Le futur de Zelda ?
Posté : 28 mars 2007, 11:51
Je ne sais pas l'Anglais, mais j'ai l'impression que ça parle d'un sujet très important sur la série Zelda. Est-ce que l'un de vous peux m'expliquer en gros le sujet de cette new ?
New provenant de The Hylia :
The last year has been pretty crazy for Zelda fans. We started off the beginning of 2006 with most of us recovering from the brutal delay of Twilight Princess only to realize it was being delayed to be on the upcoming Wii. At E3 2006, we learned the game was being launched on both Wii and GCN, and some of us were given a first-hand look at the Wii version and the new control scheme. More revelations were made after E3; that Twilight Princess on GCN would not be coming out on the same day as the Wii version, and that the controls were being tweaked one last time.
Finally, the day came that we could finally play Zelda ... at least for some of us. Incredibly high demand for the Wii left several Zelda fans "Wii-less" and thus couldn't enjoy Link's adventure. Some resolved themselves to wait for the GCN version simply because they couldn't afford the Wii and Zelda or because they weren't convinced the Wii version was right for them. Now that just about everyone has had a chance to play Twilight Princess on either Wii or GCN, most will agree it wasn't exactly "the second coming" many had hoped.
At GDC 2007, we were given insight into just what happened with Twilight Princess' development, a rare treat that probably will never come along again, and it was revealed that many factors lead to the final product, and that perhaps developing two versions may have cost the final product in terms of quality and possibilities.
This year has also seen a confirmation from Nintendo on the delay of Phantom Hourglass to the end of 2007, and the confirmation from Eiji Aonuma that there, in fact, two timelines. In any other Zelda dimension, all of the above would be the equivalent of a wet-dream for any Zelda fan. But alas, for some odd reason, the hype, and the magic that should be surrounding all of this hasn't had the same impact as in year's past. Perhaps the beginning of the end really was that fateful SpaceWorld day in 2001 when Miyamoto perhaps made his biggest mistake (and no, it wasn't the decision to use Cel-shading).
The mistake I've been preaching for about five years now is that somebody at Nintendo should have had the foresight to know that showing off that SpaceWorld 2000 video, whatever the hell it really was, would lead fans to believe this was the direction of the new GameCube Zelda. Many journalists and analysts are quick to say that this was merely a demo, never intended to be a game. Flat out wrong. Shigeru Miyamoto, when asked about Zelda on GCN at E3 2001, stated the game was still in the works and still retained the look of the footage shown off at SpaceWorld 2000.
He later admitted that he didn't lie then; that up till E3 2001, they were going the direction of that footage, but then they felt that the game was becoming too much like Ocarina of Time. He did not want to make another game like Ocarina of Time, and as such, had Eiji Aonuma radically shift the game's direction to become "The Wind Waker" we all know today. That is Mr. Miyamoto's biggest mistake, and the world found out at SpaceWorld 2001. I know Mr. Miyamoto is a great game designer, but I constantly question who he is making Zelda for. Is it for fans? Is it for innovation? Is it for new markets? With The Wind Waker, you can hardly argue innovation - changing the visual style of a game is not enough; the entire concept, the entire game needs something new.
While Eiji Aonuma admitted at GDC 2007 he and Mr. Miyamoto felt The Wind Waker failed in terms of sales due to its look, they also believed lack of innovation hurt the game as well. This prompted the work on Zelda DS, which would inspire the shift in direction for Twilight Princess later on. Miyamoto felt that changing the way we interact with Zelda; not the gameplay itself, but just how we control the game, would be the key to solving this issue.
Fast-forward to 2006, and you have a split fanbase over whether Twilight Princess controlled better on Wii or GCN. But you'd be hard pressed to find somebody who would say the Wii controls "revolutionized" Zelda, or really made it more innovative. The Wii version was simply the GCN version mapped to a Wii Remote, nothing more, nothing less (ok, two less item buttons, but at the cost of no camera control).
Aonuma and Miyamoto view Twilight Princess as the successful failure, in that they successfully got a game out on two systems, one for a launch of a new system, and that it sold very well in Western territories. However, they view it as a failure in that it didn't sell well in Japan, their home territory, and that despite high marks from critics; most have said it is really "nothing new". So now Aonuma and Miyamoto are stuck with the same problem they've been trying to solve for now four years. What's next for Zelda, and how can the franchise be saved?
