| Tober said: Well that's how Nintendo looks at it. No new idea, no new game. Gameplay is what the player is doing, how can my examples not be new gameplay. Ask somebody to explain the difference between one Zelda vs. the other and the answer will be the above mentioned gameplay elements. Example. Ask somebody the defining thing about A Link to the Past and the answer is the dual world. But to not to get semantics about features vs. gameplay. What new feature would you put in a new 2D Zelda game to have it stand out? |
I am not so sure that Nintendo really thinks that, rather it's what they say for PR purposes. Doesn't mean there's anything malicious about Nintendo's PR, but most of the time there will be new games in any given series because there is demand for them.
A gameplay concept is something much more complex than a gameplay feature. That's why it is generally the case that if you like one game of a series, you'll like other games of the series as well, because they play very much alike even if they do have clear defining differences upon closer inspection.
As for your question, I wouldn't mind a simple EXP system with a few skill trees; you'd earn skill points with each level up. For the sword tree, you'd upgrade strength, speed, spin attack (range and charge speed) and beam, possibly other special moves. A defense tree would provide elemental resistances, reduced knockbacks from enemy hits and the like. A support tree would allow you to mix potions with fewer ingredients, increase potion efficiency and move faster. These are just some quick ideas. And because some of these things could break the game early on, I'd tie some of these skills to items that need to be collected first or challenges that must be completed first.
Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV will outsell Super Smash Bros. Brawl. I was wrong.
