114 replies to this topic

[Eblel]

The Oracle series had a few of those. They weren't too great (hard to do things with pure side-scrolling), but what little puzzles there were mostly involved well-timed jumping and such... Am I the only one who misses Roc's Feather (or similar)? Automatic jumping just feels stupid, especially when jumping adds a whole new layer to gameplay... but that's just me, I guess.

I'd been wanting to play one of the Oracle games, but still haven't got around to it.

I feel the automatic jumping feels a little... well, old and restrictive. It's as if the Zelda design and controls haven't really advanced since the series first moved into 3D.

I'd like to see what a Zelda scene would look like with objects and items you can leap up at yourself, without having to be next to a ledge, and placed in random spots above the ground. You could even have it so as you could Z Target an object, and when you hit the jump button, Link would automatically propell himself in the upwards direction towards the item. It could change the dynamics a whole lot, and sort of turn it into a platformer/puzzler hybrid.

Well, most other action games incorporate the two well enough.

True, but I think a more cartoony, cel shaded look allows the character to be a bit more versatile. It'd be easier to make the character jump in different ways without it looking awkward. As an example, with an adult realistic Link, I would imagine jumping on the spot would feel heavier, and he'd have to bend his knees before jumping, and probably raise his hands up in the air. A cartoony Link would feel lighter, and the jump animation could be quickened up without looking odd. Jumping would feel less clunky, and more like the Mario platformers.

Just rambling here.

[Selena]

True, but I think a more cartoony, cel shaded look allows the character to be a bit more versatile. It'd be easier to make the character jump in different ways without it looking awkward. As an example, with an adult realistic Link, I would imagine jumping on the spot would feel heavier, and he'd have to bend his knees before jumping, and probably raise his hands up in the air. A cartoony Link would feel lighter, and the jump animation could be quickened up without looking odd. Jumping would feel less clunky, and more like the Mario platformers.

Well, Mario is its own beast. Zelda's been fairly different, especially in the 3D years. Despite whatever magic and super-strong abilities Link might have, the physics are rather grounded. When he dodges or does a backflip, it isn't over the top. That's probably one of the better things about Zelda, I'd say. The fighting is so simplistic, but so fun at the same time. There's something to be said for that. Nothing's over the top. Nothing's too crazy.

To use an example, take Devil May Cry. Swords, realistic looking, and jumping that's on par with or even more extreme than Mario. Fighting there is less 'block, dodge, thrust, slash' and more 'backflip, jump, land on enemy with sword, roll to the side, jump, jump, land on enemy, uppercut slash, jump.' You're bouncing all over the place and fighting feels less realistic. It's very fluid and very fast paced... but you know it isn't possible to do any of that. Zelda manages to immerse you more because of the realism, I think. I'd fear that Zelda would go the way of Devil May Cry, God of War, and all the rest of those if Mario-ish jumping got involved.

Instead, I'd picture manual jumping in Zelda to be like the jumping in Vagrant Story (one of Square's unsung adventure games). The jumping there was indeed heavy, the character bent his legs, and he didn't get too high. However, like Zelda, it felt realistic, and that's the kind of stuff that would keep Zelda grounded. In Vagrant, jumping was less a fighting/evasion tactic and more for exploring and solving puzzles. Zelda has that all ready, but actually jumping up and pulling yourself up a wall on your own would add a nice extra layer. When it's auto, you're less involved. That, and manual is sometimes more precise.

I don't know why there wasn't any manual jumping, realistic or cartoony, in the 3D games. Maybe because of the autojumping in the 2Ds. Maybe because OoT set the 3D games in motion and the N64 controller didn't have enough buttons left over (playing it on the VC with a Gamecube controller and at least two buttons aren't uniquely used for anything). Or a bit of both. Ah well.

[Hylian Diety]

Dare I break away from the what-ifs for a second and post my opinion of the series' direction?

Yes, I dare!

