Every story in the Zelda series has its villain, and they always play a very significant role. Whether it's Ganondorf, one of his puppets, or someone else entirely, the games tend to flow the same, leading up to the climatic final battle where the villain is overthrown. Although their roles are significant, their threats as villains are not. Very rarely do they pose a real threat to the hero, or to the whole land itself. In comparison to other villains, those of the Zelda series could be viewed as rather disappointing.
There is one real factor that makes a villain truly threatening. That factor is time. In all too many Zelda games, from The Legend of Zelda to Ocarina of Time to The Wind Waker, from Twilight Princess to Phantom Hourglass, villains lack this threat of time. Link can run around trying to be a hero for as long as he likes, and there is no threat of the land becoming any worse than it is. He has forever to overthrow the villain, because the villain does nothing but sit in their castle waiting to be overthrown. The villain does nothing to cause a real living threat. There is no timeframe for the hero to accomplish his task before it is too late.
Sure, some of the games do have the villain threatening the world. In The Wind Waker, the Great Sea is slowly being overcome by evil, or in Phantom Hourglass, the lifeforce is slowly being sucked from the people. It is only a matter of time before the world is thrown into turmoil and the villain triumphs, but the game doesn't ever show that. The threat isn't truly there for the players, it's just the same old hollow threats.
We can look to any classic tale to see that the predicament of time is what truly makes a villain daunting. In The Lord of The Rings, the Ring must be destroyed before Sauron obtains it, so that he can't turn the world into darkness. In Harry Potter, Voldemort must be stopped before he accomplishes his goal. Even in The Matrix, Neo must succeed at a stopping the machines, otherwise Zion will be destroyed, along with human existence.
In Zelda it isn't 'save Hyrule or else...', because there rarely is an 'or else'. If the hero decides to quit, the world won't suddenly feel the effects. The villains of the Zelda series generally pose no real threat, but on occasions, they have. In The Minish Cap, players must defeat the three Darknuts within the time limit to stop Vaati from obtaining the whole Light Force, and becoming the ruler of the world. Although only for a small moment, Vaati was actually threatening the land of Hyrule through this factor of time, through this factor of 'stop me or else'. Not only did it make him more of an antagonist, but it also made that part of the game challenging.
The argument is often made that Majora is the ultimate villain, because he simply loves destruction and is the embodiment of pure malevolence itself. Majora's Mask is the only game in the series where the villain is truly intimidating, because Majora plays to the time factor. 'Stop me within 72 hours or else I will crush your whole world with my moon'. That seems a lot more threatening than 'Yeah, I'm up in my castle, I've got Zelda, why don't you come and join us?' Defeating Majora is a true accomplishment, because players have witnessed the emotions and fears that Majora instills in the people, something Ganondorf doesn't seem to do.
Maybe it is simply a limitation of the game genre; putting in a 'do this or else it will be a game over' variable is too hard to implement. Nintendo worry that it will make the game too frustrating, too hard for the casual players, but in fact, it will actually make the game itself, not break it. Once again, I want to fight a villain like Majora. A villain who, if I don't succeed at overthrowing, actually poses an active threat to the people. I want to play as a Link who saves the people from what brings them depair, not who simply saves Zelda and prevents Ganondorf from obtaining the whole Triforce once again. I want to feel like I've accomplished something, prevented a catastrophe. Only then will I be able to sit back and acknowledge the villain as truly threatening.
Categories: Articles
I am loving this article.
3 thumbs up Mel. Can't agree more with the lack of fear that our modern Zelda villains fail to instil.
I just want to thank this site and its contributors for not being afraid to question certain elements of the Zelda series. It's refreshing to see objectivity trump fanaticism. In regards to the article, this is what I have to say.
I know where he's coming from. When I was 12, the villains were fine. But now that I'm older, it just doesn't work for me anymore. I've seen freakier things than Twilight Princess's Ganondorf in an upper class suburb. I believe this problem spreads far beyond the Zelda universe, and Nintendo for that matter. Though I disagree time constraints are the way to go, I see the right changes happening in a different way.
