Majora's Mask

[Shorty]

For those of you who don't like the boss battle

 

 

[Deku-Nutz]

Majora's Mask is my favourite Zelda game.

 

Back when this website was known as Cube-Europe I think part of a love letter to the game I wrote got used as a quote in some list of the 100 greatest games or whatever it was... haha

 

Seriously, I am in love with a videogame and it is THIS. ( Sorry Sheikah, it's those dreaded caps ;P )

 

I think the stand out moment for me, the moment that made me almost melt out of my own skin was on the last day, when you first challenge Skull Kid on the tower... the MUSIC! The feeling of utter dread as you flail about with no clue how to stop the freakin' moon! The timer zooming down... I was young-ish when I played this. I had no clue about the game, I genuinely believed that it was THEN or NEVER to beat this villain...

 

Nothing like it.

 

Also I had my first heart palpitation while playing this game... haha... I thought my heart had stopped... Random Fact.

[Dog-amoto]

 

 

[Hero-of-Time]

The end is nigh!

 

http://www.terriblefate.com/

[Agent Gibbs]

Thats Awesome!

although a little part of me hoped this topic was bumped because it was announced for Wiiu or 3DS....

[Ronnie]

Sadly I get the impression Nintendo would never make another Zelda game like this, far too much of a risk. They seem to like playing it as safe as possible these days with their main IPs

[Hero-of-Time]

Sadly I get the impression Nintendo would never make another Zelda game like this, far too much of a risk. They seem to like playing it as safe as possible these days with their main IPs

 

Given the rising costs of development and the amount of developers who have gone bust this year, I honestly don't blame them. I would still like a 3DS remake of this though.

[Jimbob]

A 3DS remake of Majoras Mask would be something thats for sure. It would suit the handheld, especially the mask transformations.

[pratty]

Sadly I get the impression Nintendo would never make another Zelda game like this, far too much of a risk. They seem to like playing it as safe as possible these days with their main IPs

 

I would disagree slightly. Certainly in Zelda's case, I don't think Skyward Sword was all that safe, the motion controls alone seemed to divide opinion quite a lot, I've heard a lot of people say they would absolutely love the game if it wasn't for the controls.

 

It's truly a shame though if something like Majora's Mask would be considered a risk, simply because of the 3 day time mechanic. Each to their own and all that but I just can't see how that could spoil anyone's enjoyment of the game.

 

It always makes me laugh when people say Zelda games are too samey, then complain about the very changes that make each game different.

 

I actually read the other day that Zelda needed a reboot, I'd actually suggest that to some extent Zelda is rebooted almost every game.

 

Obviously there are still similarities from game to game, that's because they're games in the same series, in the same genre. If you change it too much it simply wouldn't be a 'Zelda game' anymore. If you're tired of playing as Link and rescuing Zelda there are plenty of other games you can play instead.

[MoogleViper]

It always makes me laugh when people say Zelda games are too samey, then complain about the very changes that make each game different.

 

I actually read the other day that Zelda needed a reboot, I'd actually suggest that to some extent Zelda is rebooted almost every game.

 

Than can be seen by the fact that everyone has such different opinions on what are the best/worst Zelda games.

[Ronnie]

I would disagree slightly. Certainly in Zelda's case, I don't think Skyward Sword was all that safe, the motion controls alone seemed to divide opinion quite a lot, I've heard a lot of people say they would absolutely love the game if it wasn't for the controls.

 

It's truly a shame though if something like Majora's Mask would be considered a risk, simply because of the 3 day time mechanic. Each to their own and all that but I just can't see how that could spoil anyone's enjoyment of the game.

 

Take motion controls out of the equation, we're comparing the games themselves. I've never understood how a lot of people seem to place so much emphasis and debate on the motion controls. I'm far more interested in the storytelling, gameplay, visuals, soundtrack, originality, longevity etc. The game itself was fairly safe, compared to the Wind Waker and Majora's Mask. Twilight Princess even more safe.

 

There were plenty of reasons why MM was a big risk beyond the 3 day time mechanic. The tone, storyline and emphasis on sidequests to name three.

 

It always makes me laugh when people say Zelda games are too samey

 

They seemed to take a half arsed approach with Skyward Sword, trying to be different and original, but not really going anywhere near fear enough. The hub world of Skyloft and the three closed off regions were a big mis-step IMO. They dumbed the game down and that's been a problem with Zelda for a few years now.

