227 replies to this topic

[SteveT]

Also, Zelda isn't steampunk. Zelda is swords and sorcery.

If Nintendo ever decides to make a steampunk game, they should do so with a new IP.

Steampunk is a square hole. Zelda is a triangular block.

[Duke Serkol]

Know what I'd really like? A new spin-off series that is tied to Zelda in that it takes place in the same world but is set in a different age and is fundamentally different also in certain aspects of gameplay (while others remain the same to strangthen the tie between the two series).

[Veteran]

Know what I'd really like? A new spin-off series that is tied to Zelda in that it takes place in the same world but is set in a different age and is fundamentally different also in certain aspects of gameplay (while others remain the same to strangthen the tie between the two series).

It could start with Link saying he's bored now that Hyrule is safe.

[Duke Serkol]

Actually since I said it would be set in another age, Hyrule wouldn't have been just saved (or at least, not by us in a previous game).

In fact, one of the things that could change could be getting rid of the green mute...

[Veteran]

Like Zelda going off to rescue Link?

[Duke Serkol]

Or possibly something less CD-i like, such as entirely new starring characters.
After all, if it was a spin off series with a different name, Zelda wouldn't need to be in.

[Raien]

There are very few adventure games that do combat as well as Zelda. If combat needs to be tweaked, just throwing in more battles should be sufficient. The controls are very balanced and function well. Making better use of the Wiimote for sword usage could factor in, but otherwise things are fairly solid on that front. Like DJ said, the reason RE4 got a combat overhaul is because the early RE games were downright horrible at it. This is not the case with Zelda.

Zelda's combat functions are good, but the combat in general is still implemented terribly. What's the point in having a wide variety of attacks when most enemies die with two standard hits? Why can't enemy defense be relative to size or armour-plating? Why can't most enemies do more than just stand in one place waiting to die? There's a shitload of improvements that could be made with Zelda's combat.

I definitely disagree on this - that making something popular should count as an achievement on its own. Any game that is responsible for popularizing an innovation tends to get the actual credit for the innovation. Final Fantasy VII, for example, is ridiculously overhyped and given way way way way more praise than it actually deserves. The same thing with Halo and BioShock, and any number of games that popularize concepts that were already in use. Which I think, from a creative standpoint, is incredibly unjust and does the actual innovators a horrible disservice.

It's like the popular girl in school taking an idea that a shy nerd developed, implementing it, and then getting all the credit. You could argue that the original innovators will get some kind of recognition for their contributions from cult followings or what not... but they're called cult followings for a reason. It's only a small group of people that know a game/movie/book even exists. The general public never picks up on who actually created the idea in the first place. The real innovators seldom get the credit for the contributions they make.

Note that I'm not counting games who improve upon concepts. That's another form of innovation. Nor am I including mixing innovations to make a good hybrid game. That's another form of innovation too. I mean something like BioShock. Nothing was really improved or enhanced. It was pretty much System Shock 2 underwater. Nothing was very innovative, but it still gets all the credit for its gameplay 'innovations.' Which is not fair at all. The only consolation is that the same creators were responsible for both games, give or take a few team members. So they, at least, get some overdue appreciation for their efforts. But the same cannot be said for many other 'popular' games that fall into this category.

For someone who says he wants to be a writer, this is a somewhat surprising stance to take - unless I'm misunderstanding. What if you write a very good book and sell only a few copies? Then some other author comes along, takes many of your concepts, and goes on to have commercial success while you never receive the praise you rightly deserve for inventing those concepts in the first place. Would you still happily praise the book that 'popularized' your concepts and consider it an achievement? Or if not yourself, then another author. It just does not seem fair from a creative standpoint.

Okay, I need to readdress my argument here. There are two things that affect the critical response to a game; the concept and the execution. The concept encompasses all the core design choices that players and developers use to define the game, whereas the execution encompasses all the peripheral design choices that we don't normally look at too closely or consider significant. But both concept and execution can be innovative, and it is where execution innovates that we see the popularising of a concept or genre.

For example, one element of BioShock that has been constantly highlighted in reviews is the use of the steampunk architecture and Randian-themed storyline. In fact, I now recall that it has also been the subject of numerous essays on the internet shortly after its release. You may well consider this a superficial change, but if it creates an experience quite different from anything seen before, in particular as a work of art, then it's going to get credit for achieving that. Mirror's Edge, on the other hand, is a perfect example of a game that could have been a critical success if had it been executed much more effectively than it was. Now, if another developer takes that initial concept and manages to execute it more effectively by changing the structure or the content, then it's going to get credit for being the first developer to achieve the vision. Finding ways to make something work is an innovation all in itself.

