I think that the next Zelda should break some barriers in series, some fantasy tech would be cool, kinda maybe make hyrule like the world in FF6. That would allow for more gameplay options and weapons. The game should not have the MP3 look, but maintain the "pleasent" Zelda look. I think it would be cool if their was like a moon temple, where you needed a gravity suit a certain parts, but it could be turned on and off to let you get to hidden places by floating.

The moon could be really cool unlike in FF4, it could have "alien (different)" vegetation and such : ). I also think they should have a Wind Temple on a huge mountain (usually where there is a fire temple), a mountain 3x the size of any others. The mountain should be filled with endless nooks and crannies and places you just keep finding months later.

Also the Zelda series has not had a jungle really (majora's mask might have more I think about it) that would be new.

I also think they should have exp and lvl, but make it kinda like Diablo 2, where you have to choose a way to build links moves, which would create alot more replay.

Amazing how the people saying "Zelda shouldn't be Fallout 3" totally ignored the OP.

And at any rate, I do agree. Zelda *was* about free roaming, sandbox-style adventuring. And since OoT it has been more linear. In the old Zeldas, you could adventure to many of the more advanced dungeons, and get tons of great items/equipment. There were always a few exceptions that required some items, but it wasn't the rule for every area.

Since OoT, it did away with that sandbox philosophy - You HAD to get the hookshot before doing 80% of dungeons. You HAD to get the bow & arrow before completing a certain task, and so on. That's no knock against OoT (it was great), but it's become more linear than what it was.

@mrstickball - Glad you understood what I was trying to get at. And that I wasn't trying to say that Zelda should be a SciFi Mature title.

I guess I am looking for a little more innovation in the series. What do you think?

This thread failed at the OT...next Zelda? There will never be a next Zelda..ever.

Epic Fail.

well as great and open world this may be and be great to have Hyrule become massive. Which I imagine will be, cause it was Huge compared to Ocarina of Time and that was Gamecube held back.

But please no gun's or replacing his bow with a crossbow. Keep the swords and bows.

Heck that was one of my MAJOR turn offs for fable 2 was that it had guns, and crossbows. I would have been fine and all if they would have still had BOWS. But no, you had to use either pistol, rifle, or crossbow. No BOWS.

OOH I also hope that they throw in some Axes, Hammer, Mace, or any other types of weapons to use in Zelda. Sure always keep the master sword, but like OoT the Hammer was awesome and Biggorons sword. Instead of another sword throw in some Axe or something be cool

This is why Zelda is so good imo, I love that it's so linear be cause it alows the game makers to do so much with it, Fallout 3 doesn't have innovating puzzles, Fallout 3 is more or less everywhere the same. Zelda is far more diverse because it's somewhat linear.

ditto!

Thats why Id idn't like oot.....way too linear. Zelda was about an epic adventure....accross a huge world that feeling was lost in oot

@SleepWaking -
I think Nintendo has the resources to make a game both diverse and have a large open world as the 2D games more or less were. But part of the problem with Wind Waker and TP, if you had played OoT, the puzzles were not innovative, just rehashed slightly differently. I am just looking for more of a return to the games roots using the technology available today in an innovative way.

So you think that Zelda is diverse because it's linear? Give me a break. What it's called is bad game design. When they (the developers) are forcing you to get specific items or requirements to pass a certain point, they are taking out the 'adventure' aspects of a title. Regardless in Ocarina of Time (or any other modern Zelda), you have to get specific items to complete levels, no matter what you do.

Although Fallout 3 has (at times) generic level design, and few puzzles, the fact is that the adventuring aspects far surpass that of Zelda, which is what the OP is arguing - Zelda has lost its true 'adventuring' roots, and delved more into an Action/Puzzle game with set backdrops, claiming to be an 'adventure' game when you aren't adventuring - it's all pre-set.

The argument is that (from my viewpoint) that Zelda needs to have more of the Fallout 3 mentality of 'yes, you can venture to Gerudo's Fortress without the hookshot, but the enemies are going to be overpowered, and kick your butt. If you do manage to beat that fortress, you'll have access to end-game powers that'll make the rest of the game a sinch' and less 'stop! You must complete every dungeon in order! This is not an adventure! You can't go there for another 10 hour' tease.

You CAN have non-linearity in an adventure game, and still have it be great - look at Zelda 1 & 2. Both were non-linear and allowed you to complete dungeons in a semi-linear fashion. Of course, the later Zeldas have abandoned that formula, which is why some are taking up arms with it.

Puzzles could still be engineered to be tough - but have answers that don't require you to have a very specific item (such as a hookshot, boomerang, or such). Zelda would then reward you for both linear (easy to beat) and non-linear (uber-items early in game) dungeons.

One of my most treasured memories from early games was that some RPGs, such as Dragon Warrior 3 (DQ3 for the rest of you) had areas that you could access early on that contained very high-level monsters. If you managed to somehow beat the battle, you would gain 2-3 levels per battle, and sometimes gain weapons that, under normal play, would be unavailable until hours later. Heck, Chrono Trigger gave you that in Medina Village in 1000AD with the 65,000G items - If you were smart (like I was), you could save up enough money to buy a sword for Chrono immediately upon entering the village, and have a sword so overpowered, you could use it for the next 10 hours until you could re-purchase the said weapon in 12,000BC (which was quite a bit further into the game).

Do you see at what I'm getting at? Games need to reward players that draw outside the lines, and do things the hard way, by giving them access to end-game items if you can manage it. Fallout 2 did a good job of this as well - If you learned the right moves, you could access Power Armor within 20 minutes of starting the game (which, under normal circumstances, would take you hours to get).

Did you play Link to the Past or Link's Adventure?