Being a biased, long-time Zelda fan (and by long-time, I mean playing LoZ when it first came out, and playing and beating every Zelda game since then) I would have to say that the series as a whole is, yes, degenerating. The gameplay elements are mostly rehashed, although each game throws in a few twists for flavor (hookshot being subsituted for switchhook and grapple; pegasus boots for iron/hover boots; iron boots changing from equipment to items, and are now magnetic; etc.). The general story of every game is being reused (Link starts off as a nobody, has to prove he is somebody by collecting three (3) items from various temples, gets an uber-sword-to-kill-all-evil and visits various other temples to collect more important objects that eventually lead you to the boss [yes, I am aware that's an unnecessarily simplistic breakdown of the game(s), but that's the point; they can almost all be broken down to that formula from ALttP on]) And worse, in my opinion, is the music is sucking worse and worse every game. TP was an exception to that rule, with music that reminded me more of AoL than any other Zelda game. And sadly Nintendo knows how to make money via specific game formulas like Hollywood does with movies and record labels do with pop music. That's just the way it is, and as much as we WANT that to change, it won't. Not for Zelda at least. If we want new and original, we have to look to different games, which isn't a bad thing because at least not ALL games all falling down the same path of repetition. However, Zelda won't be "innovative, original, or genre-redefining" ever again. It will be the same Zelda we know and love until the series ends, with enough spin-offs in mechanics to make it feel not exactly the same as the last one.

However, that is not to say I don't like any of the games and won't buy them, play them, and beat them if for no other reason than hoping I am wrong and there WILL be a plot twist right before the final boss. Like I said, I've played every game including TP and PH. TP was brilliant on it's own, in my opinion. It had great music, involving characters, spiffy cut-scenes, and a nice, new dark undertheme through the whole game. Problem is it didn't make sense anywhere else in the series, making it a complete load of crap. But I enjoyed playing it for GC and then again for the Wii with the awesome controls, and I have to say it's awesome. But I like my story continuity a LOT, and it failed miserably in that area, because something tells me Eiji isn't going along Miyamoto's story anymore. PH had a lot of cool stuff in it. It brought back the Pol's Voice and gave us an entirely new way to kill them. The use of the mic was great, and the draw-it-yourself paths for the weapons made for a handful of inventive puzzles. The sailing was improved, but the overworld still managed to be severely lacking, even including an incredibly cheesy Nintendo DS-shaped island (though in it's defense, it was a mini-game island). The music was miserable; at first I loved the music because it actually was good compositionally, but they never changed it up, and that really aggravated me. But mostly, the story sucked. It sucked as bad as MC, FS, and any other game Capcom helped with. There was nothing new or even interesting about it. I thought I was in for a treat when I read the manual before I played, talking about new oceans and Ocean Kings and whatnot, but when the story was executed in full, it wasn't original or even entertaining. However, I did like how funny it was, making a parody of all the things we have come to love of Zelda, including getting/giving an item.

Now, there are a lot of neat, new things in every game, yes. New elements (like I said before) added so it doesn't feel like you're playing the last Zelda game over again. But honestly, and I really do mean this honestly, those new elements feel WAY too gimmicky; nothing really original. The first 5 games in the series (up to OoT) had originality written all over them, but every console game since then seems like a redecorated OoT and every handheld game feels like LA with more colors or a touch-screen. And that's pretty inarguable. Again, that doesn't mean the games sucked, just that they're not as defined as they used to be, which is just a nice way of saying they are indeed getting stale.

So there's the opinion. If you're offended, well, sucks for you because it's just MY opinion and not a personal attack on you (or the almighty Legend of Zelda series for that matter). In all, yes the games are falling into representativeness, and no I don't dislike the series. In fact I love it, and STILL after all these years, consider it to be my favorite series, and consider Link to be one of the coolest game characters ever made. But...it's just...well...the series is......losing...a certain...touch, you could say.

[Reflectionist]

I want to see Link try to jump over a log and fall on his face. That'd make for great gameplay mechanics.

[Wanchimaera]

That and it would teach him not to run with sharp objects.

It would be interesting to make a wishlist for what we'd like to see in the next Zelda game. Personally, I'd like to see a game that's not so dungeon-oriented. The first time I played through TP, and I got to the City in the Sky, I was a bit let down that the whole thing was just a dungeon. Now, I enjoyed that dungeon, but would it hurt them to add a little civilization to the games? Why not have tiny villages scattered about Hyrule field? Additional equipment and a few magic spells would be really nice, too.

The series will only get stale if they continue to use the same formula that they used for LttP, OoT, and TP. Three pendants/spiritual stones/fused shadows, the master sword, and then assembling the means to enter the final dungeon (crystals, sages, and mirror shards). As far as the story goes, those three games could be explained as them all being different variations (telephone game) on the same story.

