I don't think that the gravity of the situation can be considered at all comparitve between needed medical treatment and the nature of a gaming franchise, a form of entertainment.

Nonetheless, I think you don't recognise Zelda for what it is. The core characters and usual plotlines are superficial, because the same gameplay and feel can be achieved, and clearly enhanced, under circumstances that clearly do not require them.

The phrase 'Legend of Zelda' defines more than a group of games that share a name.

I would agree with that statement, but not for the reason you envisage.

Did these keep the Spider-Man franchise alive? How many of them had you even heard of, honestly? Neither Changing Spider-Man's focus, nor giving him weird gadgets and futuristic settings kept his story alive.

This is all subjective, and depends merely upon the nature of the innovation. Furthermore, the Zelda series is not a story, but a game, and new elements, albiet more inventive than described, create possibilites that are perceptive because they can be experienced.

So you see? You don't make Zelda better by changing it into a hospital, just like you don't make a movie theatre better by changing it into a hospital.

Once again, this analogy is laughable.

You make it better by making it better.

Quite - this is clearly what we both desire, the crux is that we merely dissagree upon the means of doing so.

The Zelda story of link collecting treasures to save Zelda from Ganon is what Zelda is, just like getting bit by a radioactive spider and gaining awesome powers is what Spider-man is.

Obviously, I dissagree. That villian needn't be Ganon, that maiden needn't be Zelda, or a maiden. The storyline can change greatly, provided some tone is retained, and the classic gameplay is still recognisable. What damage can innovation do? If it was a bad decision, Nintendo always has 'classic' content in which it could revisit. That said, I, unlike you, don't want to hear the same stories again, experience the same locations, speak to the same people. I'm also not particulairly fond of Spider Man, but I believe I am privvy to what Zelda is, and it's not a certain princess or a golden artifact.

Different is not a virtue in itself.

I agree. However, repitition is more dangerous. And we can surely trust Nintendo to create fresh, yet fitting ideas.

The game improves as the Zelda experience grows more real. You gain nothing by changing the Zelda experience into the Halo experience, or vice-versa.

I'm not suggesting that Zelda change genre, or change to radically. I merely insist that it molt it's crusted, wrinkled skin of a plotline, and some gameplay in favour of something different, and with much potential.

A very true statement.

It's a shame.

The series need to be changed for the better to correct the errors made in resent games that have made the series loose all that is important to Zelda games.

As long as Nintendo make money on Zelda, it will never end. The Legend of Zelda is one of their largest successes. Like super mario, will never end either. Sure they're trying new things, that's a must. If they keep it the same way throughout all the games, it would seem as if you're just buying the same game over and over again. Although, I hardly doubt they will be implementing guns in the game. Since as stated, that will make the sword more or less useless. And the master sword, etc has a huge role in this game. The crossbow, wouldn't be such a bad idea, though. We're still at the arrow level. And as for the steam train, the new game is named Spirit 'Tracks'. Meaning they might be doing it to try something 'new' for a change. But as you can see, Link still has the goold old tunic, sword and is out on a quest for Zelda. That will never change, since if they change that they change the game itself. And then they might as well call it something else, like The world and a hero. Or something. One thing I am definitely sure of, though, is that you won't be seeing Link wielding a gun in this franchise, as well as it will always be him entering some temple on his way for Zelda. People grew on this kind of medieval Zelda feeling all the way from the first game. So too much of a drastic change will lose more fans than it will gain. And as long as the majority of the fans wants it this way, it will never happen that a gun, or super futuristic iRobots, flying jet planes, etc to appear in this game.

I just don't understand how people can claim to love the Zelda series and then say all the changes they'd like to happen to make Zelda more like other games. If I wanted a Final Fantasy or Halo type game I'd go play those!

As for transportation what may I ask is wrong with Epona??? I love LOVE that aspect of Oot and TP!! A boat was tolerable, a train? I can understand because its something different from the boat and its in a handheld game. For some reason I hold handhelds to a different standard and don't mind change in them as much... If they tried something like a train or horror of horrors a motorcycle in a platform game, I would be ticked off!

I for one like Zelda just the way it is. Why does there have to be huge game altering changes for a game to feel fresh and new? Why destroy on of the few remaining descent games by trying to squeeze it into another games mold? Guns and vehicles why not just name it Grand theft Auto: Hyrule Edition.

There are a lot of things they could do with the series without resorting to any such drastic means... Just because you can't think of any doesn't mean the possibilities are not there! I can come up with thousands of ideas! But as any cook knows when you come up with a great recipe, you can tinker with a few ingredients to see what makes it better or worse but you don't change the basic recipe!! It's like the coke people, they try new thinks like cherry or vanilla Coke but they don't throw away the whole winning Coke formula!!!!

I personally like the formula of talking to the towns folk and going to the different dungeons and gaining new items and exploring new areas! Thy could make new and innovative “dungeon” designs or put them in unexpected places! What about a chose of mode of transportation? Hum… It just occurred to me that the boat in WW isn’t as big of a change as I thought., since right from the beginning Link had a raft to travel on water… More and different side quest would be great to.

What about a compromise? Deep in a Death mountain valley Link discovers a village of advanced people who don’t want to let Link leave because he might spread word of their advances and he needs to figure out how to use the technology to escape, but ends up not being able to take any of it with him… There everyone’s happy. J

Basically what I’m saying is there is so many possibilities out there with out resorting to stealing aspects of other games.

Zelda doesn't have to develop the same technology as the real world. That's the beauty of fiction. They could have airplanes without guns. Zelda should avoid guns, but technological advancements in Zelda could be interesting, especially if Link used magic to enhance some of it.