It sounds unrealistic to think Nintendo would suddenly shift their focus, when character development and plot have always been on the back-burner of their games. They seem better specialized in conveying ideas through tone and theme. Majora's Mask has a lot of things going for it, and I would feel uncomfortable pointing to only one aspect as the reason Majora was an awesome villain.
Nintendo has a way of being conservative and innovative at the same time. I don't think making a better Zelda villain is at the top of their list, but that doesn't mean it won't happen. Considering this article focuses on making "a villain truly threatening" I'll share an idea of my own.
I would love. I mean LOVE, if the next Zelda had a scene, let's say, 1/4 of the way through where everything is going along in a cliched manner. You're with the Princess, and talking with the King or something. The main villain enters in a composed and ominous way, just as he always does. Then, with the utmost grace, he smashes Zelda into a trillion pieces, just obliterating her, Blowing the King up while he's at it too! And then, he turns to Link, looking at him like "Now whatcha gonna do?".
This is not a come back later kind of dead either. From then on, it's just between Link, civilization, and the villain trying to destroy both. I've felt with every new addition to the series since OTT, that Zelda has been becoming more and more of a middle woman; she doesn't seem necessary anymore. A story needs at most three points of contention to it. Zelda's been acting as the fourth for awhile now and it's really starting to wear on the series. If you're going to add more than three central conflicts, you've got to be willing to eliminate one, otherwise, everything just gets cluttered. I guess what I'm trying to say is maybe it's time to do the unthinkable.
I both agree and disagree with this article. I agree in the sense that the villains in Zelda could use a bit more threat and intimidation, a bit more mystery and gloom. On the other hand, imposing a time-limit is not the way to go. It restricts how a player spends his time in the game, and forces more linearity.
The examples are also pretty bad here. The Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter are books, and all three of them have been made into movies. None of those two media are interactive entertainment, so it's not really a fair comparison. Instead, let me give a better one.
Regardless of what some people may think of Final Fantasy VII, Sephiroth is undeniably one of the most popular villains in the franchise, and also one of the more threatening. Throughout the game, you constantly meet him (well, his Jenova clone at least) and he causes destruction and chaos wherever he goes. He manages to permanently kill one of your party members, and succeeds in summoning a giant meteor that threatens the entire planet.
Yet, though it is implied the meteor would hit once a certain time has passed, the only way to actually see this happen is if the player decides to advance in the story. There is no real time-limit, you can basically do whatever you want to do. Sephiroth himself really sits there in his crater, waiting for the heroes to show up. Yes, exactly the same as Ganondorf.
So what makes Sephiroth a better villain than Ganondorf then? Surely it doesn't have to do with time-limits or gameplay mechanics. Rather, it's probably the depth of his backstory, the depth of his entire personality that really makes him memorable. Something I want Zelda villains to have too.
This is such an interesting article for the franchise. Until this (can I say) flaw was highlighted, it didn't strike me, that as the player we simply follow along and almost do as we're told. That feeling of impending doom was so high in Majora's Mask, it's a wonder why it wasn't kept in for subsequent releases.
What I'd honestly like to see is more screen-time from Ganondorf or other villan. If Ganondorf truly did want to take over the world, surely he'd have more of an active involvement rather than letting dungeon bosses have their way in a small section of the world. Perhaps Twilight Princess hit this nail on the head with the Twilight taking over Hyrule. Who knows, but keep these well thought out posts coming!
The time limit I can't say is necessarily a "bad" thing. I mean, look at MM: Among many of the other reasons Majora was awesome, the time limit worked to perfection. Three Days. That was it. You have three days to save the world. Of course you can reset time and in all reality: Take as long as you damn well please. Or, you can lose yourself in the game, forget to watch the clock, and the next thing you know the the moon hits the world and bam, it all goes away.
That was the beauty of it: If you failed, you got to watch the world get destroyed. Forget Majora for a moment: You have this moon, with a face, coming constantly closer and closer to hitting the ground throughout the entire game. It's actually pretty epic in making me worry. THen, the shockingly complex story for the villian begins to unfold as you go. You start to feel bad for the skull kid. You start to ponder some of the real issues in this small world.
Time limit is fine, but obviously not needed. The depth of the Characters, including the main villian, is something I want to see return from MM.