[spunky-monkey]

Jumping should not be implemented with the Roc's Feather in 3D Zelda games simply because it would undermine most of the obstacles and puzzle elements in various dungeons. Abusing that power enables players to finish levels too quickly so in order to prevent that every big room would require to lose other connecting-rooms, switches and so on until we end up returning to those linear dungeons from older 2D adventures.

[TheAvengerLever]

You could incorporate lots of new puzzles if you incorporate jumping into the series.

So that's a plus for manual jumping.





...boo.

[Eblel]

To use an example, take Devil May Cry. Swords, realistic looking, and jumping that's on par with or even more extreme than Mario. Fighting there is less 'block, dodge, thrust, slash' and more 'backflip, jump, land on enemy with sword, roll to the side, jump, jump, land on enemy, uppercut slash, jump.' You're bouncing all over the place and fighting feels less realistic. It's very fluid and very fast paced... but you know it isn't possible to do any of that. Zelda manages to immerse you more because of the realism, I think. I'd fear that Zelda would go the way of Devil May Cry, God of War, and all the rest of those if Mario-ish jumping got involved.

I can see where you're coming from, but I disagree. I don't think games like Zelda should be grounded by realism - I want it to be a world where anything's possible. Like the leaf that allowed you to glide in Wind Waker - totally unrealistic, but it was fun to use and wasn't any more out of place than other items like the sword or binoculars. But I do agree that manual jumping should be more for puzzles, platforming, and interaction with objects. One item could be a steel hat (imbued with magical powers) that you could equip Link with, allowing you to Z Target enemies above your head and jump up at them. It could even be used to activate buttons on the roof. Without the hat, you could jump up at tree branches and shuffle along them.

Another good thing is it could allow them to design dungeons that are less angular (blocky, I mean), and more rounded.

This is why I'm also more for the cel shaded style than the realistic - it tears the designers away from the 'keep it grounded in realism' thing. Sort of allows them greater expression, I think.

Jumping should not be implemented with the Roc's Feather in 3D Zelda games simply because it would undermine most of the obstacles and puzzle elements in various dungeons.

They could always make it so as the Roc's Feather was only available to use in certain rooms. It could either glow when you enter a room you can use it in, or it could be something that will become worn and ragged over a limited time.

And I totally agree with you, Hylian Diety. Each game feels as if it's trying to follow guidelines set down by previous games too much. Maybe they need to forget Zelda completely, and design an adventure/puzzle game with a unique twist, and then apply Zelda characters, items and style when the projects been going for a while.

It would be interesting to make a wishlist for what we'd like to see in the next Zelda game. Personally, I'd like to see a game that's not so dungeon-oriented. The first time I played through TP, and I got to the City in the Sky, I was a bit let down that the whole thing was just a dungeon. Now, I enjoyed that dungeon, but would it hurt them to add a little civilization to the games? Why not have tiny villages scattered about Hyrule field? Additional equipment and a few magic spells would be really nice, too.

The point you make about dungeons is great. I'd like it if dungeons felt less like dungeons, and more 'connected' to the game's overworld. Like Shadow of the Colossus. It wasn't so obvious when you were in a dungeon - instead, puzzles were hidden in fragments of the overworld, in old stone ruins. I'd like something like that, except with a LOT more puzzles in the overworld, and very interesting designs for the areas that hold puzzles.

But there'd have to be a few full-fledged dungeon areas. Maybe four. Just as long as they fill the overworld with puzzles that blur the lines between dungeon and hub I'll be happy.

Edited by Eblel, 13 December 2007 - 10:14 PM.

[Selena]

Like Shadow of the Colossus. It wasn't so obvious when you were in a dungeon - instead, puzzles were hidden in fragments of the overworld, in old stone ruins. I'd like something like that, except with a LOT more puzzles in the overworld, and very interesting designs for the areas that hold puzzles.

*raises eyebrow*

There aren't any dungeons in SotC. Dungeons require you to (sometimes tediously) work your way through an area while slaying monsters and solving puzzles. The things in SotC were just glorified battle arenas. You walk in via a straightforward path and boom, a boss fight. They were elaborate boss chambers with the 'dungeon' part cut out. Actually, not even chambers, really. Only a portion of those fights took place in any kind of structure. The rest were in open air. There also isn't any puzzle solving beyond trying to figure out what the weakness of the boss is. You can apply SotC only to Zelda boss fights, really. But then you're just copying SotC instead of adding in originality.