 

I'd love to see them return to the days of being bold and making games like Majora's Mask and Wind Waker, but sadly can't see it happening any time soon.

[MoogleViper]

Take motion controls out of the equation, we're comparing the games themselves. I've never understood how a lot of people seem to place so much emphasis and debate on the motion controls. I'm far more interested in the storytelling, gameplay, visuals, soundtrack, originality, longevity etc. The game itself was fairly safe, compared to the Wind Waker and Majora's Mask. Twilight Princess even more safe.

 

You can't take motion controls out of the question, they were such a big part of the game.

[pratty]

It always makes me laugh when people say Zelda games are too samey, then complain about the very changes that make each game different.

 

Just to be clear Ronnie, that wasn't aimed at you mate.

 

Take motion controls out of the equation, we're comparing the games themselves. I've never understood how a lot of people seem to place so much emphasis and debate on the motion controls. I'm far more interested in the storytelling, gameplay, visuals, soundtrack, originality, longevity etc. The game itself was fairly safe, compared to the Wind Waker and Majora's Mask. Twilight Princess even more safe.

 

There were plenty of reasons why MM was a big risk beyond the 3 day time mechanic. The tone, storyline and emphasis on sidequests to name three.

 

 

 

They seemed to take a half arsed approach with Skyward Sword, trying to be different and original, but not really going anywhere near fear enough. The hub world of Skyloft and the three closed off regions were a big mis-step IMO. They dumbed the game down and that's been a problem with Zelda for a few years now.

 

I'd love to see them return to the days of being bold and making games like Majora's Mask and Wind Waker, but sadly can't see it happening any time soon.

 

Oh I'd agree that beyond the controls Skyward Sword wasn't especially daring. But with the controls being quite a change from the norm I think the rest of the game probably had to be relatively 'safe'. I mean with the controls alone being such a big obstacle for some people, then perhaps it wouldn't be wise to include plenty of other drastic changes that people might also object to.

 

That said I don't think Skyward Sword is as typical as some people make it out to be. The main method of travel is quite unique, with no Epona to be seen. There's also a very Harry Potter-ish vibe, which I don't think there's been in any other Zelda. New characters and creatures, and new gameplay elements such as spirit realm bits (or whatever they were called). Not the most ground-breaking stuff I admit, but the game is hardly just like every other Zelda but with motion controls as I've heard some people say.

 

It probably was a more relatively streamlined experience than some other Zeldas. It might appear dumbed down, and perhaps it was, but obviously Nintendo want to achieve the tricky balance of making the game accessable to both new and old gamers.

 

Fair enough if you felt disappointed by the game, I can understand why. But to be fair to Nintnedo, bearing in mind that Zelda has been around so long, and been there done that in so many directions, at this point one has to wonder just how much different can a new Zelda be?

 

I think with Skyward Sword they concluded that controls and subsequently the gameplay could be different, and so that's the direction they went with and focussed on. Now that's been done, perhaps we will see people's expectations challenged in new ways with with the next Zelda.

Edited December 20, 2012 by pratty
Automerged Doublepost

[Grazza]

I don't think Nintendo play it safe with Zelda. If they did, every game would have the Twilight Princess style - improved as and when they can, but that style - and traditional controls. Perhaps that would be a good thing! (Personally, I think they should have the courage of their convictions that the Wind Waker style was great as well.)

 

You can't dismiss motion controls when talking about Skyward Sword. They had an enormous effect on the enemies, bosses and the gameplay in general. Thankfully, I don't think it's a great game ruined by motion controls, as the overworld, exploration and atmosphere are very lacking themselves.

 

Regarding Majora's Mask, I can't forget an interview I read which stated that they couldn't go physically bigger (than OOT), so they went bigger in time. The extra RAM allowed them to track NPCs in an unprecedented way. With the GameCube, they were able to make a physically-bigger game again, in the form of Wind Waker.

 

To me, that's what it should be all about - not making a radically different experience every time, but one that's better. The only aspect of Majora's Mask that made it "obscure" or "risky" was the time limit, and in that regard I can't blame Nintendo for not using it again (much as I love MM personally). What they should have taken from it (and did initially) was the importance of sidequests and the daily cycle. I may not want a time limit every game, but I do want NPCs going about their business all over the land, doing certain things at certain times. Imagine how this could be extended to, for instance, boat or train journeys. The next Zelda could have a working transport system!

