494 replies to this topic

[Ventus]

Anyone see this yet? http://www.walmart.c...-Wii-U/23014795 Zelda 2 (RPG) Wii U on walmart and for a normal price of $100.

You know I find this kinda interesting, I know it couldn't be but wouldn't be awesome if this game is a remake of the unforgiving Zelda 2 for nes?

 

I'm pretty sure if it is, I might like zelda 2 all over again

[David]

That sounds interesting (both the fighting game and the post above me). I'd want to see what they'd both become!

[TheLegend_njf]

I just say that's been done by somebody who doesn't know what an RPG is. I posted a topic recently asking the question why Zelda isn't addressed as an RPG. Which lead to great answers.

However, the thing is, a lot of people who's never played Zelda calls it an RPG. I wouldn't think much of it.

[Ventus]

Yeah I'm not thinking much of it but a man can dream of a remake of zelda 2 can't he.

Edited by Ventus, 23 December 2013 - 12:06 PM.

[The Satellite]

Big bump but Japan will have this game in summer this year:

 

http://www.polygon.c...ease-date-japan

 

Dunno how long it'll take before it reaches the states, but I'm excited that it's that close. I wish they'd release a few more details though, but maybe those'll start cropping up before or during E3.

[Shane]

At least we got valuable information. It has been a while. I guess it's safe to assume we'll be seeing a trailer with more final product material and name at E3.

 

Old, but on the subject of "Zelda 2 (RPG) Wii U", I do not think a Zelda 2 remake will happen any time soon. Not before a Zelda 1 remake, at least. And personally, I don't think it's the most interesting thing for Nintendo to do. And Nintendo has said remakes are no longer on their mind.

Edited by Charizard, 08 May 2014 - 08:05 AM.

[Koh]

Well they should.  Those games need a facelift.  As much as I like Z1, Hyrule's naught but a bland desert.  They need to update it with today's standards of High Resolution 2D Sprites, and give the world some detail, to make it actually appealing to look at.

Edited by Koh, 08 May 2014 - 08:28 AM.

[Maleboocado]

Since this topic has been bumped, I feel free to post my opinions about Hyrule Warriors.

Let's see how this game evolves, but I must agree with Air Luigi and others. I dislike a lot what I have seen so far.

The magic of Zelda 1's battle system is that you must be careful with *any* movement you execute. Sure, Link is more maneuverable than any of the standard monsters, but they are still hard to defeat, specially when a room is infested of enemies. The player needs to know the range of any of his/her weapons and master them. Think of it as a 8 bits version of the Souls games (or to be more exact, think of the Souls games as Zelda 1-inspired 3D games). Defeating enemies in Z1 is pure pleasure.

No other official Zelda game understood it as well as the first game. They made Link too overpowered and the enemies too weak and stupid. That does not mean killing enemies in games like OoT is boring. The Z targetting in OoT and the musical rhythm in WW made battles a beautiful and magical spectacle. But it's not as pure and special.

Nothing of this is on HW. When I saw the trailer in December, I feel embarrased of seeing Link dropping lots of bombs in a second or doing crazy sword attacks and defeating dozens of moblins in one stroke, whereas the enemies themselves did absolutely nothing except standing still.

Some people on this thread and in other communities have said that since this is not an official Zelda game but rather a spinoff we shouldn't feel worried about the main franchise. "It's not going to harm its reputation". "If you don't like it, don't play it". Well, of course I don't like it and I'm not going to buy it, but I think the first point is plain wrong. Zelda was a creative franchise. It introduced or reused many noble concepts of other games in a fantastic form and paved the way for other developers and franchises. Now Zelda (and spinoffs) tries to copy itself or relies on other franchises to sell some copies.