As for innovation and revival, well, we again get into what 'the franchise really needs.' Zelda fans seem incredibly divided on what they want from Nintendo, meaning that, as DJ has suggested, there's no pleasing everyone. Some really like sticking to the formula. Others don't like essentially doing the same thing over and over. Some want combat revamped. Some would rather have story revamped and combat left alone. Some liked Majora. Others hated it. Some people could be psyched for Tank Engine adventures through Hyrule. Weird... as that is.

This is another area where Zelda is going in the direction of the Sonic franchise. As Sonic failed to successfully innovate over time, the fanbase has got increasingly bitchy about what they want in the way of series change. The thing is though, is that if Sonic did make an effective change to the core formula, then it would effectively silence everyone who wants their own personal alternatives. The idea of change is more effective than the specific nature of said change (within reason). There's no reason to argue why Zelda should avoid change on that basis; it's hurting the series more than it is helping.

It can be a huge economic risk to try something very innovative when the current formula sells well. You have to remember that Nintendo is going to have a limited budget for the development of new games, especially when you consider that they also have to make Metroid and Mario games in addition to Zelda. If a great innovative experiment tanks and gets very low sales, they won't be able to make another game again for a very long time. Or will have to take money away from one of the other franchises. When looking at it from that perspective, it's understandable why they are reluctant to change things up too much in regards to Zelda. As you've pointed out with the sales and reaction to Majora, they may be reluctant to try something too out there with Zelda again. Easy handhelds are a quick way to earn cash when there aren't many third parties bringing in additional revenue.

Sales aren't the only factor that developers look at; Nintendo have been aware of the increasing discontent with TP despite generally high sales for that game. For games of an immersive nature, good developers hold themselves to a creative vision as much as they look at sales, and it's common for developers to want the critical success as much as the fanbase sales.

Edited by Raien, 28 March 2009 - 07:25 PM.

[Fin]

I think combat in Zelda could be dramatically improved.

Gods, yes. I've been thinking that for ages. It wouldn't need to anything drastic either, just have more competant enemies, and maybe make the shield a little less invincible.

[NM87]

SIMPLY ADDING A TRAIN DOES NOT MAKE FOR STEAMPUNK!!!

Huh, I don' recall anyone saying it did, I recall someone saying its an element of steam punk added into Zelda, and that the idea of a steam punk Zelda game is a good idea.

Also, Zelda isn't steampunk. Zelda is swords and sorcery.

Mmhmm, and you are Shigeru Miyamoto to say what Zelda is and is not. No wait, you are Mr. Triforce of Time Link-is-his-own-father.

This is just ridiculous. All the whiners remind of those Banjo fans angry about Nuts and Bolts, not as bad though. Like you can dictate what Nintendo can and can not do with their own property. You are in the minority now, so just calm yourselves and try to enjoy what’s coming.

Mario went into space. The least Zelda can do is try something new as well, and by golly its going to. No matter how hard you cry.

I can’t wait for steam punk Zelda. Trains, elevators, steamboats, mercenary clothes for Link, an airship or two, an ANALOG COMPUTER, and maybe even…a…robot.

Edited by NM87, 28 March 2009 - 11:37 PM.

[Fin]

Yes, because not owning the rights to a property means you aren't allowed have an opinion on it.

[canas is back]

I think combat in Zelda could be dramatically improved.

Gods, yes. I've been thinking that for ages. It wouldn't need to anything drastic either, just have more competant enemies, and maybe make the shield a little less invincible.

TP made some big improvments on it, but I agree it could be better.

[NM87]

Yes, because not owning the rights to a property means you aren't allowed have an opinion on it.

RIIIIIIGHT, like he wasn't insinuating that it was a fact by going "Zelda isn't steam punk its swords and sorcery". That sounds like someone touting their "opinion" as a fact. Do you take me for a fool, I'm not going to let you act clever and get away with it. His whole post reeks of snobbery and so does yours.

Edited by NM87, 29 March 2009 - 12:20 AM.

[Fin]

What? He basically said he thought swords and sorcery suited Zelda more than steampunk. Yeah, he never said "in my opinion" anywhere, but I thought it was implicit. There's a difference between touting opinion as fact and just holding an opinion strongly.