 

Unfortunately this "living world" aspect was dropped from Twilight Princess and Skyward Sword, making both far less immersive (although I think TP is significantly better). My hope is that one day, we will again see a console Zelda as good as Ocarina of Time, Wind Waker or, indeed, Majora's Mask.

[Ronnie]

You can't take motion controls out of the question, they were such a big part of the game.

 

I don't think they were. Sure combat was affected and yes that played a big part in the game, but at the end of the day, the storyline, setting, pacing, visuals, difficulty, sidequests, NPCs, longevity, originality etc are what's really important, and should be the main debating points of the game, IMO. 1 on 1 swordplay, great, but when compared to other Zelda games, the above points should outweigh the controls when it comes to discussion.

 

It might appear dumbed down, and perhaps it was, but obviously Nintendo want to achieve the tricky balance of making the game accessable to both new and old gamers.

 

Nintendo seem keen to dumb Zelda down if Phantom Hourglass and Spirit Tracks are any indication. Those two and Skyward Sword are like Zelda games with a straightjacket on, particularly the former two, especially when it comes to exploration.

 

Fair enough if you felt disappointed by the game, I can understand why. But to be fair to Nintnedo, bearing in mind that Zelda has been around so long, and been there done that in so many directions, at this point one has to wonder just how much different can a new Zelda be?

 

I liked Skyward Sword, but it's mostly synonymous with Nintendo's safety-first reasoning when it comes to creating Zelda games, something that's been in place since TP. The creativity and originality seems to have vanished and that's why these new games aren't winning best of the year and are being overshadowed by the competition for the first time ever.

[Grazza]

I honestly think tech specs have got a lot to do with it too. A Zelda will struggle to be considered "best game ever" when its overworld and game engine is eclipsed by games on other consoles. There were aspects of both Twilight Princess and Skyward Sword (the former is a bit more understandable) where the console had problems calculating the overworld in a pleasing way - I'm not talking about graphical detail, just the way things link up. But if you think back to 1998/2000, it's hard to think of a PlayStation game that seemed bigger or better than OOT/MM.

[Ronnie]

I just don't see what tech specs have to do with a great Zelda game. A Link to the Past is considered by a lot of people as the best ever Zelda and that's on tech that's a couple of decades old. Bumping up to HD quality graphics is like slapping on motion controls... it's the icing on the cake, but the core gameplay etc is what really matters underneath. Things like Hyrule field having to be split up into 4 parts because the tech couldn't handle one big one in TP doesn't actually mean or impact anything in the grand scheme of things (IMO). You still rode around exploring a giant field. On the other hand having an overworld split into three non-connected non-traversable regions in Skyward Sword IS an issue that affects the core gameplay. Not to mention takes a huge stab at the traditional Zelda ideals and concept.

[MoogleViper]

But if you think back to 1998/2000, it's hard to think of a PlayStation game that seemed bigger or better than OOT/MM.

 

What about FFVII/VIII/IX? There's probably others, but that's all I can think of at the minute.

[pratty]

Things like Hyrule field having to be split up into 4 parts because the tech couldn't handle one big one in TP doesn't actually mean or impact anything in the grand scheme of things (IMO). You still rode around exploring a giant field. On the other hand having an overworld split into three non-connected non-traversable regions in Skyward Sword IS an issue that affects the core gameplay. Not to mention takes a huge stab at the traditional Zelda ideals and concept.

 

Wouldn't giving up traditional Zelda ideals and concepts be quite daring? I actually like my Zelda games to be Zelda games, I'm comfortable with the fact there's a typical formula etc. Though there is a danger Nintendo could be too daring and spoil Zelda (at least for me), so I'm careful what I wish for. That's why I've been quite pleased with most of the differences between games so far. It's a tricky balance though, to make something the same but different, and to please everybody, Nintendo are often damend if they do and damned if they don't on so many things.

 

That said I think the relative lack of exploration is a fair observation/criticism, especially when you flew around on the bird, you could explore but there wasn't a great deal to find.

 

However it could be argued that having non connected regions made sense because it changed the way you traveled, you had to fly and drop in because the areas couldn't be reached on foot. Now someone might say well why not have the the regions linked anyway, and give us Epona to speed things up? But then we're back to traditional Zelda gameplay, when the idea was to offer something different.