For all its shortcomings, Four Swords was an original product. It changed some pre-established concepts of earlier Zelda games in order to address the problem of introducing multiple players in a Zelda game, and did it well. Its sequel, Four Swords Adventures, is a really really great game, even if it's extremely easy and does not play like a traditional Zelda game. Which tell us that the core Zelda experience is awesomely adaptable (an arcade styled, multiplayer Metroid game? Impossible to make). Hyrule Warriors on the other hand is just Dinasty Warriors but with a Zelda skin, nothing more, nothing less. It looks like a raw, quick product made to grab some cheap cash and sell some Wii U systems, because the Wii U is being a disaster for Nintendo in terms of marketing and total amount of hardware sold.

But of course it's my opinion, so your mileage may vary.

Edited by Maleboocado, 08 May 2014 - 11:00 AM.

[The Satellite]

Remember these?

 

http://zeldawiki.org..._Rosy_Rupeeland

http://zeldawiki.org...alloon_Fight_DS

http://zeldawiki.org...on_Trip_of_Love

http://zeldawiki.org...ossbow_Training

 

Remember how they ruined Zelda's reputation? Me neither. Your reasoning is sound and fair for everything else, but if these spinoffs didn't ruin the franchise, I don't know what well. Well, more specifically the Tingle games, but still. However I do have to say it's a little unfair to complain about Link's attack style when, well, that's how attacks in Dynasty Warriors work, from what I'm aware of, so of course a Dynasty Warriors spinoff is going to use Dynasty Warriors style attacks.

 

Again, don't get me wrong, it's fair that it doesn't appeal to you, and yes, maybe it is just a cash grab, but if it turns out to be a fun game, who cares? Those who don't care for it will move on, those who enjoy it will have a good time, and both groups can still look forward to the next full entry in the Zelda franchise. But to say it'll ruin the franchise's reputation when much dumber things have happened (lest we forget the cartoon and CD-i games happened as well), well, that's just silly.

[Maleboocado]

But comparing these games against Hyrule Warriors is also unfair.

The CD-i games where unknown for the general Zelda fandom until Youtube Poops were born, they were obscure games for an obscure game console, the Phillips CD-i. The Crossbow Training game was a bunch of minigames made to promote the Wii Zapper, and it was a completely original game. The Tingle games weren't released outside of Japan (save the first game), they featured Tingle, outside of Hyrule, and they were original games too (the Balloon Fighter crossover being the exception). Super Smash Bros. is its own separate franchise, not a Zelda spinoff, and it just features Zelda characters, stages, and music, just like it has representation from Mario, Pokémon, Donkey Kong, Star Fox, Metroid and other Nintendo franchises.

Hyrule Warriors on the other hand features the gameplay from Dinasty Warriors but with Zelda characters, enemies, music and world. And it was announced in a Nintendo Direct, an online event streamed and watched by millions of people. I don't think the CD-i games were as proportionally promoted by Nintendo in the nineties as Hyrule Warriors.

Put it in a different way. Let's say Nintendo announces tomorrow a new Zelda spinoff called "Hyrule Lost World", which is, as you can guess, the Zelda themed Sonic Lost World stage but extended to fill an entire game. Change Sonic characters and enemies with Zelda characters and enemies, add some music from the Zelda series, change the story a little to make it a little more coherent with Zelda, and nothing else. Will you defend it?

Edited by Maleboocado, 08 May 2014 - 04:31 PM.

[The Satellite]

Hence why I didn't list the CD-i games as one of my main examples, and I didn't even mention Smash Bros. Why would I have? Smash Bros. is a rather genius idea incorporating all sorts of Nintendo franchises, not just Zelda. I'm not sure how that got into this discussion at all.

 

In answer to your question, no, but because those mixing of gameplay styles makes no sense with the setting of Zelda. But Dynasty Warriors? Honestly it does. That sort of medieval weapons and wizardry warfare works perfectly with the setting of Zelda, very well known for its weapons and wizardry in a medieval-ish setting. Well, I suppose Dynasty Warriors isn't so much "medieval" considering its typical setting, but ancient kingdoms, also a fitting descriptor of the Zelda setting. I don't see the conflict, other than differing gameplay styles, hence why this isn't being called a Zelda game. It's simple.