Anyway, whatever. I'll let SteveT defend himself from here. >_>

My two cents: I don't think I'd like like if Zelda went totally steampunk, but I don't have any problem with the train. Could be fun.

[NM87]

What? He basically said he thought swords and sorcery suited Zelda more than steampunk. Yeah, he never said "in my opinion" anywhere, but I thought it was implicit. There's a difference between touting opinion as fact and just holding an opinion strongly.

Anyway, whatever. I'll let SteveT defend himself from here. >_>

My two cents: I don't think I'd like like if Zelda went totally steampunk, but I don't have any problem with the train. Could be fun.

Oh please, like the atmosphere of his post was merely a statement of opinion, more like "this is the way it is cause I say so".

I wouldn't like the idea of a completely steam punk Zelda either, I still want my wizards and shields, but some elements can very well suit Zelda.

[Toan]

Yes, because not owning the rights to a property means you aren't allowed have an opinion on it.

RIIIIIIGHT, like he wasn't insinuating that it was a fact by going "Zelda isn't steam punk its swords and sorcery". That sounds like someone touting their "opinion" as a fact. Do you take me for a fool, I'm not going to let you act clever and get away with it. His whole post reeks of snobbery and so does yours.

And that's quite enough of that. The best way to look snobbish is to attempt to point it out in others, and the second best way is to tell others what they can and cannot think while condescending. Put it away or I'll put you away.

[spunky-monkey]

Excellent point.
I once had plans for a fangame in which Link would ride a Griffin.

Exactly - cartoony style Zelda has for long time now eroded away the magical fantasy world setting in which the games are based. Twilight Princess only served to harm it further by being much-grittier and far too Lord of the Rings-esque for people's tastes. A train of all things, not only insulting to traditionalists, totally destroys the otherworldly-illusion altogether.

I can only express my disbelief and disgust that Nintendo could choose that uninspired concept over an entire list of legendary Japanese folklore creatures at their disposal. They have a diverse and boundless mythology full of possibilities, and they picked a chuffing train. Trains aren't magical in the least!

What, you are discovering that we're a minority now?

According to some, yes. We're the whiners who have nothing better to do but spread the hate and spoil everyone else's fun. The notion we simply want the madness to stop and Zelda to inspire again, as the old games have done and continue to do so, escapes them.

Hasn't the side who feels negatively about ST realized its fault? They claim Zelda to be saturated and nothing new has come of the pas few games, but when this new idea of a steam driven Zelda world presents itself, its blasphemous. Its like they want Zelda to stay old and somehow be new. You can teach and old dog new tricks, but not a sick one (as Raien and others make it out to be). So...isn’t' the whole basis of the argument contradictory? You want something new...but when something new comes along...you shoot it down whining about some crap about the Zelda fantasy world being ruined.

Wait a minute...OUR FAULT? You Sir, are an arrogant arse. If you had been paying attention you would have realised technology in Zelda is recessive, i.e. in the background and its purpose is humorous, it's not the dominant element of the games and never has been. Nintendo were never stupid enough to blatantly showcase machinery in their trailers for this franchise, until now that is.

Mmhmm, and you are Shigeru Miyamoto to say what Zelda is and is not. No wait, you are Mr. Triforce of Time Link-is-his-own-father.

Look, is it really so hard to wholeheartedly agree with someone when they're right? SteveT made a valid point, and you dismissed it on the grounds that he's not the creator. Do you see the fallacy in your own argument yet?

If Miyamoto tried to pass this LSD trip off as Zelda would you call his bluff? Or carry on like the stubborn loyalist you clearly are? Anyway, regardless of which one you choose stop throwing your weight around where it isn't wanted. You're entitled to your opinion, UNLESS its one where everyone else's values are wrong.

I can't wait for steam punk Zelda. Trains, elevators, steamboats, mercenary clothes for Link, an airship or two, an ANALOG COMPUTER, and maybe even...a...robot.

BEGONE EVIL ONE!

Do you take me for a fool, I'm not going to let you act clever and get away with it. His whole post reeks of snobbery and so does yours.

¬.¬

Edited by spunky-monkey, 29 March 2009 - 04:14 AM.

[Fin]

Exactly - cartoony style Zelda has for long time now eroded away the magical fantasy world setting in which the games are based. Twilight Princess only served to harm it further by being much-grittier and far too Lord of the Rings-esque for people's tastes. A train of all things, not only insulting to traditionalists, totally destroys the otherworldly-illusion altogether.

