OMG Zelda!!

The word "mature" has been thrown around so much in the Wii vs HD debate, same as the word "hardcore", that it has lost any fixed meaning.

To me a "mature" Zelda means a more realistic (graphically) game.  Voice acting is a way of making it more realistic.  But it is a matter of cultural preference.  TWW was more accepted in Japan than it was in the West.  I've always a Zelda fan, but I remember when the N64 demo came out with a more realistic Link.  I remember thinking how awesome it was.  Then when the GC came out I was imagining an even more realistic Link, but instead we got an animated look.  The game was great but the style was not expected.

With TP I was glad at the more "mature" look and I loved the game. But I can still see some of the "drawn" style in the chaacters. A bit "anime" or "manga".  So I believe that is what the G4 people mean when they say a "mature" Zelda.

The phrase thrown around a lot is that "Nintendo has been making the same thing since I was a kid"

Not everyone was born early enough to play Super Mario World. I was lucky enough to play it, since it was released a year before I was even born.

Nintendo has to make games for every new generation. The only alternative is to cease making new entries in these franchises- which is absolutely ridiculous.

Indeed.

But going back to the OP they did not state that they want Nintendo to steer to entirely new courses. They said they'd like someone else to take a stab at the material.

I mean, Zelda's franchise has built a proper corpus of mythos. It's only understandeable if someone wants to see a new take on the raw foundations.

Sometimes these things go badly, and sometimes the re-elaboration or subversion works smoothly with the original. Me, I liked "The Forbidden Planet" and "The Company of Wolves" and "American McGee's Alice" as I think in their spinning off they still built on the underlying themes of the mythos they refer to.

That said, the comment on Nintendo "watering down" RPGs was obviously superficial.

I just want to say a couple of things regarding G4's comments:

Firstly, The only RPG that Nintendo makes that I could even see as being watered down is Paper Mario.  The likes of Fire Emblem and Baten Kaitos aren't watered down at all.

Secondly, I've only played one of Bioware's games and from my experience of that game I do not want Zelda to be like it at all.  Sonic Chronicles is an 'above average' RPG and that's it.  If Zelda had to be given to any RPG developer, I would far far prefer it to be given to better RPG developer such as Mistwalker, Square-Enix, Level 5, Monolith or Atlus than Bioware.  I know I've only played one Bioware game, but after Sonic Chronicles I don't think I want to try the others.

Really 1up too? Oh goodness. G4 is either ignorant or . . . well, actually there's nothing else they're being just plain ignorant. Hardcore? What does that mean? Is Grand Theft Auto "hardcore"? Cause I'm pretty sure Mario Galaxy 2 is better than any GTA game so does that make Mario Galaxy 2 super hardcore? Idk that doesn't make any sense. And mature. I'm pretty sure Shigeru Miyamoto's games are more mature than any other developer's games, not because of the content, but because he respects gaming on a different level.

I think what they said worse is that Nintendo watered down rpgs.... with nothing to back up.

LOL!

zelda not mature enough... excited about little big planet?

zelda not long enough (70 hours for Twilight Princess).... so they should make it 80 hours long?

Sorry but I found this quite funny.