Fierce_LiNk Posted February 14, 2007 Posted February 14, 2007 Nintendo have messed around with Zelda in the past. For example, cel shading was in Wind Waker was bashed at first, but Nintendo stuck to their guns and now people can't wait for the next cel shaded Zelda game. If the next one is in first person, I'd still give Nintendo the benefit of the doubt.
motion Posted February 14, 2007 Posted February 14, 2007 Don't you think Nintendo themselves might actually know that, for example, first person is not the way to go with a Zelda game? That's probably why Mario doesn't jump around in Los Angeles smacking up whores in Mario Galaxy... Nintendo are obviously referring to new use of the Wiimote in Zelda, like PH uses the DS's touch screen. "The last Zelda of it's kind"... you really think that means adding wiimote functionality? And even if it does, what can they do exactly? Swinging the remote to swing a sword? Pointing to the screen to shoot arrows? ... oh wait, they've already done that. No my friend 'the last Zelda of it's kind' means a BIG change. Not just adding more wii remote functionality. I hope to god they don't screw it up, but like Fierce, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt for now.
Jasper Posted February 14, 2007 Posted February 14, 2007 I never said the wiimote would make them do that. They said this will be the last Zelda as we know it. For me that rings alarm bells. Ask the most important question: how far can Nintendo stray off from the classic formula without making an entirely different game? I'm pretty sure the game won't change an enormous lot - for simple reasons: the Wii-controls were celebrated. I expect them to continue this. They're not going to throw away the tried and tested formule - they never did that to any franchise. The only thing they od ,is refine, add new stuff and use the delete-key to erase the things that just didn't work in previous games. They won't make the Next Zelda an explosion in different gameplay because, then, it shouldn't be named Zelda anymore. And, in the end, they need to make profit on it. They will have great sales, but if they stray to far off it will scare away to much consumers. They might test new things with different franchises but fro now, I wouldn't think they're going to change it to aa pikmin-like war game for the ancient war'.
fanman Posted February 14, 2007 Posted February 14, 2007 In twilight princess, swinging the wii remote replaced b. In the next one, they'll probably make it so it mirrors the remote almost exactley. That most certainly won't be the only change though, like you said.
motion Posted February 14, 2007 Posted February 14, 2007 Jasper, Nintendo have the guts to do something hugely different though. Look at Wind Waker's styling, the name 'Wii', the very concept behind the console. But I see your point that they wouldn't want to mess with their most successful franchise too much... we can only hope. Any thoughts on when they can announce something? Or show us a teaser trailer? The very first TP trailer must be a couple of years old by now at least.
Jasper Posted February 14, 2007 Posted February 14, 2007 P o s t i n S h o r t :Don't be consumed by advertisements. They want you to think 'revolution', but in the end, you're getting the same old (and good) game, nicely repacked with new touches. Smart move on Nintendo's side. Jasper, Nintendo have the guts to do something hugely different though. Look at Wind Waker's styling, the name 'Wii', the very concept behind the console. But I see your point that they wouldn't want to mess with their most successful franchise too much... we can only hope. You know, all of those were obvious improvements. The cell-shaded Zelda played like old and told a good story - the only difference were graphics and in a game, it's not all about that. The name Wii? It had it's reasons. And it was an improvement. please, don't be so overly positive - the controller is an innovation, but the ideas sprawned from the imagination of fans before the official controller unveiling were much more promising, from scriptable buttons on thickness-controlled pads. Virtual Realiuty. Some ideas were more revolutionizing. We're still using buttons on a daily basis, a control stick, a D-Pad, and a trigger. Now tell me what is the innovation? One, simple thing. You're way to positive motion, way to consumed by the advertisement thinking. You have to look at the big picture. Nintendo wants you think the changes are radical, but honestly, they're not. Wich means to me that 'revolutionairy' changes are not that revolutionairy, they're just brilliantly advertised. And if they do it with Zelda, okay. But when i play Twilight Princess on Wii, i'm not thrilled by the new controls. I'm getting used to it very quickly and after that I do'nt even give them a second thought. So no, I don't feel the revolution anymore. I hope you understand what I mean.