Eiji Aonuma points to Phantom Hourglass as the next attempt; citing it was the basis for Twilight Princess' shift and that from the start, it's been developed ground-up for the DS. Having played it at E3 2006 and at GDC 2007, I have to say the concept is there, but in the end, it's still the same old Zelda. Instead of pressing A to pick up pots, you tap them with a stylus. Instead of using a stick or pad to move, you point the stylus in a direction. The game, in reality, is reduced to tapping, dragging and pointing if you thinking about it. Simplified controls are what the Zelda creators want, and that's what we'll get in Phantom Hourglass. At the end of the day, though, is that really enough?
So let's look beyond Phantom Hourglass, beyond 2007. It's obvious fans are tired of some elements; we know for sure that Ocarina of Time and making games like it has been overdone. It's funny how Miyamoto wanted to make The Wind Waker to avoid another Ocarina of Time, then he turns around right after and agrees with Aonuma that they should make Twilight Princess more like Ocarina of Time. Fans have different ideas on how exactly to revive the series, or how to proceed with the next installment.
Personally, I have a solution (which was somewhat inspired from a rumor I've just learned of, which I'm working to verify but it may take some time) that I think would work wonders for this series. I cite the fact this concept has worked for not only video game series, but other major franchises outside of the video game realm. This is the concept known as a "reboot", which means to discard all previous continuity in the series and start anew. Effectively, all previously-known history is declared by the "creator" to be null and void and the series starts over from the beginning (Wikipedia entry).
Oh boy, here we go. Yes, I perfectly well know what this means. This would mean that moving forward, every new Zelda title would completely disavow all knowledge of the previous titles; The Legend of Zelda, The Adventure of Link, A Link to the Past, Link's Awakening, Ocarina of Time, Majora's Mask, Oracle of Seasons, Oracle of Ages, Four Swords, The Wind Waker, Four Swords Adventures, The Minish Cap, Twilight Princess and Phantom Hourglass would no longer "count" towards the series, and would become an alternate series.
But in my defense, as I mentioned earlier, this concept has successfully revitalized stagnating series and franchises. Let's look at one of the more recent success stories; James Bond. The series has been around in films since the 1960s, meaning over 40 years of James Bond spanning twenty films. The last films, despite bigger budgets and star power, kept performing worse and worse at the box office, and even before that, the series has required superficial changes such as more special effects and different actors to play James Bond (aka The Power Ranger Effect - make everything visually different in each new installment, yet the same, and it appears to be new and exciting) to keep the franchise afloat.
So for Bond 21, known to most of us as Casino Royale, the creators decided to ditch everything about Bond's past and restart; granted they keep the same title theme music and Judi Dench is still M, but everything else was just different, yet it somehow felt like Bond. Despite huge outcries from the fanbase, in the end, Casino Royale is the highest grossing James Bond film of all time, and one of the top rated among critics and fans.
We can go back to another recent film example; Batman Begins. Same concept, different franchise. Abandoning all ties to previous canon, the series is on a high note once again. We can contrast this with another recent example of a franchise that was attempted to be revived, but did not opt for the "reboot"; Superman. Superman Returns, most will agree, simply failed because it tried to be way too much like the originals, in fact, too much like the first film. I always found that this was very reminiscent of Twilight Princess, which tried to be too much like Ocarina of Time. Both relied on having bigger, better elements in them compared to the originals, but in the end, they offered nothing new.
Sure, this reboot concept works well in films, but what about in video games? Here's the greatest example I can think of; Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time. The game revitalized a franchise that was extinct and ushered in a new AAA series that spawned three titles on multiple consoles, and inspired other great games in the same vein. StarFox 64 is also another great example, which Miyamoto himself said was a complete remake of the original StarFox. Doom3 and Tomb Raider: Legend are also other excellent examples of how series thought to be dead or dying were saved from the face of extinction.
With the exception of StarFox 64, which you could actually argue a case for, all of these examples have one thing in common; they shifted to a much more serious, much darker setting than before. They also changed with the times and adjusted to suit their audiences much more adeptly and to deliver a more mature experience. Also, StarFox 64 is the only example of a game that really was more of a "remake" than a "reboot"; the other reboots at all had significant predecessors, whereas StarFox 64 had only one previous entry.
Zelda doesn't need a remake like that, but a reboot is definitely in order. Again, going back to StarFox, I can't praise StarFox Command enough for what it did for that franchise. While it is not a reboot, it is a complete retooling of how the series works. You still have the basic "shooter" portions, but they've been tweaked to work a bit differently from those found in Assault and StarFox 64. The map portions, adding a RTS element, also added to the depth of the gameplay. Lastly, the branching storyline element was just what the doctor ordered. I have to say of any DS game released so far, Command is my favorite and I still replay it to this day.