 

I know a lot of us like to explore a big space in Zelda games, but the other side of the coin is a lot of people would just see that as something stale about Zelda games. And frankly some people prefer a little streamlining, people praised the decision to reduce the traveling in No More Heroes 2 to just a map/menu. Sure the travelling wasn't anything great in NMH1, but instead of making it better, they just cut it out, that could be lazy or just efficient depending on your point of view.

 

I think if anything should have been open to exploration it was the sky area, which is why it was such a shame there wasn't much more to it. So I do think it's fair comment that Nintendo sacrificed exploration and streamlined the game somewhat. (Though someone might argue that was somewhat new and daring in itself, to sort of have "dungeons within dungeons".)

 

I'm not convinced it was out of sheer laziness though. The game was delayed quite a while so I think they put the work in, just in other areas, the most obvious one being the controls and their implementation. I get what you're saying about controls only being one aspect, and perhaps not that of an important one when traditional controls worked fine, but if we want daring changes I think the controls were definitely that. It's also a logical argument that when discussing video games, controls and subsquently gameplay trumps other aspects such as story or music.

 

Though perhaps I'm easily pleased or too forgiving. The way I see it is fresh ideas don't exactly grow in trees, and good fresh ideas are even rarer, so with every new game and every new direction taken, that's one less new thing for the next game to offer. And so the difficulty of coming up with new ideas ever increases.

 

That's why I think pointing out the new directions taken in previous games such as Majora's Mask, actually serves as an indication of just how even harder it must be for Nintendo to make a daringly different Zelda, rather than a reason why it should be easy.

 

That said I do think there is an element of safety first in some of Nintendo's recent decision making, such as the quick succession of reliably high selling Mario platformers. Perhaps the economy and Nintendo's recent losses have something to do with it.

 

Sorry for my long posts and steering the thread off topic.

[Ronnie]

(Though someone might argue that was somewhat new and daring in itself, to sort of have "dungeons within dungeons".)

 

Don't get me started on that. Biggest let-down ever. I was expecting us to not know when we were in a dungeon and the overworld to actually act and behave like a dungeon. It was nothing like that. Maaybe in some parts of the desert region where it was more like an obstacle course than anything else, but that's about it. IMO. Snowpeak mansion in TP should have been what they were aiming for, not what we ended up with.

 

Wouldn't giving up traditional Zelda ideals and concepts be quite daring?

 

When I say daring I mean things like setting a game-wide time limit on you before a moon crashes into a bleak, dark, nightmarish world, all whilst transforming into the re-embodiment of three deceased creatures. Or having an ocean flood Hyrule and being forced to navigate using the wind and a sailboat, all painted in a hugely controversial (but timeless and beautiful) art style.

 

I don't mean have three themed regions that you can't travel between and can only access via a fairly basic hub world. One to one swordplay could have gone wrong, I'll give you that, but it's hardly on par with some of the bigger decisions Nintendo have made in the recent past.

 

Now someone might say well why not have the the regions linked anyway, and give us Epona to speed things up? But then we're back to traditional Zelda gameplay, when the idea was to offer something different.

 

Or, forget Epona and have us travelling up and down as and when we need to, all whilst having a nice big overworld on the surface to explore as and when we want. Nintendo are quite used to the dual world mechanic by now and this would have shown it off in a new and interesting way.

 

The horribly detached nature of the DS Zelda games, where each playable area is reached via on-rails navigation, is basically recreated with SS. Three playable areas only reachable via a level select in the sky.

 

People talk about HD graphics fixing Zelda and how that's what the Wii U Zelda needs most and it can be amazing. I think there are fundamental issues with the series that need fixing. I hope Nintendo get out of this PH/ST/SS cycle of dumbed down Zelda.

 

I get what you're saying about controls only being one aspect, and perhaps not that of an important one when traditional controls worked fine, but if we want daring changes I think the controls were definitely that. It's also a logical argument that when discussing video games, controls and subsquently gameplay trumps other aspects such as story or music.

 

When in ten years time, you think back to all the Zelda games, it would be pretty sad if when you thought back to this grand origin story, you thought of the control scheme first and foremost, placing that much importance to it. It's a tool to experience the game, nothing more.