DCK Posted February 14, 2007 Posted February 14, 2007 "The last Zelda of it's kind"... you really think that means adding wiimote functionality? And even if it does, what can they do exactly? Swinging the remote to swing a sword? Pointing to the screen to shoot arrows? ... oh wait, they've already done that. No my friend 'the last Zelda of it's kind' means a BIG change. Not just adding more wii remote functionality. You interpret their words too strongly. Nintendo can only go so far in changing the game. Twilight Princess was the last Zelda as we know it. Does that make Phantom Hourglass something that's scarily new, an incredible weird way to hande the Zelda universe, something that should make you alarm bells go off? Not really. I don't have reason to believe, considering Nintendo's skill in these things, that the next Wii Zelda would be like that.
Hellfire Posted February 14, 2007 Posted February 14, 2007 They said the last Zelda was the last of its kind before deciding it would be on the Wii with swinging and aiming and whatnot. Don't think they'll turn Zelda into something unbelievebally different. A lot of changes were made when they decided to use Wii's capabilities.
motion Posted February 14, 2007 Posted February 14, 2007 To change the subject quickly... One thing that annoys me with the final battle is that a) Ganondorf doesn't seem to know or care who Link is and b) acts like he's never seen the Master sword. Which pretty much screws continuity/the timeline (if you care about it) End music is quite nice though.
DCK Posted February 14, 2007 Posted February 14, 2007 To change the subject quickly... One thing that annoys me with the final battle is that a) Ganondorf doesn't seem to know or care who Link is and b) acts like he's never seen the Master sword. Which pretty much screws continuity/the timeline (if you care about it) Nope, it's actually a confirmation of the dual timeline. This is Child Link's timeline, and this game occurs in Majora's Mask's timeline as pointed out by Dante.
motion Posted February 14, 2007 Posted February 14, 2007 As in the timeline where Link hasn't actually met Ganondorf yet because he warned the King about him before he could do any damage? Interesting... So far this is what we're sure about, correct? Anyone care to speculate on LOZ, AOL, ALTTP, LA, FS, FSA and the Oracle games? After Ocarina of Time, Zelda sends Link back to the past which begins the 'Child Timeline'. Link warns the King about what Ganondorf is planning and he's sent to be executed (the scene in TP, with all the sages). Ganondorf gets the Triforce of Power but is banised to the Twilight Realm for many years. Meanwhile MM happens with child Link. After that the events of TP occur (but with a different Link). This would explain as DCK says, why Ganon doesn't recognise either the master sword or Link... because he hasn't run into him yet. Technically, considering 'child timeline' Ganon died at the end of TP... TP should be the last Zelda game in the child timeline. Not sure how that effects LOZ/AOL/ALTTP etc... though. In the Adult Timeline (the one after Zelda sends Link to the past... ie... no Hero of Time in Adult timeline)... many many years pass and Ganondorf escapes from the void he was banished to at the end of OOT. Attacks Hyrule, no Link to stop if so the gods drown the world. Wind Waker happens. Then Phantom Hourglass.
Jasper Posted February 14, 2007 Posted February 14, 2007 As in the timeline where Link hasn't actually met Ganondorf yet because he warned the King about him before he could do any damage? Interesting... So far this is what we're sure about, correct? Anyone care to speculate on LOZ, AOL, ALTTP, LA, FS, FSA and the Oracle games? After Ocarina of Time, Zelda sends Link back to the past which begins the 'Child Timeline'. Link warns the King about what Ganondorf is planning and he's sent to be executed (the scene in TP, with all the sages). Ganondorf gets the Triforce of Power but is banised to the Twilight Realm for many years. Meanwhile MM happens with child Link. After that the events of TP occur (but with a different Link). This would explain as DCK says, why Ganon doesn't recognise either the master sword or Link... because he hasn't run into him yet. Technically, considering 'child timeline' Ganon died at the end of TP... TP should be the last Zelda game in the child timeline. Not sure how that effects LOZ/AOL/ALTTP etc... though. In the Adult Timeline (the one after Zelda sends Link to the past... ie... no Hero of Time in Adult timeline)... many many years pass and Ganondorf escapes from the void he was banished to at the end of OOT. Attacks Hyrule, no Link to stop if so the gods drown the world. Wind Waker happens. Then Phantom Hourglass. Not sure if Twilight princess fits in there and doesn't The Wind Waker take place after the evil was locked away - and then evil returned from the earth and the flood came - that's what the prologue tells, not? I'm not sure. I still believe the double timelines only exist thanks to Majora's Mask.
