| ZenfoldorVGI said: Structure of any Zelda game: 1. Princess/Hyrule is in peril. 2. Brave warrior uses bravery to remedy said peril. 3. Moves from dungeon to dungeon gaining new abilities which unlock next dungeon, fights boss in each one. Dungeons are puzzle based with intermittent fighting. 4. Gather trophy/triforce at end of each dungeon, in order to join at end of game to help with ending peril/evil/ect. 5. Overworld is used to travel between dungeons, interact with NPCs and stores, and to explore using said abilities to unlock special items, including maps, bottles to carry things, spells, heart containers, heart pieces, and magical increases. Overworld is occasionally transversable in more than one way, including vehicles, animals, and on foot. Majora's Mask broke up the formula to a degree, by adding time as a variable, and giving you a central hub style overworld, rather than an open one. Majora's Mask is about as small of a change in the formula as one would expect, and even that small of a change made the game vastly different. Let's hope Nintendo does something at least as gamechanging as they did in MM. |
When the creators of Zelda talk about changing up the Zelda formula, they're mostly talking about changing up the gameplay formula. Most people like to focus on the idea of them changing the story (aka steampunk/future Zelda) or that they'll be making some new character or something. But this is the opposite of how they work on the Zelda series. Miyamoto has made it clear from the beginning, the focus for Zelda (and really any Nintendo series) is to focus on the gameplay first, and then create a story and setting around that. So the idea that it'll focus on the 'trinity' (Zelda/Ganon/Link) and have dungeons/Overworld is pretty much a given.
The only time they didn't do this was with Twilight Princess. And as a result, they got a mixed reception for the finished game, eventhough they were trying to create a game 'bigger and better than Ocarina of Time'.
Six upcoming games you should look into:
