By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Emily Rogers rumor: Zelda U to have a playable female, fully voice acted, releasing NX and Wii U

Platina said:
ktay95 said:

May I ask why??

Compromising

If it was an exclusive, then they will be able to spend more time with just one game to polish it and maybe and some features in. May not be true, but they could possibly add some features that are exclusive for the NX to make it more enticing

Actually I think one of reasons why Zelda U is delayed to 2016 is NX, and I am pretty sure they will use that extra year to make better and polished game than it if was released in 2015.



Around the Network
twintail said:
Don't really understand the point of Link basically becoming an Avatar of sorts. Choose gender and remain voiceless while other NPCs talk.
Sounds dumb.

As for coming to NX. We all knew that was happening at this point.

Will probably happen to a few other games too.

Link has more often been an avatar than not (the 3D Zeldas are an exception), and he's always been voiceless (has no text dialogue in the games.) The only thing new is that we can choose their gender. 

Honestly, after seeing what Nintendo did with Samus, and she had past of being voiced in Metroid Fusion before Other M, I am glad they don't choose to make Link have a dialogue. 



Wright said:
Nautilus said:

Now you are starting to talk nonsense.Why would I be mad with a Hero mode?I just said that I find Zelda games too easy.Having a harder mode would be great.I mean, the problem with Zelda difficulty in general is not only the ammount of damage or health that you have, but the design itself.Im currently playing through A Link To The Past now, and lord gracious, it is MUCH harder than other zelda games.Not only you have less health in general and enemies does more damage, but you need much more skill than in lets say OOT, Wind Waker or even A Link Betwenn Worlds.If you want to appeal to a more casual audience it WILL come at a cost.After all, you cant just put the desing of the game into easy mode and make a labyrinth into a straight line without fundamentally changing the game.The same would apply to Dark Souls.Dark Souls is not only hard because of the amount of damage that you receive.Its designed from the ground up to be hard, from the positioning of enemies to the how the envirioment if done itself.You cant tone down everything, unless you essentially make a new game altogether.

And I dont get mad with changes.I welcome changes.What I get mad at, which seems that you didnt get quite well, are with changes that are completely unnecessary, or that just have a much better solution.The jump from 2D Zelda for 3D was wonderful.Did it break the tradition?Of course.All games so far were 2D.But it was a wonderful change.And 2D Zelda games kept being made.Spin-off games, more than welcoming.While I dont like musou games, Hyrule Warriors is a good game.(Im completely fine with Linkle in that game for example.Because, you know, she is not Link and is a completely new caracther)

Spoilers for OOT ahead:

And there is one bad scenario In a Zelda game, even though it is never shown.In OOT, in one of the possible futures, Link is defeated by Ganondorf, which leads to the games like Zelda I, Zelda II and so on.And I found that explanation quite good to be honest.

Not only that, but having multiple genders for the main caracthers(Not being a fixed one) can result in a weaker story( I emphasize that can).Unless you invest more than you need, your dialogue will need to be more vague, since you could be either a boy or a girl, so the option to make romantic interests could be severely limited for example.Unless again, you make different dialogues for different genders, but that would need a higher investment for the game, and may give problems to the overall story of the franchise, since Nintendo would need to determine which would be canon and not.Like I said, giving the games more "choices" can come with sacrifices, or consequences, in other areas.Its not as simple as you want to think.

What pisses me is doing changes for the sake of changes.Making a female Link will gain nothing, and will just make fans angry.Sure Nintendo could just do it anyway, but why the hell will it do something considered by many negative when there is a better solution elsewhere?

 

Dark Souls easy mode would simply boost your character and completely nerf the enemies. There's no need to revoke anything else from the dungeon design or enemy placement. A lot of mods allow to do that on the PC version, and people who demanded a casual version downloaded them and beat the game. See? It wasn't that hard, was it? Sure, IMO, the game is much boring that way, but if they managed to enjoy it, more power to them.

You want a harder mode for Zelda games, but I'm fairly sure some people find Zelda games too hard already and would like an easier mode. Why do you get your wish but they don't? No problem, just don't mind when people who like a Female Zelda gets their wish. Not the case, you're angry at it for some reason.

You're just worried about the writting not being on par, but don't you trust Nintendo into making a quality product? So what's the problem them? Don't worry about the story being weaker, if they're including more options they are already aware of the issue.

And you're wrong. Making female Link doesn't make fans angry. I'm a The Legend of Zelda fan and I actually love that Nintendo is giving me the option to play as a female character, whether a new one or a female version of Link. You just can't generalize to twist your argument in your favor.

 

About the Samus thing, I think we've gone way too off-topic at this point. If you want we can continue the conversation via PM.

It may sound mean, but not every game needs to be for everyone.Thats why I dont understand you feel that is important to make everyone included.Its important to sell game sure, but if the director original vision was for the game to be hard and be know as such, it should remain so.And as I said earlier, making a game easier dosent imply just nerfing enemies, but changing the game design too.And since that could potentionally hinder my enjoyment of the game, of course it pisses me a bit.If mods want to do so, let them do.Its their own time and effort, and its not part of the game itself.I dont know your tastes in game so its hard to give a good example, but wouldnt you get a bit mad if your favorite platformer became less of a platformer and more of an action game for example?Sure the game could turn out to be excellent in the end, but the announcement at the very least would be a bit maddening.

"You want a harder mode for Zelda games, but I'm fairly sure some people find Zelda games too hard already and would like an easier mode. " Again as stated above, you need to accept that not every game is for everyone.And its not like I got my wish.Zelda games were originally much harder than they are now.So other people got their wish, not me.I mean, I cant do nothing about it, but I can get angry at it if I feel that the game would be better "my way", cant I?

And I do trust Nintendo.But even Nintendo screw up sometimes.Well, hardly with Zelda or their mainlines franchises, but happens.But my criticism is to the industry in general, not just Nintendo.There are many examples of games that try to be ambitious and try to make many things, but never fully realizes them, when a "smaller" game could have made wonders.

And that last setence makes me giggle.You are criticizing me for generalizing based on my own vision, but then you go saying that fans wont be angry about it just because you like it and Zelda fans are like you?To the point in hand, when I said that fans will get angry at it, of course its not everyone, but a decent amount.Dont ask me to give numbers because of course I dont know.But I would say that it would be enough people to make the group vocal enough.Just see the number here on this thread of people that dont approve and you have a general idea.



My (locked) thread about how difficulty should be a decision for the developers, not the gamers.

https://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=241866&page=1

Miyamotoo said:
Platina said:

Compromising

If it was an exclusive, then they will be able to spend more time with just one game to polish it and maybe and some features in. May not be true, but they could possibly add some features that are exclusive for the NX to make it more enticing

Actually I think one of reasons why Zelda U is delayed to 2016 is NX, and I am pretty sure they will use that extra year to make better and polished game than it if was released in 2015.

Most likely, though I'm not sure if they are aiming for a simultaneous release or not.. is a bit strange to delay the Wii U version for the NX if you ask me



NintenDomination [May 2015 - July 2017]
 

  - Official  VGChartz Tutorial Thread - 

NintenDomination [2015/05/19 - 2017/07/02]
 

          

 

 

Here lies the hidden threads. 

 | |

Nintendo Metascore | Official NintenDomination | VGC Tutorial Thread

| Best and Worst of Miiverse | Manga Discussion Thead |
[3DS] Winter Playtimes [Wii U]

Platina said:
Miyamotoo said:

Actually I think one of reasons why Zelda U is delayed to 2016 is NX, and I am pretty sure they will use that extra year to make better and polished game than it if was released in 2015.

Most likely, though I'm not sure if they are aiming for a simultaneous release or not.. is a bit strange to delay the Wii U version for the NX if you ask me

Not really, Wii U is failure and Zelda U wouldn't change anything, but it could be huge thing for NX like launch title, Nintendo already done something similar with TP.



Around the Network
Slarvax said:
Lol at people doubting emily.