 

(all IMO)

Edited December 21, 2012 by Ronnie

[Jonnas]

I just don't see what tech specs have to do with a great Zelda game. A Link to the Past is considered by a lot of people as the best ever Zelda and that's on tech that's a couple of decades old. Bumping up to HD quality graphics is like slapping on motion controls... it's the icing on the cake, but the core gameplay etc is what really matters underneath. Things like Hyrule field having to be split up into 4 parts because the tech couldn't handle one big one in TP doesn't actually mean or impact anything in the grand scheme of things (IMO). You still rode around exploring a giant field. On the other hand having an overworld split into three non-connected non-traversable regions in Skyward Sword IS an issue that affects the core gameplay. Not to mention takes a huge stab at the traditional Zelda ideals and concept.

 

1. You're comparing HD with a completely different control scheme? Seriously?

 

2. There is a big difference between "I see an island on the horizon. I'll reach it in a few seconds" and "I need to reach that area through two other areas". I didn't usually see things this way, and Grazza can probably explain it better, but the truth is, it helps make the game feel more real and cohesive.

Like in Super Metroid and Metroid Prime, where the whole map makes sense, and same areas connect in different places. Compare that to games where rooms overlap.

But back on the subject, you might remember that TP was segmented just like SS. The forest, fire, water, ice, desert and twilight areas didn't connect, and were separated by a field (or cannon, or teleportation, or mirror, etc). Whether you reached it by horse or bird doesn't really matter, they're functionally the same: they feel like levels, not like a single world.

[Ronnie]

1. No I'm not comparing them. I didn't think it was hard to understand... I'm saying that HD and motion controls are two aspects to a game over and above the gameplay itself. They enhance the experience, but they aren't what makes the game special. Or at least they shouldn't be.

 

 

But back on the subject, you might remember that TP was segmented just like SS. The forest, fire, water, ice, desert and twilight areas didn't connect, and were separated by a field (or cannon, or teleportation, or mirror, etc). Whether you reached it by horse or bird doesn't really matter, they're functionally the same: they feel like levels, not like a single world.

 

2. No they're not functionally the same in the slightest. Most of those areas were connected in one great landmass that you could travel from one end to the other. Skyward Sword was a glorified level select. You pick the area you want to play on next. Want to go to a different level? Go back to the level select, and pick the next one. Which also had the unwelcome effect of extreme linearity. I can't understand how you can compare TP and SS. If you want to compare the world of Skyward Sword with another Zelda game, feel free to do so with Spirit Tracks, another disconnected level select.

Edited December 21, 2012 by Ronnie

[Ville]

I think @Grazza did nail it. Ocarina of Time and Mario 64 were incredible games at the time, but the fact is now that kind of wonder comes primarily from other developers than Nintendo. Skyward Sword was just ok, nothing groundbreaking apart from the controls. Compare with Arkham City, Red Dead Redemption and Skyrim, which are all just unbelievable games in terms of design and game experience. These were the kind of games that made me believe in gaming again, because they really push the envelope. The only game on the Wii that offered such a huge scope was Xenoblade Chronicles: very impressive, but after playing games on other consoles, you just cannot help noticing the uglier graphics. So I'd say the tech specs definitely play a part in all this...

[pratty]

Don't get me started on that. Biggest let-down ever. I was expecting us to not know when we were in a dungeon and the overworld to actually act and behave like a dungeon. It was nothing like that. Maaybe in some parts of the desert region where it was more like an obstacle course than anything else, but that's about it. IMO. Snowpeak mansion in TP should have been what they were aiming for, not what we ended up with.

 

I'm not saying the overworld was exactly dungeon like, yet the fact that it was like that to any extent is something different. I completely agree exploration took a backseat in Skyward Sword, but exploration is just one aspect of Zelda games.

 

When I say daring I mean things like setting a game-wide time limit on you before a moon crashes into a bleak, dark, nightmarish world, all whilst transforming into the re-embodiment of three deceased creatures. Or having an ocean flood Hyrule and being forced to navigate using the wind and a sailboat, all painted in a hugely controversial (but timeless and beautiful) art style.

 

I don't mean have three themed regions that you can't travel between and can only access via a fairly basic hub world. One to one swordplay could have gone wrong, I'll give you that, but it's hardly on par with some of the bigger decisions Nintendo have made in the recent past.

 

I think what we've got here is a situation were Nintendo have obviously done some things different with the game, but not in the ways that you would like, which is fair enough. As I said they can never please everybody.

 

People talk about HD graphics fixing Zelda and how that's what the Wii U Zelda needs most and it can be amazing. I think there are fundamental issues with the series that need fixing. I hope Nintendo get out of this PH/ST/SS cycle of dumbed down Zelda.