I also agree and disagree. I agree with Zelda villains having to be more threatening, but throwing in a time limit in the game is just ridiculous. Nobody likes time limits. Maybe on racing games and so, but not a game like Zelda.
Maybe a clock telling you how much time you have left isn't necessary.
I thought of something a bit different: as Link progresses in his adventure (when he completes a temple or whatever), something changes in the land, as if the villain is "attacking" again.
I loved the three days mechanis from Majora's Mask - hey, it's my favorite Zelda game. But I don't know if that would work for every game. In MM, you could return in time. Without that ability, the player would be forced to complete the game in an exact ammount of time.
Of course a time limit isn't always bad. The way it was implemented in Majora's Mask was absolutely brilliant. However, it had its flaws, like standing around and waiting for certain events to happen, or barely missing the moment you had to do something, and resetting time from the very beginning. Also, if a next game were to incorporate such a feature, it would either fail miserably, or come off as a Majora's Mask rip-off.
Then there's the negative appeal of time restriction. When it comes in short segments, like Metroid, it can actually enhance the experience, and most seem to like the thrill. However, I know many people who adore the Zelda games, yet won't even touch MM because they are under the impression the game is forcing them to do the main objectives, rather then take the time to explore. 'Tis sad indeed, but that's the way it is.
Luisa's idea sounds cool. Segmented changes in the environment seem like a good substitute for a time limited Zelda game. I also agree that the time limit was one of the things that made Majora's Mask so awesome, and that replicating it might not work for every game. However, I do like timed mini games and side quests. Maybe that's just me though.
Everything in moderation is a staple of great video games. Perhaps, ONE dungeon with a set time limit to complete would suffice. It might even distinguish that dungeon from the others, which is something Zelda dungeons have been lacking.
BTW, I'm not recommending another Temple of the Ocean King. But stuff like that just goes to show how Nintendo is still experimenting, which in my view, is a good thing. Regardless, you could write articles upon articles just on the sub-thoughts of Mel's piece, let alone other elements of the series. There's almost too much to cover.
I agree with the comments that the villain needs a more deep personality and backstory.
But, what makes Zelda lacking that is not that the villain doesn't have a backstory or a very-evil personality, it's the lack of continuity...
What I'd love is a Ganondorf that remembers his past defeats against Link or The Hero. Something a little like the Wind Waker's Ganondorf, who was a sadder villain, weakened by the past battles (OoT or TP, I don't know).
I want a TP2, or a WW2, or something like that (Not a OoT2, I feel TP is better), too.
I understand what the author of the article is saying. He is right that the time limit did give everyone who played "MM" an edgy feeling of losing everything in the game. Along with others who commented on this article as well.Many of you have strong points as to how the gameplay was, could improve in another installment, how the a characters depth/backstory plays a role in the game or is similar to another games play. I agree with all of the pros and cons you all have posted. But I'd like to share what I would like to see improved in the next installment of the zelda series.
I too would like to have that feeling you get when the the timer in "MM" almost runs out and makes you scramble to get things done on time again. Like turning working on a term paper last minute where you know if you dont complete it you'll fail it. But it doesn't have to be with a time limit. I didn't like it because it limited me from exploring the world of "MM".
I'd like, (This is an idea), to see another villian play a big role in the series(If possible without eliminating any characters. meaning the game would be very long). But not siding with ganon. As in, having two great villians (similar to 'TP') But for complete different reasons to obtaining the Triforce.
Almost like "SEIKEN DENSETSU 3" where there are multiple different endings. Only in my idea of threats, having two different strong threats from the two villians. The villains can include Ganondorf, a desert nomad who just wants more power, and maybe a newer villian who comes from a similar background where either villians purpose has a greater or lesser effect on the land of hyrule/the world than the other.
Both can have his/her righthand men/women who set out their evil lord/"ess" orders sending the dungeon Bosses and Mid-Bosses out that cause great danger/nuisance to the towns people/ environment. Making you feel like it's impossible to defeat the game not knowing what the outcome will be if you fail to defeat either one of the final bosses. This maybe a bit extreme to take in but it's just an idea as to bringing back the feeling of losing everything in the game.
... Did I get off topic? I didn't mean to. But what do you think? would my idea bring back that feel?