Female Link is a problem for me. I like choosing female characters, but the Hero of Hyrule and the name Link wont fit with a girl. But I like playing as girls

Besides that, she also said Zelda U news will be coming soon. Hype?

 

She is most likely talking about E3 so yeah, hype!



                                                                                     

Wright said:

What do you mean with this particular sentence?

In Ocarina, Link was a child. The reason he transformed into an "adult" was directly tied to the self-contained narrative of the game. Before this, Link had never been older than a child, arguably outside of direct chronological sequels like Zelda II and maybe Link's Awakening (though I still think he's a child there). Link was always meant to be a child.

After OoT, Link went back to being a child in MM and more importantly the separated WW. This is because Zelda was fundementally a tale of youth. The problem is that with OoT, people conceptually misinterpreted the function of adult Link in that game, which was forcining to Link grow up before his time. He is still a child in that body because he never gained the experience, maturity, and time that is supposed to come along with that body change.

Again, this was largely misunderstood (I'd even argue that it is universally misunderstood), and people began to look at the adult version of Link in that game as the form Link was supposed to take. As the primary Link of that game. As if it wasn't just a physical vessel for child Link. As if it wasn't, in literally every way mechanically, narratively, and techically, a direct parellel to the mask transformations in the sequel game Majora's Mask. That Zelda as a franchise needed to "grow up" with it's audience "like OoT did." But it didn't. It was about the exact opposite. It was about the trials and tribulations of growing up, how it's scary and undesirable, and the player is literally the to be allowed to experience childhood the way it is supposed to be experienced.  It's literally the Peter Pan "I don't wanna grow up," except it's if Peter Pan was actually forced to grow up. It's meant to make children appreciate their childhood and appreciate youth while dressing grand heroic experiences of adulthood in a way that is simple, embellished, and palletable for them.

What they "demanded" more of was adult Link. After WW's reception in the west, Aonuma made TP as a response to a loud minority of people who frankly don't know what the hell they are talking about and made Link older for no reason other than "he looks cool" and betrayed a lot of the narrative themes that defined the franchise prior. Link being an adult had nothing to do with the game being bad, like I said, but it's always personally aggrivated me regardless. Same with SS, but arguably worse.



Thats all fine and dandy but can we make Link lefty? ;-;



Nautilus said:
Wright said:

 

Link is nothing but the reincarnation of a hero throughout different timelines. There's nothing wrong with Link being able to reincarnate in a female body. Nintendo created Linkle for a reason, if this rumor was to be true. Embrace it.

Your Metal Gear Solid example actually doesn't help your case, because there are Metal Gear Solid games that allow to play as female Snake.

Just checked it now, and my god thats true.Didnt play MGS V yet, so thats why I didnt know.But its not a similar case as in she is unlockage after you do certain conditions.So you need to play as normal Snake until you can unlock it.You dont start with that option.It would be an extra.Subtle difference, but still different.

Like I said to Volterra, story-wise it is possible to make Link into a female caracther.But Link has always been historically a male.For almost 30 years.Why make this change without a very good reason?It would be better, story-wise and to make fans happy, just to make a new female protagonist if thats the case(if they wanted to go with a female protagonist).

Another example would be(dont know if you are a fan of Metroid) if that false rumour about Samus was true(about she being transgender).I mean, we never looked down there.And they could very well create a past for her that would justify that.They could do that but you know, it wouldnt be that popular.

Link might have always been male up till now, but the very purpose he serves is to be a link between the game world and the player. Hence the name. 

Having the choice between female or male reinforces this aspect and purpose of the character. If you want to keep with that "tradition" of yours, just choose to play as male link. You get to stick to the tradition while others, more open-minded people, get to choose. No need to make a big deal out of nothing.




StarOcean said:
Thats all fine and dandy but can we make Link lefty? ;-;

He wasnt lefty on the footage we have so far?



Bet with bluedawgs: I say Switch will outsell PS4 in 2018, he says PS4 will outsell Switch. He's now permabanned, but the bet will remain in my sig.

NNID: Slarvax - Steam: Slarvax - Friend Code:  SW 7885-0552-5988