Awww... I actually really liked Princess. It didn't feel epic or Lord of the Ringsey, I saw it more of a dark fairytale. Not to say I'm one of those wanky "real fairytales are dark!" gits, I just likes both light and dark fairytales. Minish Cap's another fave of mine.

I can only express my disbelief and disgust that Nintendo could choose that uninspired concept over an entire list of legendary Japanese folklore creatures at their disposal. They have a diverse and boundless mythology full of possibilities, and they picked a chuffing train. Trains aren't magical in the least!

I think Ringo would disagree.


No, but seriously, I get your point. My initial reaction was similar. Arguments about how Hyrule's techonolgy should be advancing, or that trying for some diversity do miss the point that Zelda is a swords and sorcery mythology (that's my opinion anyway ) and should be rooted in fantasy elements.

I guess I should be annoyed about the train, but to be honest it just doesn't bug me that much, even though it doesn't really fit in with the series. I guess I'm just looking at it as a single annoyance. They'll make this one game with a train, then they'll make other Zeldas that are less... traincentric. And as long as they make the game, I may as well try to enjoy it.

If Zelda goes steampunk though... I think I'll consider that my jumping off point for the series. It just wouldn't feel right.

According to some, yes. We're the whiners who have nothing better to do but spread the hate and spoil everyone else's fun. The notion we simply want the madness to stop and Zelda to inspire again, as the old games have done and continue to do so, escapes them.

Actually, you know what I'd really like for the series? I'd like them to take a few years off, like they did between AoL and LttP, and LA and OoT. Not necessarily because the games will be much better for it, but the rate they've been churning games out (and I use the term liberally - they have been pretty high quality games) kind of caused the series to lose some of its charm. Or maybe that's just me. >_>

Then again, I'm pretty patient about this stuff. I don't plan to die anytime soon, so if the next game/book/movie in a series takes a few years it doesn't bug me. It'll be released eventually, and in the meantime I can do other things.

Edited by Fintin O'Brien, 29 March 2009 - 05:53 AM.

[Raien]

NM87 reminds me of the people who buy the same Barbie dolls with new hats. Honestly, I wouldn't mind a change in vision and have a steampunk Zelda. But tacking on a train is not changing the vision; it's just a new hat that now looks out-of-place with the rest of the game. Like a Ku Klux Klan hat.

Edited by Raien, 29 March 2009 - 06:48 AM.

[Nameless_Joe]

Or possibly something less CD-i like, such as entirely new starring characters.
After all, if it was a spin off series with a different name, Zelda wouldn't need to be in.

Um, have you played Tingle's Rosy Rupeeland?

Excellent point.
I once had plans for a fangame in which Link would ride a Griffin.

Exactly - cartoony style Zelda has for long time now eroded away the magical fantasy world setting in which the games are based. Twilight Princess only served to harm it further by being much-grittier and far too Lord of the Rings-esque for people's tastes. A train of all things, not only insulting to traditionalists, totally destroys the otherworldly-illusion altogether.

I can only express my disbelief and disgust that Nintendo could choose that uninspired concept over an entire list of legendary Japanese folklore creatures at their disposal. They have a diverse and boundless mythology full of possibilities, and they picked a chuffing train. Trains aren't magical in the least!

TWW didn't erode the fantasy world in my opinion, but its successors have... And TP was a good effort, just lacking. I didn't mind the darkness of it, but the excessive brownness of the whole game was disappointing. I agree wholeheartedly regarding the train and magical creatures.

And as long as they make the game, I may as well try to enjoy it.

That sentence has pretty much summed up my sentiments for the Zelda series since TWW. Pity...

[Wolf O'Donnell]

^My initial reaction. Just let how AWESOME a freaking Train is soak in. Give trains a chance; they're cool, you know it! You just don't want it in a Zelda game, I think. And neither did I at first. But when I realized the potential of this, I saw it would be no worse than a horse or a boat. Remember how random a talking boat sounded at first. Well this is just as random, but at least the train doesn't talk.

This is gunna be some crazy game. For the first time in a long long time, I have no clue what direction a Zelda game is going to go in. Think about this - this is the first really truely unpredictable Zelda game we've had in a long time. We knew PH would be WW2, we knew TP would be OoT rehash, etc. This is something we know nothing about, and a Train is just random enough to keep me guessing.

And the Darknut! We can play as a darknut! This is big stuff!

*is very excited*

I know I said goodbye to these forums, but somehow I managed to come across this comment.

Quite frankly, I could not let it go unchallenged.