@Arkamidis89
Wow! Off topic? No way. My adrenaline went through the roof just reading that! This is the kind of stuff I wish Nintendo would pay more attention to.
Multiple villains; great idea. I guess I would like to see something like one of the villains starting out as the main enemy with all the power, and another of much lesser status, who might even start out as an ally of Link or something. One of them preferably would be more sane and interested in maintaining his/her power structure, while the other fairly unstable, and desiring a somewhat noble cause (i.e. equality for all) but trying so in an extremely disturbing way.This leads to another point. Why not use the Triforce more extensively with regards to villains. I would love to see a villain who possessed the Triforce of Wisdom, and could use it to read the minds of others to see if they were lying, or know of their secret intentions. Perhaps those powers could be used to drive people insane in addition to all the other powers that would come from imbuing such an artifact. Think of the final battle against something like that.
Maybe even better is the opposite of that original idea. How about multiple heroes? The story could start out as Link being the central figure, but towards the end, another side character steps forward as the true chosen one or something. Link's place could be the guardian of the one who bears the Triforce of Courage among other things. I don't know, these are just some random ideas, but I think everyone gets the point.
The only thing I'd disagree with is the thought of no one getting eliminated. This includes Ganondorf. I think it's time to give him a break. Good characters should pass on throughout the game too. I would like to get attached to a really likable character, perhaps even fighting as and with him or her at certain points, only to see them fall to the main villain. Getting back to villains, it would be awesome to see two main villains battling to the death at some point in the story. That would be just be epic!
Finally, I think side villains need to be expanded. You know, the ones we fight at the end of Temples. I want to come into an area and really get exposed to what the local villain is all about. I want back story, I want to be intimidated, and I wanna know what that villain has done. Each central area in the quest should have a unique villain. All with their own complexities.
To Rianne,
Thanks for liking my idea. I also liked your idea of expanding the use of the Triforce and having the story in an almost third person view. I really would like to see Nintendo 'MAN UP' in a way.
Thanks for a great article! It got me thinking and I came up with some ideas that might work as well. The combination of being tired and inspired has made my reply a bit of a mess but here goes anyway:
I would like to see tougher battles and situations; powerful enemies (even just by numbers) that you actually need to hide and/or get away from. Kind of like when you were first exploring the Lost Woods in the original Zelda (I only recently got the chance to play it through, so this is not just cheap nostalgia I'm conjuring up) and there were Moblins all over the place. Maybe enemies that actively hunt the player and can show up unexpectedly at almost any time (as in Metroid Fusion). There might even be some lessons to learn from the survival horror genre.
Also small sidequest-ish objectives that won't make you lose the game if you fail to meet them but will have consequences that will make you feel guilty and very sad and perhaps make things a bit harder would be a great thing to put into future games. MM had this and it worked well.
I guess what I really am after here is the ability of the "evildoers" to take the initiative and actually pressure you so that the game will remain interesting, because just relying on the Story will eventually make you feel like you're watching some guy play the game on youtube or something. I think TP (which made me feel like a tourist in a theme park called Zelda-land) and WW (the one where you went sailing) became rather shallow and bland after a while.
All right, you guys left me a lot to think about... but, first things first:
Do Zelda villains need to be more threatening? In my opinion, ABSOLUTELY YES. I think that's the one thing everyone agrees on, about the rest I also see many differences in opinions as to what or how should they become more menacing and I think everyone has made a valuable point.
I have always thought Zelda does have this problem, but my contribution to the solving of it is substantially different from the rest of you. What I would personally like is to have a real challenge in every boss fight, even a greater challenge in fighting minor enemies.
How many of you defeated Ganondorf in their first or perhaps second attempt in OoT or in TP? In subsequent playthroughs, how many felt challenged by him? There is my point.
The author of the article clearly states: "Very rarely do they pose a real threat to the hero" and he is so right. If you think about it either Link is overpowered or the villain is terribly weak. How many hearts does a boss take away form you in every attack? And, is that attack hard to evade? We all know the answer to that.