How does this relate to Zelda? Good question. The series needs a reboot, but it also needs major retooling. And stuff done in StarFox Command, I think, should be lent to the Zelda series for inspiration. Let's start with the basic premise. All Zelda games are about a formula that hasn't changed in over twenty years. You will go explore an overworld for new areas, which each area has a dungeon. You go into this dungeon, and you have to find an item which is then used to defeat the boss of that dungeon. The item you get from that dungeon, plus the "special item" at the end both allow you to advance to the next area and access new parts of the world. Repeat. It's sad, but true. The formula needs to be broken, and a new formula created.
Real quick, for these next points, please assume you are playing the game without any major glitches or tricks, or as the creator's intended or how you'd probably play through on your first attempt.
Let's go back to the original Zelda. There are a lot of different ways in which you can beat that game in terms of order of things you must do. You don't have to go to Level 1, you can go to Level 2, Level 3, Level 5, Level 6, or Level 8 without ever have taken a step into any other dungeon (for Level 8, you will need to have purchased the Blue candle). You can't beat Level 5, though, but you can still go into at the start. Level 6 you'll find you're stuck unless you go buy an arrow. Basically, the game didn't exactly follow the staple formula we all know. Some dungeon items didn't help you defeat the boss, but helped elsewhere. The game was about you getting stuck and having to figure out what to do next, blended with good amounts of action.
In Zelda II, this sense of exploration and puzzle solving was cut back a bit in favor of more action, but you still could reach other temples earlier and get stuff out of order. A Link to the Past represented the strongest shift; the game really pushed the player in a more linear direction. You had to beat the Light World dungeons in order, and for most, the Dark World dungeons in order as well. Maybe you switched up Dungeons 3 and 4, but other than that, most followed the intended path. Not only that, but stuff was marked on your map for you; you knew ahead of time where you needed to go. Still, there was a decent amount of exploration and you could wander to most areas at anytime.
With each subsequent title, the exploration factor was cut down. Link's Awakening presented an even more linear fashion, blocking off where you could go more strictly. Ocarina of Time really constrained it even more, and the loading of "zones" eliminated some of the natural flow that was present in previous 2D games. The Wind Waker attempted to return to this type of exploration after you could sail and control the wind early on in the game, but the game promoted going in a suggested order rather than trying to sail around the ocean searching for new clues and locations; the in-game clues were too obvious and the assistance of a personal aid, the King of Red Lions, really spoon-fed gamers what to do in each new situation.
Exploration, the root of Zelda, has been lost over time, and the series needs to return to its roots. But not only does this need to take place, but a reboot of the series is in order. For starters, the order of the games, while it may not be the most important aspect of the series, is a mess. While recent games have attempted to establish continuity, and even Eiji Aonuma giving us some insight into what the timeline is, the fact remains the games are just too disconnected overall and appear to be beyond repair, at least in any plausible measure. Not only that, but the series has a huge stigma now that everything has to be "better than Ocarina of Time". The Wind Waker and Twilight Princess were too much like Ocarina of Time, and those games that strayed outside this norm, such as Four Swords Adventures, were branded as not really a part of the series.
In fact, you have traditional Zelda games, and then what fans have dubbed the "CAPCOM" series, which are Oracle of Seasons, Oracle of Ages, Four Swords, Four Swords Adventures (technically not by CAPCOM, but by Eiji Aonuma's team) and The Minish Cap, which are sadly lumped into this contingent mislabeled as "side games". Part of the issue is not only have the games been either too radically different from the norm, or too much like the norm, but up until Ocarina of Time, Zelda games were RARE. Four games in 10 years. Then Ocarina of Time ends a five year drought, and bam, Zelda fans are hit with a new Zelda title almost every year. Majora's Mask hit less than two years later, then Oracles hit a few months after that, followed by The Wind Waker and Four Swords just under two years after that. Four Swords Adventures was a year after those and The Minish Cap a year-and-a-half after that. Last, but not least, is Twilight Princess, which released just under two years after The Minish Cap, and Phantom Hourglass, which will release probably just over a year after Twilight Princess.
Bottom line, there's too many damn Zelda games coming out in too short a time, so it is nigh impossible for the creators to have a decent amount of development time to crank something out truly worthwhile.