motion Posted February 14, 2007 Posted February 14, 2007 TP definately fits there. And yes, WW happens after 'evil was locked away', ie. the end of OOT.
Gaijin von Snikbah Posted February 14, 2007 Posted February 14, 2007 Very cool sig motion2000. Have anyone else noticed the Midna looking statues in Arbiters Grounds?
motion Posted February 15, 2007 Posted February 15, 2007 Ok quick thing... I've always considered myself part of the Zelda elite, those who've played every game, know the ins and outs etc as I'm sure a lot of you on here are... For some reason I always thought Four Swords Adventures was a 4 player Zelda game, as in, ONLY four players could play (similar to Four Swords on the GBA). I've only just discovered a single player could complete the game on his own. How stupid do I feel??? It's like finding buried treasure though, I've got a new Zelda game to play woohoo!!! Gonna buy it tomorrow. Question though, I am correct right? FSA can be 1 player as well?
Eenuh Posted February 15, 2007 Posted February 15, 2007 Ok quick thing... I've always considered myself part of the Zelda elite, those who've played every game, know the ins and outs etc as I'm sure a lot of you on here are... For some reason I always thought Four Swords Adventures was a 4 player Zelda game, as in, ONLY four players could play (similar to Four Swords on the GBA). I've only just discovered a single player could complete the game on his own. How stupid do I feel??? It's like finding buried treasure though, I've got a new Zelda game to play woohoo!!! Gonna buy it tomorrow. Question though, I am correct right? FSA can be 1 player as well? As far as I know, yeah, you can play it alone too. You just controll all four Link characters then. Of course it's more fun when you play it with more people, but it's not needed to actually finish the game or anything.
motion Posted February 15, 2007 Posted February 15, 2007 WOOHOO!!! I'VE GOT A NEW ZELDA TO PLAY!!!! Sorry, just a tad excited.
Eenuh Posted February 15, 2007 Posted February 15, 2007 WOOHOO!!! I'VE GOT A NEW ZELDA TO PLAY!!!! Sorry, just a tad excited. You can even play the game without a GBA/SP in single player, since you can just follow all of it on the television. Of course you can still use a GBA, but it's not necessary. But if you can, find someone with a GBA (and a cable) who can play with you. Or even more people. The most fun part of the game I think is stealing Force Gems from each other and having the little voting thing at the end of each level. =3
motion Posted February 15, 2007 Posted February 15, 2007 Yeah I hear multiplayer is more fun than single player. Will try both!
DCK Posted February 15, 2007 Posted February 15, 2007 Anyone care to speculate on LOZ, AOL, ALTTP, LA, FS, FSA and the Oracle games?I don't think any of those need to be placed in a timeline, as Nintendo only really seemed to have started the Legend in Ocarina of Time. I'm not sure Capcom got any story to make by Nintendo for the Oracles, but the Oracles could fit pretty much anywhere as they don't refer to other Zeldas at all. Also, I find FSA pretty boring in single player. You should play it with mates, it's absolutely awesome...
Cube Posted February 15, 2007 Posted February 15, 2007 Yeah I hear multiplayer is more fun than single player. Will try both! I only played it in single player, but still loved it. With single player, GameCube controller is the best way to play it.
ShadowV7 Posted February 16, 2007 Posted February 16, 2007 Bit dissapointed with the TP sales in Japan I have to say,it's a shame. But the sales will keep going up for a while though which is good so just gotta wait and see.
Hellfire Posted February 16, 2007 Posted February 16, 2007 It sold more than a million in America though.
Recommended Posts