There is one thing all gamers have in common: we love challenges, because it makes us feel good when we overcome them. Now don't get me wrong, Zelda has always been a challenging series, some games more than others, because of their puzzles and what not, and the amazing sense of adventure and infinite possibilities that they have, as well as the storylines, these are the things that make Zelda great, the things that I hope and I know that they will always be there, but whats needs to change is the difficulty of the enemies.
I also know that Nintendo and many people think that hard boss battles would scare away many more casual players, and honestly I do not agree with this argument, here is why: the true casual player, the one that grabs a game for 30 minutes once every week or month, is NEVER going to complete a Zelda game as it is. What I'm saying is, the player that has the will and persistence necessary to complete the puzzles in order to complete a Zelda game also has the will to fight a strong enemy, and in contrast the player who will not be interested in a challenging puzzle and long story line is the same one that cannot hold himself in battle. Is more of a personality trait I think. In conclusion: All the players who have been able to beat any given Zelda game by solving each puzzle are also able to beat a strong adversary. Also, what can be more threatening than a boss that is also a good challenge?
How many of you think that Metroid has challenging puzzles? How many of you think it has challenging boss fights? I personally think that the puzzle complexity is relatively similar to Zelda although it varies a lot. In the other hand the boss fights in any Metriod are way more challenging than in any Zelda game. This is the kind of balance that I would like for the Zelda series. How many of you defeated the Omega Pirate or the Metroid Prime in their first attempt? How many of you defeated them in the fifth or tenth attempt? I think I get my point across. Now I'm not saying that there should be near to impossible boss fights, but seriously it is ridiculous when Ganondorf hits you after the 15th attempt and he takes away (in some attacks) less than a heart, when most people reach Ganondorf with at least 13-16 hearts and it is possible to have 20 plus fairies, potions and what not, I have no motivation for searching hearts other than just for the entertainment of it, but I do not need them! The bosses should be threatening and challenging enough so that I would want to have every single heart and fairy possible!
In my second play through of TP I wanted the fights to me more challenging so what I did is I did not grab any heart containers. I still grabbed some heart pieces in the dungeons by accident because I don´t remember what is in each treasure chest, so I beat the game with a total of five hearts and only a couple of game overs, the fights were still to easy. I want to feel the excitement and have that menacing feeling every time that I am about to open a door to a boss's chamber, I want to feel that if I do not concentrate and give it my absolute best I can be in some serious trouble. Bit enough of this point.
As far as the time limit in MM, it did work, that and many other elements of the game did make it more threatening and challenging, although it also has the disadvantage that many already mentioned. Miyamoto created Zelda to be non-linear, so that you can wonder all you want, so that there is as little boundaries as possible, and the time limit is a non-necessary boundary and goes against the spirit of freedom in Zelda, then again a threatening feeling is also a boundary, so this feature has its pro's and con's.
On to the point where some say that each boss should have an impact on their particular area I disagree, since this is already implemented. Did the water in Lake Hylia not come back after you cleared the Water Temple in OoT? Yet I think is something that could be more emphasized, for example I expected Zora's Domain to defrost and it really disappointed me when this did not happen in OoT, this was magnificently corrected though in TP. So some games have this feature while others are in serious lack of it.
The multiple villain idea is good but has also been implemented already in TP and it worked very well, I enjoyed it a lot. Still more experimentation is needed and welcomed in this aspect.
Also this is all about thinking outside the box right? Have you ever played evil mode in any of The Lord of the Rings games? Wouldn't it be fun, interesting and refreshing to just once play as Ganondorf? Trying to conquer Hyrule in typical Zelda gameplay except on the evil side. Anyway I guess that is a different topic... sorry...
As far as the background of the villain I think it was very well done in several games but not in all of them, for example what they did with Vaati in MC was poor, in contrast it was very well done with Ganondorf in OoT, WW and TP and with Zant it was good as well. With the skull kid it was good too. The best though (in this particular aspect) was Ganondorf in Oot, then again this is only natural given the fact that OoT can be thought of as the prequel to all the other games.
As far as the Villains killing any given character to make them seem more menacing, this was, I think well done in TP, I actually thought for a moment that Zelda was dead, which was awesome, and also Midna was severely injured by Zant and Link thrown aside at a point, so this measure has also been already implemented, and it was perfect, Zelda needed something like that, I hope this is emulated in fore coming games.