Somehow, I don't think you can play as a Darknut. Seeing as how this is visually the same as Phantom Hourglass, which in turn is visually similar to The Wind Waker where you get a talking boat, I presume that the "Darknut" is actually the train.

Also, you'd be quite surprised (or maybe not) about how little attention this game is getting on the other forums I go to. I haven't been able to talk to anybody about it, except for one person who said PH was too easy and another who said he couldn't quite get comfortable with the control scheme and wouldn't want to play ST if its control scheme is the same.

Oh yeah, and uh... Hello again.

Edited by Wolf_ODonnell, 29 March 2009 - 09:49 AM.

[SteveT]

Mmhmm, and you are Shigeru Miyamoto to say what Zelda is and is not. No wait, you are Mr. Triforce of Time Link-is-his-own-father.

Well, let's look at the evidence. I can name 13 swords and sorcery Zelda games. How many steampunk Zelda games can you name?

If you can name more than 13, I'll concede that I'm wrong about what genre Zelda is.

Like you can dictate what Nintendo can and can not do with their own property.

Never claimed I could. I can only say that certain ideas don't fit into what they've previously done with a given series, and voice my opinion that they'd create new IPs for any given genre (like they've always done) rather than the other way around.

Mario went into space. The least Zelda can do is try something new as well, and by golly its going to.

Not really relevant. I think you'll find that in Mario games, the setting has never been very consistent. Sure, about half of them take place in the Mushroom Kingdom, but just as many don't. Even within a particular game (like SMB3), the setting varied wildly. I could actually see Mario running and jumping through a steampunk setting, and it wouldn't be jarring in the least.

Edited by SteveT, 29 March 2009 - 10:08 AM.

[Duke Serkol]

Exactly - cartoony style Twilight Princess only served to harm it further by being much-grittier and far too Lord of the Rings-esque for people's tastes.

Mh... persoanlly if I can fault TP for anything is because of how recycled the plot felt and how bland most characters were. I actually wish they had delivered on the promise of epic grand LotR like battles as seen in the trailer (with an army of Bllblins lining up over the horizon).

I guess I'm just looking at it as a single annoyance.

And I would too if it wasn't a single annoyance that will accompany us for the whole game.

Actually, you know what I'd really like for the series? I'd like them to take a few years off, like they did between AoL and LttP, and LA and OoT. Not necessarily because the games will be much better for it, but the rate they've been churning games out (and I use the term liberally - they have been pretty high quality games) kind of caused the series to lose some of its charm. Or maybe that's just me. >_>

It's not just you, I feel the same way. And is it a coincidence that no Zelda has had as many dungeons as ALttP and OoT? No need to answer that...

Honestly, I wouldn't mind a change in vision and have a steampunk Zelda. But tacking on a train is not changing the vision; it's just a new hat that now looks out-of-place with the rest of the game. Like a Ku Klux Klan hat.

That's a great metaphor for it!

Um, have you played Tingle's Rosy Rupeeland?

I started, but Dr. Mario told me to stop because it was bad for me.
Seriously I need to find the resolve to get through the damn thing.

TWW didn't erode the fantasy world in my opinion

Of course, because it's just typical fantasy to climb up a technological tower in order to fight a robot over techno background music, all the while carrying with you a modded portable console used to communicate with Tingle

[Wolf O'Donnell]

It's not just you, I feel the same way. And is it a coincidence that no Zelda has had as many dungeons as ALttP and OoT? No need to answer that...

ALttP 12 (3 Light World, Hyrule Castle, 8 Dark World).
OoT 9 (3 young Link, 5 adult Link and Ganon's Castle) although there's eleven if you count the Well and Gerudo Fortress mini-dungeons.
Link's Awakening 9 dungeons, plus one mini-dungeon in the form of Richard's Castle.
Oracles series 8 main dungeons each (can't remember if there were any mini-dungeons).

Therefore, I can name at least three Zelda games with as many dungeons.

Oh and what about TP? That one had eight too, didn't it?

[Duke Serkol]

ALttP 12 (3 Light World, Hyrule Castle, 8 Dark World).
OoT 9 (3 young Link, 5 adult Link and Ganon's Castle) although there's eleven if you count the Well and Gerudo Fortress mini-dungeons.

Yeah the bottom of the well counts because it isn't optional (or is it possible to beat the game without the lens of truth? I never tried that). Gerudo fotress doesn't really feel like a dungeon so I would say no.