Give the series a break. We have Super Mario Galaxy this year, and probably Metroid Prime and Super Smash Bros in 2008. We have a Zelda game coming out at the end of the year. Let's at least wait until 2009 before we hear anything more on Zelda, give the developers at least two years of time, if not more, before they begin to mention another Zelda title. Sure, they can announce one anytime, but they should not be trying to rush it out within any timeframe of less than 2 years.
The creators need to start the series over and begin anew. Establish a new mythology, and new Hyrule and everything in it, and a solid gameplay model and concept. Make the series grow up a bit for the modern gamer and audience, and give the game a bit more personality. We all know, Mr. Miyamoto that the player is supposed to define who Link is, how their own experience is unique with each new Zelda title. Newsflash: it isn't working anymore. We've already been there and done that for quite awhile now, so maybe it is time to try something new. Maybe it is time for voice acting, maybe it is time for a much more intense story. Maybe it's time for the series to get a little bit more mature.
Nobody will argue against the fact that gameplay should remain the primary focus, but most fans nowadays want more than the gameplay. We would like the audio to be a bit better, and not so yesterday sounding. While visuals aren't everything in video games, Zelda is viewed as your "prestigious" franchise, so maybe spending some more time making it look better couldn't hurt. Mr. Miyamoto may not care about the story, but from fan reactions in nearly every part of the world, apparently most of the consumers do care a great deal about the story in each Zelda title. Perhaps it shouldn't be such an afterthought.
So give the series a break so we're not so overloaded with Zelda. Give fans a breather. Then, come back with new series, with a solid first title that established the tone and pace for the rest of the franchise. This will allow the creators greater freedom in what they can do; reinvent the Zelda storyline. I'm sure fans would love another take on how Hyrule came to be, how Ganondorf became who he is, how the Triforce is connected to Hyrule, and just how Link and Zelda keep ending up in every game.
More importantly, I think perhaps continuing the series from the first new game, in terms of keeping a sense of continuity, might keep the fanbase much more engrossed with the overall series. Address some of the concerns in terms of the story and character issues; what is Link really like? Does he have a romantic interest? Give the fans a more emotional Link, which you let us sample in Twilight Princess. Try something new with the story, too. Does it always have to be so narrow-minded and focus on the fate of Hyrule or one land? Zelda is epic, but for many years now, it's been feeling like a mini-epic. Give players more locales to visit, more NPCs to interact with, more ways to travel across the vast world.
I'm purposely avoiding specifics because each fan has his or her own idea for how specifically the series can change or be reworked. I'm merely stating that the series needs a restart, and it needs to find the essence from the first few games that made it so great that has been lost over time. Additionally, that Zelda is just being watered down due to how quickly each new title is churned out from Nintendo, which may be part of the reason why the games are becoming less appealing as they were in the past. The series needs to evolve with the times and not rest on its laurels and thinking it can keep doing everything it wants just because it is Zelda.
So maybe instead of focusing on trying to outdo Ocarina of Time with a new Zelda title, which is what Miyamoto had Aonuma try to do with Twilight Princess, he such think of how to reinvent it. Part of this is maybe the team needs some outside perspective; afteral, a creator is not the best judge of his or her own work. Perhaps Mr. Miyamoto and Aonuma have been working on Zelda too long, they've become too embedded with certain opinions on the series and certain ways to create it that it may be very difficult for them to break the mold. But whatever it takes, this needs to be done. The Zelda series is only selling well because of its popularity and really only getting high marks from most because, yes, the games are still solid, but it's more out of respect. If there is nothing terribly wrong with a Zelda game, it must be great, right?
There's only so much more fans and critics can take. After Twilight Princess, I think the series is at a breaking point. It may get a pass with Phantom Hourglass because the portable installments have been fewer and far between, but when it comes time for the next big Zelda on a console...that's when the true test will be presented. Will Nintendo opt to deliver another Zelda title that doesn't evolve the series, or will the decide to finally do something drastic and take a risk.
Just remember...Miyamoto defied Hiroshi Yamauchi and his peers when he made the original Legend of Zelda and had it released despite their protests. That risk resulted in the birth of one of the most beloved franchises of all time. It's time somebody else defied their peers and did something drastic. Mr. Aonuma, I think it's time that you act on your instincts, which you so generously gave insight into at GDC, and defy Mr. Miyamoto and upend his tea table. If you love Zelda so much, you won't let it be resigned to the fate its currently set to meet if nothing changes. Here's your chance to do something heroic.