Zelda's a dungeon crawler. That's kind've what makes it Zelda. They should definitely add new things to liven it up, but stray too far and you're going to have a completely different game. In which case, you're just better off playing a different franchise. Look what happened to Final Fantasy. It's had so much plastic surgery over the years that it no longer feels like proper Final Fantasy anymore.

Maybe they need to forget Zelda completely, and design an adventure/puzzle game with a unique twist, and then apply Zelda characters, items and style when the projects been going for a while.

That would... be a really bad way to go about making any game, let alone Zelda. Good games revolve around the characters, style and atmosphere. The adventure and puzzles are built from that base, not the other way around.

[Reflectionist]

I saw a lot of 'am i in a dungeon?' in TP.

City in the Sky? Snowpeak Ruins? Even Twilight Palace? Yeah, I didn't realize they were supposed to be 'Dungeons' necessarily until about halfway through each one. Especially Snowpeak Ruins.

Edited by Reflectionist, 14 December 2007 - 01:54 AM.

[Mad Scrub]

I suppose manual jumping could replace the roll attack. Has that ever been good for anything?

[Raien]

At the end of the day, the problem with the Zelda franchise is the routine. You can't discover anything when you know what to expect. Selena said above that LoZ is a dungeon-crawler series. But what if there were no dungeons? Keep the puzzles, keep the combat, keep the items, but just ignore the specific dungeon structure. If players don't know exactly what to expect, then they are discovering a whole new environment.

[Reflectionist]

I suppose manual jumping could replace the roll attack. Has that ever been good for anything?

Yeah it's called "Gettin the hell out of the way."

[Fyxe]

Am I the only one who likes playing a Zelda game? @.@

Seriously, maybe if 90% of the games you play are Zelda games, you would feel it's getting stale. Of course you would. You'd feel completely burnt out on the series, but there's over ten games in the dang series already. Play something else for awhile.

Basically, when I put a Zelda disc into my console or cartridge into my Game Boy or whatever, I expect a Zelda game. I expect it to surprise and delight me with various new things but at the same time feel like a Zelda game. Nothing else feels like a proper Zelda game, and that's why the series is still massively popular.

As long as the series isn't producing cookie-cutter games like the Megaman or Pokemon series, I don't think there's that much to complain about. If you want to play SotC, then, well, play SotC. It's a great game in it's own right, let it be, stop comparing it to Zelda and stop trying to make Zelda into it. DMC is the same, there's plenty of games in that series, play them. And I don't want Zelda to be like them. That's a depressing thought.

The Pegasus Boots need to be realised in 3D well before the Roc's Feather, anyway. If you want manual jumping, hey, look, Mario Galaxy is out! Convenient.

[Raien]

Am I the only one who likes playing a Zelda game? @.@

I love playing Zelda games; even playing through PH a third time right now. But the problem is that when Zelda games were known as "exceptional" in the days of ALTTP and OoT, now they're only known as "great". Even though Zelda games are still hitting the 90s in review scores, we want a Zelda game to get the praise that Super Mario Galaxy got. It's a realistic expectation, because Nintendo has proven its worth before, yet they haven't created a title since OoT that has been deemed exceptional.

[CID Farwin]

I saw a lot of 'am i in a dungeon?' in TP.

City in the Sky? Snowpeak Ruins? Even Twilight Palace? Yeah, I didn't realize they were supposed to be 'Dungeons' necessarily until about halfway through each one. Especially Snowpeak Ruins.

Yes, the Snowpeak ruins did it right, but with City in the Sky and Twilight palace felt more like I was getting gypped out of a fun location in order to have another dungeon.

Maybe they need to forget Zelda completely, and design an adventure/puzzle game with a unique twist, and then apply Zelda characters, items and style when the projects been going for a while.

You mean they didn't already do that with TP?

Am I the only one who likes playing a Zelda game? @.@

*raises hand*

I was actually quite disappointed with TWW. I was expecting something like the 'Zelda formula,' and then I see it be changed for no other reason than to be rushed out the door.

