Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Games Entertainment

Does Zelda Need an Overhaul? 286

Posted by Zonk
from the tooling-up-the-mean-green-machine dept.
CVG has up a piece noting the fact that not much about Zelda games have changed since the move to 3D. Chalk that up to the greatness of Ocarina of Time if you will, but the same mirror moving, fire-arrow switch activating puzzles have been in the last several titles. Is it time for some kind of radical change to the equation? "People generally don't like to accept change. But change doesn't always spell disaster. Final Fantasy introduces a totally new cast, setting and theme with each sequel and continues to please fans. Resident Evil 4 completely revolutionised Capcom's horror series and is now viewed as one of the best games ever made ... We still totally adore Zelda but eventually the appeal will tire and the series risks bombing. Nintendo needs to take the bold step and inject something totally new into Zelda. We're not talking about a couple of new items, or a new location - that's been done. We mean a significant change that affects the whole structure and gameplay."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Does Zelda Need an Overhaul?

Comments Filter:
  • by Salamande (461392) on Thursday May 17, 2007 @04:09PM (#19168337)
    Bobby Fischer completely agrees with you. I hear Fischer Random chess [wikipedia.org] is gaining popularity.
  • Re:No way. (Score:2, Informative)

    by sYkSh0n3 (722238) on Thursday May 17, 2007 @05:04PM (#19169411) Journal
    Zelda has had many different looks and styles of game play, Link to the Past being one of my favorites, but as the article points out, since going 3d the games have been basically the same. They feel more like a skinned version of Ocarina then a whole new game. As much as I love Zelda, it is starting to get a little repetitive. So a fresh gameplay system with a totally new way to interact with the land of Hyrule, might not be such a bad idea.

    and to the parent:

    I remember as a young lad LOATHING the second zelda game, and for the longest time it was the only one I hadn't beaten. But when i got the disc for the GC with the first two games on it, I decided that it was time i beat it just so i could say i had beat them all. It quickly became one of my favorites. So anyone who hated it as a child, might be well served to give it a second chance.
  • Re:No way. (Score:3, Informative)

    by OrangeTide (124937) on Thursday May 17, 2007 @05:28PM (#19169905) Homepage Journal
    Zelda 2 was pseudo-RPG. only on the most vague definition of RPG does it match. And if you're into table-top RPG these CRPGs are often nothing like a real RPG.

    I think most of the Zelda games are Adventure games. nothing wrong with that, I think the title fits. You certainly go on a pretty amazing adventure in a zelda game. Lots of exploring and searching and stabbing and questing.
  • Re:No way. (Score:3, Informative)

    by flooey (695860) on Thursday May 17, 2007 @07:07PM (#19171723)
    Twilights princess is the same as OoT.

    I'd say that's true and yet not true at the same time.

    What Nintendo has chosen to do with the Zelda series has seemed to be to evolve it rather than do anything revolutionary. Twilight Princess has the same basic features as Ocarina of Time, for certain. It's very comfortable to the new fans. The game introduces several new and very interesting items that remarkably change the way the game plays as the game progresses, though. Things like the dual-hookshot (clawshot, whatever) and Dominion Rod allow some neat additions to the gameplay that make the game still interesting.

    In a lot of ways, the later Zelda games are more like a (very large) expansion to the previous game rather than a new game. It's the same gameplay at the core, but the new details make it different enough that it's enjoyable.

The economy depends about as much on economists as the weather does on weather forecasters. -- Jean-Paul Kauffmann

Working...