New provenant de The Hylia :
The last year has been pretty crazy for Zelda fans. We started off the beginning of 2006 with most of us recovering from the brutal delay of Twilight Princess only to realize it was being delayed to be on the upcoming Wii. At E3 2006, we learned the game was being launched on both Wii and GCN, and some of us were given a first-hand look at the Wii version and the new control scheme. More revelations were made after E3; that Twilight Princess on GCN would not be coming out on the same day as the Wii version, and that the controls were being tweaked one last time.
Finally, the day came that we could finally play Zelda ... at least for some of us. Incredibly high demand for the Wii left several Zelda fans "Wii-less" and thus couldn't enjoy Link's adventure. Some resolved themselves to wait for the GCN version simply because they couldn't afford the Wii and Zelda or because they weren't convinced the Wii version was right for them. Now that just about everyone has had a chance to play Twilight Princess on either Wii or GCN, most will agree it wasn't exactly "the second coming" many had hoped.
At GDC 2007, we were given insight into just what happened with Twilight Princess' development, a rare treat that probably will never come along again, and it was revealed that many factors lead to the final product, and that perhaps developing two versions may have cost the final product in terms of quality and possibilities.
This year has also seen a confirmation from Nintendo on the delay of Phantom Hourglass to the end of 2007, and the confirmation from Eiji Aonuma that there, in fact, two timelines. In any other Zelda dimension, all of the above would be the equivalent of a wet-dream for any Zelda fan. But alas, for some odd reason, the hype, and the magic that should be surrounding all of this hasn't had the same impact as in year's past. Perhaps the beginning of the end really was that fateful SpaceWorld day in 2001 when Miyamoto perhaps made his biggest mistake (and no, it wasn't the decision to use Cel-shading).
The mistake I've been preaching for about five years now is that somebody at Nintendo should have had the foresight to know that showing off that SpaceWorld 2000 video, whatever the hell it really was, would lead fans to believe this was the direction of the new GameCube Zelda. Many journalists and analysts are quick to say that this was merely a demo, never intended to be a game. Flat out wrong. Shigeru Miyamoto, when asked about Zelda on GCN at E3 2001, stated the game was still in the works and still retained the look of the footage shown off at SpaceWorld 2000.
He later admitted that he didn't lie then; that up till E3 2001, they were going the direction of that footage, but then they felt that the game was becoming too much like Ocarina of Time. He did not want to make another game like Ocarina of Time, and as such, had Eiji Aonuma radically shift the game's direction to become "The Wind Waker" we all know today. That is Mr. Miyamoto's biggest mistake, and the world found out at SpaceWorld 2001. I know Mr. Miyamoto is a great game designer, but I constantly question who he is making Zelda for. Is it for fans? Is it for innovation? Is it for new markets? With The Wind Waker, you can hardly argue innovation - changing the visual style of a game is not enough; the entire concept, the entire game needs something new.
While Eiji Aonuma admitted at GDC 2007 he and Mr. Miyamoto felt The Wind Waker failed in terms of sales due to its look, they also believed lack of innovation hurt the game as well. This prompted the work on Zelda DS, which would inspire the shift in direction for Twilight Princess later on. Miyamoto felt that changing the way we interact with Zelda; not the gameplay itself, but just how we control the game, would be the key to solving this issue.
Fast-forward to 2006, and you have a split fanbase over whether Twilight Princess controlled better on Wii or GCN. But you'd be hard pressed to find somebody who would say the Wii controls "revolutionized" Zelda, or really made it more innovative. The Wii version was simply the GCN version mapped to a Wii Remote, nothing more, nothing less (ok, two less item buttons, but at the cost of no camera control).
Aonuma and Miyamoto view Twilight Princess as the successful failure, in that they successfully got a game out on two systems, one for a launch of a new system, and that it sold very well in Western territories. However, they view it as a failure in that it didn't sell well in Japan, their home territory, and that despite high marks from critics; most have said it is really "nothing new". So now Aonuma and Miyamoto are stuck with the same problem they've been trying to solve for now four years. What's next for Zelda, and how can the franchise be saved?
Eiji Aonuma points to Phantom Hourglass as the next attempt; citing it was the basis for Twilight Princess' shift and that from the start, it's been developed ground-up for the DS. Having played it at E3 2006 and at GDC 2007, I have to say the concept is there, but in the end, it's still the same old Zelda. Instead of pressing A to pick up pots, you tap them with a stylus. Instead of using a stick or pad to move, you point the stylus in a direction. The game, in reality, is reduced to tapping, dragging and pointing if you thinking about it. Simplified controls are what the Zelda creators want, and that's what we'll get in Phantom Hourglass. At the end of the day, though, is that really enough?
