I would think that by now there is no doubt among all of you loyal Zelda Informer viewers that we pride ourselves on our articles. Right from the fully-fledged, intensely in-depth Bombers articles, to the opinionated, reader-stirring casuals. Yeah, we're proud to have been the first Zelda fansite to focus on Zelda-related articles, but now, years down the track, we're not the only place who does it anymore.No, I'm not talking about Zelda Universe's writing team, or what happens over at The Hidden Triforce. I'm talking about the collaborative project known as Zelda Wiki.org, which Zelda Informer takes an active role in running. Well, Zelda Wiki.org doesn't just offer factual encyclopedic articles, it also offers the occasional opinionated piece, referred to as wiki exclusives.
Just the other day, wiki exclusive number six was released, entitled,"The Darkness that Zelda Deserves". Written by Brent McBride, the article contends that by giving future titles in the Zelda series deeper and darker storylines, the gaming experience can be enhanced. It makes for a very interesting read, so head on over and check it out. The article can be found here, and if you're up for some more reading check out the wiki exclusive archives.
Categories: Fan Community News
I totally agree with this article. Zelda has always been...so "censored". By that I mean, they've always toned it down to an "E"rated level (excluding TP). Same with Batman. Batman was always "censored". But then Christopher Nolan came along and made the entire world of Batman so dark. I think this should be down with Zelda.
Sorry I meant "I think this should be DONE with Zelda."
Thanks for the shout out Nate!
Posted on February 8, 2010 11:59 PM by Dathen Boccabella
Wasn't me bro.
Thanks anyways. and Thanks Dathen
Mr. McBride's arguments are of the following:
-Ganon/dorf should be not only physically intimidating, but also mentally threatening. He, and the other villains, should be more aggressive towards Link, and not just hiding in a tower.
-Link should face a challenging dilemma. The dilemma that he faces should brake his spirit, making Link a depressed and tragic hero.
-The villain should win at least in one game. Thus creating the possibility of anther game to continue the storyline that would redeems the hero's status by trying to conquer the villain again.
I always rearguarded Ganon/dorf a dumb brute, who doesn't fight unless he sees the fight to his advantage or has no place to retreat, because he has not wisdom or courage. But for the sake of game-play I can see how Ganon/dorf's current game plan can kill the evil-villain intimidation.
I really like games that offer choices that could change the storyline of the game. It offers great replay-value.
Link will not be angst person, wallowing in his sins, and wondering if there's a thing called redemption (that's Vincent Valentine's job). But McBride mentions that Link will work for his grace. In my own words, that is something someone with courage and humility would do, and if that person succeeds doing so, then he will emerge as a greater person.
'Artistically' wise, the villain winning the game is interesting, but do I, the player, want to spend hours going through dungeons and hack-slashing minions, only to learn it's all for naught? I like some closer. And the possibility of making a part II as a completely different game would not be very economical if the game sells poorly. For Zelda, Nintendo would probably have to cuz of the large fanbase. If the villain is to 'win', then it should be a sometime during the middle of the game.
Lastly, this is just a gripe I have when people they want something darker. Like King Nope said, creating something darker can be disastrous to a franchise. A much better term to use would be profound, or even epic, for something like the LoZ series.
PS, this was all written during an insomnia episode. I apologize in advance if there are any spelling errors or unclear sentences.
embarrassing moment to be Legend of Zelda
I'm game for deeper storylines, but they don't necessarily have to be darker.
Just read the article, and I couldn't agree with anything, *anything* in it.
I mean, the whole "hero has to suffer in a story" thing... that's, like... who in the holy name of Miyamoto would even suggest putting that in a Zelda game?
It seems like it was a sadistic fangirl who likes to see Link suffer who wrote that.
Of course, a hero has low points in the story. But that doesn't mean the character itself has to have out-of-character-darkness. Zelda isn't about drama and this cheap "I'll kill either one, you choose" stuff.
Very well written article and all that, but... Tragic Link? No thanks.
This article has two sides. One side, that is full of cliches (there is already too many psychologically tested heroes, they are nothing new, and I respect Zeldas because they stay above of certain fashions, includin lots of dying side-characters. What would LotR be if Legolas, Gimli and Sam had died?)
The other side of the article, is the potential side:
Take for example a game like this:
First, you barge throught, say, 2-5 dungeons: The comes the choise: You have to do the choise in the article, and you can do it yourself, thus choosing from two different continues of the game. The hero laments and so on, but then you find something. A way to undo your choise, and choose both.
And in this new world (even though you can use the old one too, because it is potential as well), you barge through some 3-10 dungeons, and finally save them both.
Think about it: No separate endings - crap. Zeldas does not need them. Possibly the plain old dungeon-overworld-dungeon- texture, the very one that made Mjora's Mask, Ocarina of Time and Legend of Zelda so great, or maybe not.
The other things that are possible in any zelda anyway goes without saying.
Legolas and Gimli dying... meh. But Sam... SAM. Sam is The Lord of the Rings.
You can always run the risk of making a game (or anything for that matter) too dark.