Where should Zelda go next?

[archbrix]

happydolphin said:

archbrix said:

happydolphin said:

As much as I have the same desire (the magic of Zelda 1 was never recreated), I don't think you can say with certainty that it was lost due to the 3rd dimension.

One thing that was lost is the fast-paced twitch gameplay from Zelda 1 and 3.  The lock-on feature introduced in Ocarina was quite genius; it was perhaps the best solution of making combat feel 2D in a 3D space, but it still makes the gameplay into something different from the original.

Another difference is simply the vantage point for the gameplay.  In 3D Zelda you can't see all of a room at once like you can in Zelda 1 and 3.  It makes the game feel different, although it works well for a series like Zelda, which is still based around exploration; in 3D Mario games like Sunshine where half of the gameplay is playing cameraman, it completely changes the game into something else (which is why I love Galaxy's camera system).

Puzzles are also handled differently in the 3D Zeldas.  The original had its own puzzles too, but revolved more around which block to push or how the rooms linked together, with the combat still a big focus of the game.  The puzzles themselves weren't as elaborate as they are in Ocarina.  I love both of these approaches, however, which is another reason I feel both types of games should live on, but these are some of the things that I believe Miyamoto was referring to with his statement.

That thing that makes Zelda what it is (the interview you took from) is not linked to the gameplay or puzzles, but to the general feel of the game. I felt like Zelda II was still Zelda, despite being very different gameplay-wise to Zelda I. The baddies, the colors, the intensity, it was all there.

The fact that 3D Zelda introduced the Z  trigger doesn't bind the 3D Zelda branch to a Z-triggering system, despite its excellence. I'm trying to think outside the box a bit. 3D Zelda could easily get back to twitch-reaction gameplay, it would just require a different battle system, because the Z-trigger limits movement (and freedom) to a degree. Also, basic puzzles are not made obsolete by a 3rd dimension. It all depends on how far the makers want to take the freedom offered by the 3rd dimension, and if they want to complexify. The question being, if they do take the 3D's full potential and complexify (even if they don't have to), does this remove from the Zeldaness of it all? Try to see what I'm trying to say, it's a little fuzzy because we assume 3D means something it may not have had to be.

And I agree that both should live on.

For me, classic Zelda is based on much more than the colors.  Zelda 2 doesn't have nearly the same feel as 1 or 3.  It feels very different to me. 

I can't for the life of me find that interview with Miyamoto that I'm referring to (like I said, it was back in '97 or early '98) but what I took away from it was that he was admitting that the gameplay was going to be different from the original, which it was.  Initially, Miyamoto actually wanted Ocarina to be from a first-person perspective because he wanted the land of Hyrule to be experienced that way.  So the idea of change was intentional.

There is just a fundamental difference between z-axis gameplay and x & y-axis gameplay.  Think about COD in 2D.  The gameplay would feel more like Contra than the COD experience.  One of the whole points of changing a 2D game formula into 3D is to make it different; otherwise you'd just implement 3D effects and backgrounds into the x & y-axis.  Games like Ocarina and Metroid Prime are perfect examples of how a series can maintain excellence while undergoing this change into the z-axis, while games like Contra and Castlevania are not.