So let's look beyond Phantom Hourglass, beyond 2007. It's obvious fans are tired of some elements; we know for sure that Ocarina of Time and making games like it has been overdone. It's funny how Miyamoto wanted to make The Wind Waker to avoid another Ocarina of Time, then he turns around right after and agrees with Aonuma that they should make Twilight Princess more like Ocarina of Time. Fans have different ideas on how exactly to revive the series, or how to proceed with the next installment.
Personally, I have a solution (which was somewhat inspired from a rumor I've just learned of, which I'm working to verify but it may take some time) that I think would work wonders for this series. I cite the fact this concept has worked for not only video game series, but other major franchises outside of the video game realm. This is the concept known as a "reboot", which means to discard all previous continuity in the series and start anew. Effectively, all previously-known history is declared by the "creator" to be null and void and the series starts over from the beginning (Wikipedia entry).
Oh boy, here we go. Yes, I perfectly well know what this means. This would mean that moving forward, every new Zelda title would completely disavow all knowledge of the previous titles; The Legend of Zelda, The Adventure of Link, A Link to the Past, Link's Awakening, Ocarina of Time, Majora's Mask, Oracle of Seasons, Oracle of Ages, Four Swords, The Wind Waker, Four Swords Adventures, The Minish Cap, Twilight Princess and Phantom Hourglass would no longer "count" towards the series, and would become an alternate series.
But in my defense, as I mentioned earlier, this concept has successfully revitalized stagnating series and franchises. Let's look at one of the more recent success stories; James Bond. The series has been around in films since the 1960s, meaning over 40 years of James Bond spanning twenty films. The last films, despite bigger budgets and star power, kept performing worse and worse at the box office, and even before that, the series has required superficial changes such as more special effects and different actors to play James Bond (aka The Power Ranger Effect - make everything visually different in each new installment, yet the same, and it appears to be new and exciting) to keep the franchise afloat.
So for Bond 21, known to most of us as Casino Royale, the creators decided to ditch everything about Bond's past and restart; granted they keep the same title theme music and Judi Dench is still M, but everything else was just different, yet it somehow felt like Bond. Despite huge outcries from the fanbase, in the end, Casino Royale is the highest grossing James Bond film of all time, and one of the top rated among critics and fans.
We can go back to another recent film example; Batman Begins. Same concept, different franchise. Abandoning all ties to previous canon, the series is on a high note once again. We can contrast this with another recent example of a franchise that was attempted to be revived, but did not opt for the "reboot"; Superman. Superman Returns, most will agree, simply failed because it tried to be way too much like the originals, in fact, too much like the first film. I always found that this was very reminiscent of Twilight Princess, which tried to be too much like Ocarina of Time. Both relied on having bigger, better elements in them compared to the originals, but in the end, they offered nothing new.
Sure, this reboot concept works well in films, but what about in video games? Here's the greatest example I can think of; Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time. The game revitalized a franchise that was extinct and ushered in a new AAA series that spawned three titles on multiple consoles, and inspired other great games in the same vein. StarFox 64 is also another great example, which Miyamoto himself said was a complete remake of the original StarFox. Doom3 and Tomb Raider: Legend are also other excellent examples of how series thought to be dead or dying were saved from the face of extinction.
With the exception of StarFox 64, which you could actually argue a case for, all of these examples have one thing in common; they shifted to a much more serious, much darker setting than before. They also changed with the times and adjusted to suit their audiences much more adeptly and to deliver a more mature experience. Also, StarFox 64 is the only example of a game that really was more of a "remake" than a "reboot"; the other reboots at all had significant predecessors, whereas StarFox 64 had only one previous entry.
Zelda doesn't need a remake like that, but a reboot is definitely in order. Again, going back to StarFox, I can't praise StarFox Command enough for what it did for that franchise. While it is not a reboot, it is a complete retooling of how the series works. You still have the basic "shooter" portions, but they've been tweaked to work a bit differently from those found in Assault and StarFox 64. The map portions, adding a RTS element, also added to the depth of the gameplay. Lastly, the branching storyline element was just what the doctor ordered. I have to say of any DS game released so far, Command is my favorite and I still replay it to this day.
How does this relate to Zelda? Good question. The series needs a reboot, but it also needs major retooling. And stuff done in StarFox Command, I think, should be lent to the Zelda series for inspiration. Let's start with the basic premise. All Zelda games are about a formula that hasn't changed in over twenty years. You will go explore an overworld for new areas, which each area has a dungeon. You go into this dungeon, and you have to find an item which is then used to defeat the boss of that dungeon. The item you get from that dungeon, plus the "special item" at the end both allow you to advance to the next area and access new parts of the world. Repeat. It's sad, but true. The formula needs to be broken, and a new formula created.
Real quick, for these next points, please assume you are playing the game without any major glitches or tricks, or as the creator's intended or how you'd probably play through on your first attempt.
Let's go back to the original Zelda. There are a lot of different ways in which you can beat that game in terms of order of things you must do. You don't have to go to Level 1, you can go to Level 2, Level 3, Level 5, Level 6, or Level 8 without ever have taken a step into any other dungeon (for Level 8, you will need to have purchased the Blue candle). You can't beat Level 5, though, but you can still go into at the start. Level 6 you'll find you're stuck unless you go buy an arrow. Basically, the game didn't exactly follow the staple formula we all know. Some dungeon items didn't help you defeat the boss, but helped elsewhere. The game was about you getting stuck and having to figure out what to do next, blended with good amounts of action.
In Zelda II, this sense of exploration and puzzle solving was cut back a bit in favor of more action, but you still could reach other temples earlier and get stuff out of order. A Link to the Past represented the strongest shift; the game really pushed the player in a more linear direction. You had to beat the Light World dungeons in order, and for most, the Dark World dungeons in order as well. Maybe you switched up Dungeons 3 and 4, but other than that, most followed the intended path. Not only that, but stuff was marked on your map for you; you knew ahead of time where you needed to go. Still, there was a decent amount of exploration and you could wander to most areas at anytime.
With each subsequent title, the exploration factor was cut down. Link's Awakening presented an even more linear fashion, blocking off where you could go more strictly. Ocarina of Time really constrained it even more, and the loading of "zones" eliminated some of the natural flow that was present in previous 2D games. The Wind Waker attempted to return to this type of exploration after you could sail and control the wind early on in the game, but the game promoted going in a suggested order rather than trying to sail around the ocean searching for new clues and locations; the in-game clues were too obvious and the assistance of a personal aid, the King of Red Lions, really spoon-fed gamers what to do in each new situation.
Exploration, the root of Zelda, has been lost over time, and the series needs to return to its roots. But not only does this need to take place, but a reboot of the series is in order. For starters, the order of the games, while it may not be the most important aspect of the series, is a mess. While recent games have attempted to establish continuity, and even Eiji Aonuma giving us some insight into what the timeline is, the fact remains the games are just too disconnected overall and appear to be beyond repair, at least in any plausible measure. Not only that, but the series has a huge stigma now that everything has to be "better than Ocarina of Time". The Wind Waker and Twilight Princess were too much like Ocarina of Time, and those games that strayed outside this norm, such as Four Swords Adventures, were branded as not really a part of the series.
In fact, you have traditional Zelda games, and then what fans have dubbed the "CAPCOM" series, which are Oracle of Seasons, Oracle of Ages, Four Swords, Four Swords Adventures (technically not by CAPCOM, but by Eiji Aonuma's team) and The Minish Cap, which are sadly lumped into this contingent mislabeled as "side games". Part of the issue is not only have the games been either too radically different from the norm, or too much like the norm, but up until Ocarina of Time, Zelda games were RARE. Four games in 10 years. Then Ocarina of Time ends a five year drought, and bam, Zelda fans are hit with a new Zelda title almost every year. Majora's Mask hit less than two years later, then Oracles hit a few months after that, followed by The Wind Waker and Four Swords just under two years after that. Four Swords Adventures was a year after those and The Minish Cap a year-and-a-half after that. Last, but not least, is Twilight Princess, which released just under two years after The Minish Cap, and Phantom Hourglass, which will release probably just over a year after Twilight Princess.
Bottom line, there's too many damn Zelda games coming out in too short a time, so it is nigh impossible for the creators to have a decent amount of development time to crank something out truly worthwhile.
Give the series a break. We have Super Mario Galaxy this year, and probably Metroid Prime and Super Smash Bros in 2008. We have a Zelda game coming out at the end of the year. Let's at least wait until 2009 before we hear anything more on Zelda, give the developers at least two years of time, if not more, before they begin to mention another Zelda title. Sure, they can announce one anytime, but they should not be trying to rush it out within any timeframe of less than 2 years.