I agree that a scene like the one in MM where the moon actually crashes on Clock Town does increase the level of threat in a villain and in the game overall, this kind of thing has also to be emulated in future games. But going back to the challenging issue, in other games you feel threatened by the enemy specially when he kills you once and over again, now, when are you going to feel that if the boss does not ever manage to kill you? Think about it, every time you die in a game it has the same effect as that scene from MM where the moon crashes, why? Because it means the enemy can actually make you fail.
When they say that the villain has to be more active, I am not completely sure about that, I think Ganondorf has been active enough in the more resent games, in the other hand, a more inactive villain like Sauron is great because it creates a sense of mystery and allows you to unconsciously develop a greater fear, simply because we humans fear that which we do not know, so the less you know about something the more frightening and threatening it becomes. In the other hand, a well respected villain is one that has beaten the hero numerous times before, EG: The Boss, from Metal Gear Solid 3 beats Snake to a pulp at least three times in a row in different encounters until the final showdown where Snake finally manages to get the upper hand, this worked great because you knew that The Boss was a real threat to the hero, in this case Snake, I personally think this would be the best way to go as far as making the villain a true threat to the hero. Another example of the same thing is Doomsday from Superman, it is a lot more interesting to see the Man of Steel fight someone who represents a great physical threat to him than someone holding a gun given the fact that the man is bullet-proof. Think about it, we know that Link (Mater Sword)is a great threat to Ganondorf because we all know, as does Ganon("An impressive looking blade, but nothing more"), that he has been beaten by Link several times before, which does not do good to the story because we always know that in the end it appears as if Ganon was no match for Link. Now imagine it was the other way around, imagine a Link that has already been killed by Ganon, and a quest in which his spirit wonders until it finds a way to come back to life and redeem himself by beating a foe that was of former greater power than him, besides it is easier for people to identify with heroes that have at some point fallen, because we have ALL fallen at a point in our lives, rather than a hero who always succeeds no matter what... of course this is just an example, it doesn't have to be as dramatic but I think I get my point across...
Well there you have my point of view...
To Epigo,
Nice. I probably would've said something like that. But I was afraid it would be way too much to read with what I already posted. I do Agree with a lot of what you're saying as well.
Finally an article that pretty much summarizes exactly what I have been trying to explain to people all along.
I can't stress enough on how the Zelda Franchise needs to head a new direction. Nintendo has played it very safe with Zelda for the longest time. Hell every franchise played it safe (With the exception of M rated games like Mortal Kombat). But most of these franchises have matured along with it's core audience. Nintendo has failed to do that in fear that the company would receive negative reaction from Zelda Fans, when that could be farthest from the truth. Death, Danger, Turmoil and Suffering needs to be added to Zelda games. I always feel like Zelda is shown in a positive light, a little TOO positive. I agree that the main villain in the story needs more depth, it's always "Yeah I wanna fight you for the Triforce and the world, get at me"; there's never really a deeper reasoning for the antagonist's behavior. I feel that more emotion from not only the villain but the hero (along with the rest of the characters) would be fantastic. Show link shed tears, blow out in complete rage, Have the antagonist (Ganon/dorf) kill some of his friends or even his family (I'm not trying to sound sick, just trying to implement darker ideas); A Link that has passion and fear for what lies ahead, A Link who bleeds whenever he's wounded, A Link who loses more than 2 hearts when he's badly injured. Not some clueless boy who's saving the land for the sake of saving it. I loved the idea of there being several scenarios, although I doubt Nintendo will do such a thing as it interferes with the Zelda "timeline", but it would be something I'd love to see in the next Zelda game. I know that if the Zelda Team would take these wonderful ideas posted by posters before me; they would have an awesome game in their hands. Zelda needs to be darker, uglier, more dangerous. But alas, all I can do is dream :(.