[Fyxe]

Am I the only one who likes playing a Zelda game? @.@

I love playing Zelda games; even playing through PH a third time right now. But the problem is that when Zelda games were known as "exceptional" in the days of ALTTP and OoT, now they're only known as "great". Even though Zelda games are still hitting the 90s in review scores, we want a Zelda game to get the praise that Super Mario Galaxy got. It's a realistic expectation, because Nintendo has proven its worth before, yet they haven't created a title since OoT that has been deemed exceptional.

To be fair, PH did get similar praise to Galaxy. Not quite as much, but Galaxy appears to be a very exceptional game. I still haven't got it. Boo.

[Eblel]

There also isn't any puzzle solving beyond trying to figure out what the weakness of the boss is.

I remember odd platforming puzzles that weren't parts of boss battles. I suppose it depends on what you consider a puzzle. If you're thinking about the typical block pushing stuff, then no, there wasn't any of that. But there were platforming puzzles on the bosses, and as you say say yourself, they were puzzles. There were puzzles, however few, outside of boss fights.

The way puzzles are wrapped around the monsters is exactly the type of 'outside the box' thinking I'm talking about. The meat of the game wasn't confined to dungeons, and they found a different way of presenting puzzles to the player.

That would... be a really bad way to go about making any game, let alone Zelda. Good games revolve around the characters, style and atmosphere. The adventure and puzzles are built from that base, not the other way around.

All I'm saying is they should take a step back. Maybe coming up with new gameplay ideas is easier without having to design specifically around a certain series and formula. They could run with placeholder characters until the fundamentals are in place, then start working in Zelda elements of gameplay, like the items like compasses and keys. Then the style, atmosphere and characters.

You mean they didn't already do that with TP?

New twists in gameplay, I mean. The Wolf and light/dark world things were more plot devices, I thought.

If you want to play SotC, then, well, play SotC. It's a great game in it's own right, let it be, stop comparing it to Zelda and stop trying to make Zelda into it.

I'm not trying to make Zelda into it, I'm just suggesting that that the Zelda team could approach their next game with the same mindset as the Shadow of the Colossus developers. Don't create to a template, and imagine things in new ways. Making the whole world a cohesive puzzle would be a great start. Imagine if the whole overworld was a giant dungeon. I know I'm being vague here, but I want a different take on the Zelda series that feels new, but familiar at the same time.

You can't discover anything when you know what to expect. Selena said above that LoZ is a dungeon-crawler series. But what if there were no dungeons? Keep the puzzles, keep the combat, keep the items, but just ignore the specific dungeon structure. If players don't know exactly what to expect, then they are discovering a whole new environment.

Exactly. If there's nothing to surprise you, nothing to make you gasp in wonder, then what's the point in playing?

Edited by Eblel, 14 December 2007 - 10:43 PM.

[avroillusion]

Well, you might've moved on from this, but I couldn't help but notice. Just because Ricky prefers the Oracles series is no reason to dismiss his opinion. He's free to have his criticisms while still being a fan of the series.

I think the reason the music's changed is because they have a new composer doing a lot of the music and he mostly does atmospheric stuff. The name is Toru Minegishi. I think the tracks convey mood and atmosphere well, but I still prefer the catchier work of Koji Kondo.

Anyway...I think Yahtzee is hilarious, but I think he should have given Phantom Hourglass more of a chance. The game had some very good puzzles and creative uses for items. I personally found Phantom Hourglass very fun and addicting, but even so, a few Zelda cliches peeked through. Since Aonuma said this would be the new direction of the series, I'm worried that future Zelda games will still keep some of the elements that have become tired. (Using the item you get in the dungeon on the dungeon Boss, for example.) I'd like to see dungeons focusing on two or more elements at the same time, such as a fire-ice-water dungeon or to have a mirror and...I don't know...rope puzzle themed (as in PH's Temple of Ice) dungeon?

Shall we bring Yoshiaki Koizumi back? He played a part in making A Link to the Past, Link's Awakening, Super Mario 64, Yoshi's Island and the very brilliant Mario Galaxy.

[Nameless_Joe]

I think the reason the music's changed is because they have a new composer doing a lot of the music and he mostly does atmospheric stuff. The name is Toru Minegishi. I think the tracks convey mood and atmosphere well, but I still prefer the catchier work of Koji Kondo.

Has Koji Kondo retired or did he just sit the last Zelda out?

I suppose manual jumping could replace the roll attack. Has that ever been good for anything?

Rolling into trees.