Link's Awakening 9 dungeons, plus one mini-dungeon in the form of Richard's Castle.
Oracles series 8 main dungeons each (can't remember if there were any mini-dungeons).
Therefore, I can name at least three Zelda games with as many dungeons.

Unless I'm forgetting something, Link's Awakening only has nine if you count either the DX bonus dungeon or the maze before the final boss, neither of which I would (nor Richard's Castle).
So yeah, Oracle gets close but in the end it stays within the original "standard" set by the first game (8 dungeons plus a final one). Which would be ok to me, the point is, the other post OoT Zelda are all shorter.
Heck, in a way the first game is still the longest because it had a second quest with another set of dungeons... but counting that may be kind of cheap since they hardly contained anything new.

So in the end ALttP and OoT remain the two Zeldas with the most dungeons (although Oracle did a good job coming close)

Oh and what about TP? That one had eight too, didn't it?

Nine actually (just one less than OoT). I mean, you could count the castle sewers, but there's no boss fight or map (not even a heart container at the end) so I'd say no.
Like I said, nine dungeons is an ok amount for a "standard" Zelda game, but for the one heralded as the successor of OoT I expected a couple more.
But hey, the overworld was bigger than ever (and my favorite among the 3D ones) so I don't hold that against TP.

Edited by Duke Serkol, 29 March 2009 - 12:11 PM.

[Toan]

Wait a minute...OUR FAULT? You Sir, are an arrogant arse.
If Miyamoto tried to pass this LSD trip off as Zelda would you call his bluff? Or carry on like the stubborn loyalist you clearly are? Anyway, regardless of which one you choose stop throwing your weight around where it isn't wanted. You're entitled to your opinion, UNLESS its one where everyone else's values are wrong.

NM87 reminds me of the people who buy the same Barbie dolls with new hats.

I'm pointing these out additionally - I told NM87 to knock it off, but that doesn't mean you two can come back around and berate him as well.

I bolded the bit that I find blatantly wrong, spunky, and as for the rest - everyone here is entitled to their own opinion, but when anyone goes telling someone else that their opinion is wrong, well, then they're in the wrong. I don't care if you guys argue about aid opinion, the pros, cons, merits, demerits, what have you. When the fine line between disliking the opinion and disliking the person is crossed, or when the line between disliking the opinion and insulting the opinion and, by extension, the person who has that opinion, then -I- have an problem with that, as well as the other admins who will back me up.

Raien, I understand the point you make with your statement towards NM87, but using Barbie dolls is berating. For the future: not a good idea.

Please, everyone, this is an engaging discussion, but don't let it get from engaging to enraging. Manners: they're what's for breakfast in the rules.

[Raien]

I don't see how my example was insulting. It's a commonly-known example where people are encouraged to buy the same thing over on the basis of a small change. Nintendo is taking the "accessory" approach to game-making, and I'm just highlighting that point with real life accessories.

[SOAP]

NM87 reminds me of the people who buy the same Barbie dolls with new hats. Honestly, I wouldn't mind a change in vision and have a steampunk Zelda. But tacking on a train is not changing the vision; it's just a new hat that now looks out-of-place with the rest of the game. Like a Ku Klux Klan hat.

What the... We've only seen like what... 1% of the game so far, if even that. That's not much to go on to say that the train is "tacked on." For all we know, a train would be right at home with the technological advancement of the rest of game's world. Especially if it's anything like in TMC. Heck, a train would fit in TMC's world without it looking out of place. So far we've only seen a castle and bunch of trees. OMIGODS! It must be medievalz! NO TRAINZ ALLOWED! lolz

[SteveT]

The argument's not so much about whether the train is a good idea, but whether the train changes the genre.

The Barbie example is just saying that if the train is even trying to change the genre, then it's a very superficial attempt.

[SOAP]

The argument's not so much about whether the train is a good idea, but whether the train changes the genre.

The Barbie example is just saying that if the train is even trying to change the genre, then it's a very superficial attempt.

It might be an aesthetic change but at least it's a start. This medieval stasis the series has been stuck is making the series stagnant. It's refreshing to see games like MM, TWW, and TMC with differently period and cultural influences. At the same time, I'm not expecting a DS game to change the whole series. I'd love a full fledged steampunk Zelda but I think that can only realized on the Wii. TP flirted with the steampunk and wild west genres. If only if it was taken just a bit further....

[Duke Serkol]

Heck, a train would fit in TMC's world without it looking out of place.

...I think you just broke my brain.