Look,
I somewhat agree with this article, but then again..... I'm someone who loves to be surprised by Nintendo. Time limits would be nice in some parts of the game, but not to be the whole basis such as in Majora's Mask. ZELDA DOES NOT NEED TO BE UGLIER OR DARKER, IT JUST NEEDS TO BE DEEPER. Miyamoto and the other in the Zelda Team has specifically told us that if you're looking for a dark, bloody game that seems to define more on the negative and vile parts, then go to the other systems. The Zelda series has a pure, innocent heart and soul (Just like Princess Zelda), and it should be kept that way. If we make a move like that, it'll ruin the whole meaning of the series. We TRUE Zelda fans go for it's beauty and innocence! No drugs, nudity (the great fairy does not count!), or sexual content. Sure I would like to see some time enforcing influence in the game, BUT ONLY IN SOME PARTS! I sometimes like to take it slow, and the truth is so do a lot of other people. AND I CERTAINLY DO NOT WANT TO "DO THE UNTHINKABLE" LITTLE MISS RHIANNE! I understand your point of view, but to destroy Princess Zelda and the King is to already to have said, "oh crap, the king and his daughter are dead, who are we going to make king now once Link has saved us? Oh, how about Link?" GIVE ME A BREAK! Zelda is going to be in the heart of The Legend of Zelda forever, and what I like about Zelda's character is that she doesn't have to be in the limelight all the time. If you want to play another Nintendo series that has a full-time princess star go play Mario (no offense to Mario, I also love that series too). Girls who are flexible are the best, just like the BLONDE Princess Zelda. A little more emotion from Link would be nice, but not too much. He's not a young, lost boy; he's a strong young man who can't suck his thumb when the going gets tough, because he has the fate of Hyrule on his shoulders! And last time I checked, he wasn't alone. I'm pretty sure he has help from many well- known characters such as Navi, Tatle and Midna! Each story has a different Link to be based on, but each each story is based on the LEGEND OF ZELDA.
One boy, one girl (who is to always be Zelda), ONE LEGEND.
Think about it, what you decide now will affect the world tomorrow. Do you really want to screw up the best Legend ever?
From a true Zelda Fan forever,
ZeldaGurl
Thanks for supporting my ideas Arkamidis
To Brickeater:
Maybe is not so much darker or uglier, but I completely agree on the "more emotional aspect" in general for all characters.
I believe that we watch movies and play games for the same reason: they make us feel things, experience our human emotions and thoughts through fictional story, they make us live more than just our own lives, they allow us to live through fictional characters as well, and increasing the overall emotional tone in a story is always what makes it great. Good point Brickeater.
To ZeldaGurl
Maybe you like to stick with reruns, but most Zelda fans are yearning for difference in the game, and yes by that I also mean a darker, uglier, and edgier Zelda. And another thing, who are you to determine who is a true Zelda or not? Are you aware that most Zelda Fans also love Halo, GOW, FF, RE? I'm sure that fairies and pixie dust is not what they're yearning, so if you're going to leave criticism make sure it's constructive instead of purposefully bashing other people's point of views.
Take some pointers from Epigo and learn to control your emotions.
@Epigo
Damn! I thought no one would ever surpass me for longest comment, but at least I tried.
I thought your idea of making individual enemies more challenging was brilliant. While most of us complain about the boss fights (which are a relevant problem) it's been easy to overlook the regular enemies. I think good solutions would be to improve A.I., have the enemies utilize their surrounding environment more, make them stronger, and for God's sake create some new and original enemies already!
I also liked your idea of a more unknown villain. It is true we fear that which we know very little of. I think, however, that you can have an extremely active villain be just as compelling. I guess my beef with Zelda villains is partly that they tend to fall categorically between the stated types. This acts to dilute their essence in a way.
@Bruce A. Dodongo
Villains taking the initiative? That just sounds awesome! I also like the idea of more and similar sidequests to those in MM. That's something the series needs desperately.
@Arkamidis89
Thanks for posting your ideas. Lots of people have great ideas and never tell anyone. It pisses me off.
@brickeater
Yes, yes, yes, and yes to both of your posts.
@ZeldaGurl
"AND I CERTAINLY DO NOT WANT TO "DO THE UNTHINKABLE" LITTLE MISS RHIANNE!"
Awesome! I'm taking that as my new nickname XD
Honestly though, I understand and respect the views of strict constructionists. Though many of us want some serious overhaul, it's important to remember why we fell in love with the series to begin with. Let me just say that no one (other than myself) is recommending nudity (which already happened) or drugs (Tingle hittin' the bong anyone?) or anything else that might taint this wonderful series. That's what we have the Grand Theft Auto games for anyway!