You know what move/ability was in OoT that I noticed immediately and still like (but isn't in the new games)? Link could jump fences! It fits perfectly with the antics of a young boy! I thought this made much more sense than fences being a true obstacle like in LttP and LA, but Nintendo hasn't continued this ability in newer games.

[Raien]

To add a new angle in this topic, I think there are two ways to appreciate a Zelda game:

Interaction- The enjoyment of repetitive action(s) that allow the players to overcome challenges or simply faff about.
Immersion- The experience of contact with the virtual world, and allowing oneself to be emotionally drawn into it.

From LoZ to OoT, every Zelda game has expanded both the level of interaction and immersion together. Then from MM, every Zelda game copied the basic gameplay formula while trying to immerse the player in new ways. Then with PH, Nintendo decided to change the gameplay (controls) instead of immerse the player, due to pressure from the fans that the games have become stale. Conclusion: the franchise needs updating in both interaction and immersion to bring about exceeding popularity.

[Alastair]

To add a new angle in this topic, I think there are two ways to appreciate a Zelda game:

Interaction- The enjoyment of repetitive action(s) that allow the players to overcome challenges or simply faff about.
Immersion- The experience of contact with the virtual world, and allowing oneself to be emotionally drawn into it.

From LoZ to OoT, every Zelda game has expanded both the level of interaction and immersion together. Then from MM, every Zelda game copied the basic gameplay formula while trying to immerse the player in new ways. Then with PH, Nintendo decided to change the gameplay (controls) instead of immerse the player, due to pressure from the fans that the games have become stale. Conclusion: the franchise needs updating in both interaction and immersion to bring about exceeding popularity.

I'm not sure I agree. MM clearly pushed the boundary of how Immersive a Zelda game could be, but subsequent games have shied away from this degree of Immersion. Indeed my main criticism of TP would be that despite excellent Interaction in terms of responsive gameplay mechanics, the game was lacking in Immersive elements when compared to eariler games in the series.

[Raien]

I'm not sure I agree. MM clearly pushed the boundary of how Immersive a Zelda game could be, but subsequent games have shied away from this degree of Immersion. Indeed my main criticism of TP would be that despite excellent Interaction in terms of responsive gameplay mechanics, the game was lacking in Immersive elements when compared to eariler games in the series.

Games can be made immersive in different ways. MM relied upon character interaction. TWW relied upon the flood setting to create new scenery (and of course, new character interaction). TP, while failing to provide satisfactory character interaction, was able to immerse the player through it's art style. The locations in TP, being the most "realistic" compared to previous games, were the sole cause for interest.

And although gameplay mechanics have improved over time, it's only because the general standards are changing. Mario controls better in SMGalaxy than he did in SM64, as one other example. There have been no real changes to the gameplay formula that people consider an overall improvement (as an example of such improvement, the camera change in Resident Evil 4).

[Showsni]

RE jumping, I'm not sure why you'd want a manual jump button in a 3D game. It's fine in 2D when half the puzzles are getting over holes, but in real life you can generally walk around fathomless drops. Do you spend your time randomly jumping in the air? It's not realistic. You only jump when you have to, generally; and the 3D games accomplish this. You may as well have any number of actions to make the game more "realistic" - why can't Link stand on his hands? Do a cartwheel? Hop? Lie on his back?

Then again, I don't generally move around by forward roll in real life...

[SnowsilverKat]

I don't think they should add manual jumping unless there's any specific platforming going on, i.e. like a Mario game. Zelda's auto-jump is usually really responsive and good for its purpose. I do wonder why they don't change things like the forward roll being faster than the run, or the backwards run being faster than the forwards run (at least for me, if I'm watching gameplay videos the rolling everywhere gets minorly annoying to watch after a while).

What Zelda should do is to stay true to its roots but try new things at the same time. For instance, keep the basic gameplay and the 'classic' gizmos, while 'trying out' some new mechanics and gizmos. If they're popular enough, have them make a return in a future game. That sort of thing.

I'd also like to see a break in the pattern of 'three dungeons, Master Sword, x more dungeons, Final Boss' scenario. Like, it would be amazing if they lulled everyone into the thought that it was going to be that way and totally throw a curveball dungeon. Say you get to the end of the dungeon and your McGuffin isn't there, and you ended up having to track it down in another dungeon. (yes, I'm aware Minish Cap kind of did something like this...)