 

No matter how you may view Nintendo's current decision-making when it comes to hardware and marketing, they generally play their franchises smartly, or at least their most important ones like Mario and Zelda. If they didn't think this idea would work, they wouldn't have tried it. If the final product turns out to be garbage or not well-received, they won't do it again. They're not stupid.

[Aevin]

In answer to your question, no, but because those mixing of gameplay styles makes no sense with the setting of Zelda. But Dynasty Warriors? Honestly it does. That sort of medieval weapons and wizardry warfare works perfectly with the setting of Zelda, very well known for its weapons and wizardry in a medieval-ish setting. Well, I suppose Dynasty Warriors isn't so much "medieval" considering its typical setting, but ancient kingdoms, also a fitting descriptor of the Zelda setting. I don't see the conflict, other than differing gameplay styles, hence why this isn't being called a Zelda game. It's simple.

That's merely your opinion, and a major point of contention between those looking forward to this game and those who aren't. I definitely don't think the Dynasty Warriors gameplay style "works perfectly" with the setting of Zelda. I don't think it being a "medieval weapons and wizardry" style has anything to do with it. They could make a sci-fi styled game with Dynasty Warriors gameplay, and if it was an original creation I'd have no problem with it. But I wouldn't want it to be "Metroid Warriors" or something. It's about taking an existing franchise and lumping it in with something else. Personally, I don't think it's a good fit, here. Of course, I hardly think it's going to ruin the entire franchise, but it's not my thing and I'll avoid it, just like most of those other spinoffs.

[Air Luigi]

By the way, I have Tingle's Rosy Rupeeland and is a very good creative original game, way better than PH and ST, IMO. 

[The Satellite]

That's actually my fault for wording it terribly, I actually meant the settings were a perfect fit, not the gameplay styles. I suppose that too is an opinion but I think it works. Now, I wouldn't want a Metroid Warriors either, but at least with Hyrule Warriors, Link is retaining the items he was known for, swords and other items. Unless Metroid Warriors was like a spinoff with Rundas or something, I wouldn't see it working with Samus, but I can see it working with Link just because it keeps Link with his known weaponry. Plus (back into pure opinion territory here) I think the idea of Link mowing down hordes of Bokoblins is pretty great, which I guess makes this a pure fanservice game, but what's wrong with that? 

 

... also, I'd play the hell out of a Mario Warriors, just saying.

[Maleboocado]

I know you didn't mention the CD-i games and Smash Bros. But some other user did it a few pages (and months lol) ago so I tried to cover all possible cases.

Of course the setting of Sonic the Hedgehog does not fit with the Zelda universe at all, whereas the Dinasty Warriors games are far closer. Sonic and friends does not use weapons at all (except in that Wii game), at least swords are common in Dinasty Warriors. But it's still the same case: you are copypasting a completely different franchise and then making the least amount necessary changes to pass it as a Zelda-related work. Four Swords was a derivative game and it had many changes, Link's Crossbow Training was a derivative/semi-different game and it had MANY changes the Tingle games were completely different games (again Tingle's Balloon Fighting being the only exception, but it was a copypaste of Balloon Fighting). They all have at least some effort and work behind, whereas Hyrule Warriors doesn't. Please consider than here I'm not even talking about Dinasty Warriors's quality like I did on my first post, nor I'm defending the existence of Link's Crossbow Training and similar. I'm just speaking of pure, raw human work put into the game by its developers.

I understand your confidence with Nintendo and I'm sad we disagree here too. I don't trust Nintendo's current management of its franchises, save the Mario games (and then we have the New series...) which still gives us wonderful games like Galaxy 1&2. This is not the usual retro gamer ranting about modern games (some of my favourite games are from this last decade), but I believe something like Hyrule Warriors would have never been approved under Yamauchi's presidence. Was everything released by Nintendo in the eighties and nineties pure masterpieces? Well, no, far from it... But I just prefer their videogame philosophies. They were more open, challenging, magical, experimental products than most of the current sequels released in the last years. Maybe we have just different perspectives about what games are supposed to be, and we need to agree to disagree.