I'll just put in my two rupees here:
What I think the series needs is a villain who you get to know a lot, kind of like skull kid, but not the kind that you feel sorry for and end up saving the world. We need a huge, dark, pure evil, I-will-do-anything-to-get-Hyrule-and/or-Triforce-for-me-and-not-sit-in-my-tower-and-wait-for-the-hero-to-come-and-kill-me sort of villain. The villain wouldn't let the other baddies do their work, they would appear in front of you and smack you across the face or something after you ruin a part of his plans. We could have multiple battles against the big baddie, spread throughout the entire game. As you get stronger, the villain also gets more stronger. Like in the first time you fight him, his huge powerful attack only takes away 1 1/2 hearts or something. The last time you battle him, that same attack takes away double, triple, or heck, even quadriple that amount! The landscape can slowly be turning into a huge dark wasteland as you try to go about saving it, kinda like what Luisa said.
Also, I think that you should have some way to drive you to save the people of Hyrule; to be able to get to know them better, something they failed in TP. Having more towns then just one central place in the middle of Hyrule with two other puny villages didn't make me feel like I needed to save the people. We need to have NPCs that have lots of feeling, again, not like the ones in TP. I didn't feel like it didn't really matter if I saved them or not, because I didn't know them. In OoT and MM on the other hand, I felt like I needed to save them because they weren't just some useless NPC that told me nonsense. We need to be able to connect with the people of Hyrule in order to feel the drive to save it.
What do you think?
A good villain needs pacing. I've played games before where the main villain would not **** off. Such things make the character annoying and lose any impact originally had.
In Zelda games, you never get a chance to fight the villain until the end. That in itself can also be problematic. If you're gonna have multiple battles, you gotta space them out few and far between. Ideally, counting the final battle, 2, maybe 3 encounters would suffice. The first 1 or 2 would have to be intense though. Throwing top dog in early has to have some meaning behind it. Preferably, the goal in battle would not be to win, but merely survive until help arrives or the villain becomes bored with you. The impact on the player would be tremendous. Taking massive hits of damage from small swipes, being completely unaware that they are in a waiting game, and the sheer number of deaths the player would experience during such a battle would certainly leave one horrified of the next encounter. This is one way I see multiple villain battles being meaningfully incorporated.
As for needing more bigger towns and useful NPCs, most of us couldn't agree more. This has been a problem with the series for some time now, but in Twilight Princess, everything hit rock bottom. Can you imagine living in a world where the majority of people were unable to communicate and people like friends and family were only able to function in 1 or 2 fashions? It would drive us mad, thus we shouldn't accept it in epics like Zelda anymore. The truth is, the more living a world is, the more engrossing it is.
Hey again,
@BrickEater
Hey, look I'm sorry if I offended you man, I really didn't mean to. Like you I am all for a brand new Zelda, but I do want to keep some of the original feeling going. I don't know about you, but I'm sick of everybody bashing Miyamoto and his team for having different ways of doing their business. Maybe some blood here and there, but not too much, only because it takes the Zelda game series one more step closer to being more related to all the other games out there. I do like to have a nostalgic feeling at a certain moment here and their when I the newest game out, it kind of brings me back to the roots of the Zelda series. So look, I am sorry for the miscommunication, and I do tend to get emotional when it comes to the people and things that I love. Yes though, to a deeper, more emotional setting of the legend. Good point.
@Rhianne
Also, I do want to apologize for coming across the wrong way. I do see your side, and I respect that, I just have to learn how to put my caps in the right spot at the right time...lol. You have very good points, and I truly am sorry if I offended you. I agree with you on the NPC situation, and the games would be so much cooler if the people did have their own personalities. I think I could wait longer for the next game if I knew that that was going to happen!!! But hey, I'm letting Miyamoto surprise me man!!! A heads up or hint would be kinda nice though....
@Epigo
Right on! I agree.
Once again,
I'm sorry if I offended anybody else. I'm usually not that cross with my writing, but hey, we're only human right? Trust me, I'm not a jerk.
Sincerely,
ZeldaGurl
feel like i can touch what this article is saying