 

I completely agree that HD graphics are not that important to a good ZElda game. I remember Morgan Webb yawning at the mention of Skyward Sword as though it was the same old thing, and then moments later saying HD graphics would make it awesome.

 

It may well be that because the recent games were on so called casual-friendly systems, the games were dumbed down to be as inclusive as possible. Perhaps that changes with the Wii-U.

 

When in ten years time, you think back to all the Zelda games, it would be pretty sad if when you thought back to this grand origin story, you thought of the control scheme first and foremost, placing that much importance to it. It's a tool to experience the game, nothing more.

 

What I meant was if gameplay is the most important aspect of gaming as many people believe, then the controls probably affect that more than things like story or tone.

[Grazza]

HD itself would not automatically improve Zelda, although it'd play a part. You could potentially see further into the distance, for example. When you first played Wind Waker or Super Mario Sunshine, were you not impressed at the extra detail you could see in the distance? Processing power affects games in other ways too though. Some examples:

 

1. Castle Town, Twilight Princess - Remember the house that became occupied by Gorons? If you went up on the balcony, you saw a false representation of the street scene, rather than what was actually happening outside. Nor could you take a shortcut into the town square by jumping into it. The console wasn't really calculating it; it was all just an illusion. Same goes for other buildings - no front and back entrances, so secret passageways. Castle Town just wasn't intricately modelled in 3D.

 

2. Ice Mansion, Twilight Princess - I quite agree that this is what Nintendo should be aiming for, rather than the dungeon/overworld relationship in Skyward Sword (@Ronnie quite rightly describes the desert as an "obstacle course"). However, it is still a good example of how tech specs affect a game. You could not walk around the outside of the mansion, nor were there different entrances. You could not go through a window and land in the appropriate place outside. Ice Mansion was great, but it was still just a dungeon with a facade. With even more processing power, all those things I mentioned would be possible. Imagine a similar type of dungeon, but one that was genuinely placed in a snowy landscape!

 

3. Underground Passageway, Twilight Princess - One bit of TP that sticks in my mind is the passageway between Lake Hylia and Zora's Domain. I loved it! It really set my imagination racing, but you could not go either uphill or downhill on foot. The latter was enabled by a perfectly decent kayaking game, but the former took the form of being carried by a flying creature. There is nothing wrong with this, but it all added to the impression that the overworld didn't truly exist, even in the game.

 

4. Skyloft, Skyward Sword - Exploring the mini-islands was pretty much my favourite bit of Skyward Sword - there was a fair bit to discover and it really mattered which bit you landed on... except when it came to Skyloft itself. The town is a decent one, but it only had a few "landing locations". As you approached Skyloft, you were not seeing the town itself, but a simple model of it. I think this is pretty strong proof of something being done because of lower specs. There is no way they'd have done it like that if they could have avoided it.

 

5. Sand Sea, Skyward Sword - The "sea" area of this Wii game may have reminded some of Wind Waker, but it did not live up the technical build-quality of the GameCube Zelda. Getting into the boat simply activated another game mode, with a model representation of Link standing on a representation of a boat. Personally, I thought this area's dungeon (the ship) was one of the best, and in the same spirit as TP's Ice Mansion, but like the Ice Mansion, it was not really "there". Once you'd boarded it, you were in a dungeon as isolated as any of the others.

 

...

 

I do not say this to belittle either of these games. Twilight Princess in particular is a highly honourable Zelda. If we can't have another Wind Waker, I'd love to have another game with the same atmosphere and feel as Twilight Princess. Nor do I think everything about these games is low tech. The Bazaar in Skyward Sword is fantastic, with its ever-changing music and NPC animations. It certainly couldn't have been done on the SNES!

 

All I'm saying is that I think those points all prove tech specs affect what you can do with a game. It's hard to believe developers sat down with the Wii and thought "We can do what we like! We can let our imaginations run wild!" Instead, they will have been aware that they were working with a very limited machine. The Wii U will not be as powerful as Sony and Microsoft's next consoles, but it will have the advantage of being a whole generation (or Power Tier, if you like ) ahead of the GameCube/Wii, so it might be enough. We'll see. If Zelda Wii U arrives and it is far less technically-impressive than Wind Waker, that will prove Ronnie right and me wrong. Maybe they are just being lazy? I hope not though, because there aren't many games I would rather play than another truly great Zelda.