The creators need to start the series over and begin anew. Establish a new mythology, and new Hyrule and everything in it, and a solid gameplay model and concept. Make the series grow up a bit for the modern gamer and audience, and give the game a bit more personality. We all know, Mr. Miyamoto that the player is supposed to define who Link is, how their own experience is unique with each new Zelda title. Newsflash: it isn't working anymore. We've already been there and done that for quite awhile now, so maybe it is time to try something new. Maybe it is time for voice acting, maybe it is time for a much more intense story. Maybe it's time for the series to get a little bit more mature.
Nobody will argue against the fact that gameplay should remain the primary focus, but most fans nowadays want more than the gameplay. We would like the audio to be a bit better, and not so yesterday sounding. While visuals aren't everything in video games, Zelda is viewed as your "prestigious" franchise, so maybe spending some more time making it look better couldn't hurt. Mr. Miyamoto may not care about the story, but from fan reactions in nearly every part of the world, apparently most of the consumers do care a great deal about the story in each Zelda title. Perhaps it shouldn't be such an afterthought.
So give the series a break so we're not so overloaded with Zelda. Give fans a breather. Then, come back with new series, with a solid first title that established the tone and pace for the rest of the franchise. This will allow the creators greater freedom in what they can do; reinvent the Zelda storyline. I'm sure fans would love another take on how Hyrule came to be, how Ganondorf became who he is, how the Triforce is connected to Hyrule, and just how Link and Zelda keep ending up in every game.
More importantly, I think perhaps continuing the series from the first new game, in terms of keeping a sense of continuity, might keep the fanbase much more engrossed with the overall series. Address some of the concerns in terms of the story and character issues; what is Link really like? Does he have a romantic interest? Give the fans a more emotional Link, which you let us sample in Twilight Princess. Try something new with the story, too. Does it always have to be so narrow-minded and focus on the fate of Hyrule or one land? Zelda is epic, but for many years now, it's been feeling like a mini-epic. Give players more locales to visit, more NPCs to interact with, more ways to travel across the vast world.
I'm purposely avoiding specifics because each fan has his or her own idea for how specifically the series can change or be reworked. I'm merely stating that the series needs a restart, and it needs to find the essence from the first few games that made it so great that has been lost over time. Additionally, that Zelda is just being watered down due to how quickly each new title is churned out from Nintendo, which may be part of the reason why the games are becoming less appealing as they were in the past. The series needs to evolve with the times and not rest on its laurels and thinking it can keep doing everything it wants just because it is Zelda.
So maybe instead of focusing on trying to outdo Ocarina of Time with a new Zelda title, which is what Miyamoto had Aonuma try to do with Twilight Princess, he such think of how to reinvent it. Part of this is maybe the team needs some outside perspective; afteral, a creator is not the best judge of his or her own work. Perhaps Mr. Miyamoto and Aonuma have been working on Zelda too long, they've become too embedded with certain opinions on the series and certain ways to create it that it may be very difficult for them to break the mold. But whatever it takes, this needs to be done. The Zelda series is only selling well because of its popularity and really only getting high marks from most because, yes, the games are still solid, but it's more out of respect. If there is nothing terribly wrong with a Zelda game, it must be great, right?
There's only so much more fans and critics can take. After Twilight Princess, I think the series is at a breaking point. It may get a pass with Phantom Hourglass because the portable installments have been fewer and far between, but when it comes time for the next big Zelda on a console...that's when the true test will be presented. Will Nintendo opt to deliver another Zelda title that doesn't evolve the series, or will the decide to finally do something drastic and take a risk.
Just remember...Miyamoto defied Hiroshi Yamauchi and his peers when he made the original Legend of Zelda and had it released despite their protests. That risk resulted in the birth of one of the most beloved franchises of all time. It's time somebody else defied their peers and did something drastic. Mr. Aonuma, I think it's time that you act on your instincts, which you so generously gave insight into at GDC, and defy Mr. Miyamoto and upend his tea table. If you love Zelda so much, you won't let it be resigned to the fate its currently set to meet if nothing changes. Here's your chance to do something heroic.
alors il faudrait qu'ils changent Zelda un peu et que cette foi si M.Aonuma devrai ce fier a son instinct pour faire le jeu et ne pas se laisser dire quoi faire par Myamoto
Je coit que j'ai pas comprit.....
)...