Refried Zelda?…crap!….p***.

I guess Nintendo discovered the response to the question of how many times can a game be refried and sold over and over.

250 dollars for 3DS crappy battery, no worthwile games on 3DS…bah! ………p***!

A NO GAME 3Ds for 249 or a brand new Playstation Three PLUS a free GAME plus a 50 dollar gift card.

Gee let me think(sarcasm).

And Nintendo wonders gee why are 3DS sales low?

Get lost! Nintendo!

249 dollars for black ops games plus a new PS3 at Games Stop since it comes with a 50 dollar gift card.

First, you have the idea of mooooore items to carry and interact with. The items in Zelda, however, are always something special. Every time you get an item or a bunch of rupees, a fanfare sounds, congratulating you for finding that item. That would become boring if you picked up some junk item every five seconds, right? You don't get _a_ boomerang, you get _the_ boomerang. And you don't have 500 swords with different stats to choose, you got one or two. And the second isn't "damage +3", it's something like the Master Sword, the only sword which is able to defeat Ganon, or it's the Shell sword, which is able to shoot beams which might even change your gameplay. Same with shields. There aren't a bunch of shields who have different stats, you have shields who are, well, shields, then you get another one which might be fire resistant or mirroring beams. So – you get the idea: the items are special. And although Link already uses hammerspace to carry his impressive collection of gadgets and weapons, it becomes much more ridiculous if he casually carries 20 rusty swords he found to sell them later.

Also, the menu would change. And to have a table with just text like in Fallout or an inventory grid kills atmosphere imho.

I think the dynamic levelling is a stupid piece of game design, even more in a linear game! I agree that the normal enemies in Legend of Zelda are usually (much) too easy. But to adapt it to the heroes „level“ doesn’t make it better. The point of becoming stronger is to become stronger than the enemies, right? Why should I bother to collect heart pieces when the enemies would become harder then? Isn't it much more reasonable if there are, for example, enemies which are too strong for you at the start but will be a equal enemy later in the game?

So, nagging aside, I agree with you that it’d be nice if the areas would feel more real and less like levels, but I’d say that they already do a better job than other games. And I’d prefer a level that doesn’t look very real to a level that doesn’t look like a level in a game, but is horrible in terms of gameplay structure. Again, it's something about making it special – in Fallout, you may walk through a metro, shoot some random raiders, and that's it. You walked through a metro. In Zelda, you have unique tasks to do to master the dungeon/area instead of just walking through it and killing all enemies. (I know there are many sidequests in those areas in Fallout 3, just making an example here).

About the quests: Yes, I would like to see more sidequests, but I’d prefer to see consequences of my actions instead of getting a potion or a bag of rupees (of which I usually have too many anyway). And please no "collect 20 bear asses" and "kill that random NPC" please!

However, in Japan, its the exact opposite. There tends to be a rejection by the gaming populace towards freedom and more of a desire for restriction. Look at most JRPGs to understand this concept. Even something like restricting camera movement (present in earlier Metal Gear Solid and Resident Evil games) shows this philosophy pretty well.

Keep in mind that since Zelda is a Japanese game that it tends to be made to appeal to the more immediate gaming culture. It will be made to be more restrictive when compared to Western games. If Zelda were to be made more like Fallout, the Japanese gaming population probably won't receive it very well (Fallout 3 isn't a really popular game, from what I've seen and heard. Anyone, feel free to correct me).

So, keep in mind that you're coming from a different culture and your ideas of what might improve Zelda may be completely different from what a gamer in Japan might think. There's nothing wrong with either philosophy, just keep in mind that they're different.

Also, I'm so happy that the author used "popular Fallout 3 series" instead of just Fallout – implying, correctly, that 3 is something completely different from the previous ones. Though, since there's only one game (Fallout3) I'm curious as how it can be called series – maybe the multitude of milking stupid customers, I mean downloadable content counts?

The other thing is, is that Zelda is a series. Series innovations SHOULD be fairly limited. Change the formula too much, and you might as well start a new franchise, which imo wouldn't be a bad thing either, since all we get these days is sequel after sequel after sequel to any franchise. Fallout 3 is actually an excellent example of this. Poke around any Fallout community website and it won't take long for you to notice that Fallout 3 alienated a lot of the original games' fans. Its more popular, to be sure, but thats because its more mainstream and accessible than the originals. The fans of the first two games are understandably upset that was once a crpg has been turned into a shooter, and the VATS system is little consolation.

Anyway, I'd say that if anything, Fallout 3 could learn a few things from Zelda, not the other way around.

Screw Fallout 3 or Oblivion. Zelda should take its cues from Baldurs Gate II and Fallout 2. That is story based immersive experiences. Basically Zelda should just tell their stories better and make them more engaging to give the person that EPIC feel. Ocarina of time, Fallout 1&2 were the most engaging and immmersive video game experiences I've ever had. Zelda accomplished this with incredible production values (music and graphics) and really really fun gameplay, whether I was shooting or jumping around or solving puzzles. Ocarina of Time pushed the N64 to its limits but can any recent Zelda game say the same of the Wii? Its just a case of using what you have available to its fullest potential. I say not MORE side quests, just more immersive, engaging and FUN side quests. I say there is no need to pick shit up- just create more immersive and engaging environments. And lastly I say no need for more varied rewards just create rewards that are more relevant to the story, immersive and profound. Learning to use and finally getting that horse or that master sword should be very fulfilling and epic moment in a Zelda game.

Lets all remember what Ocarina was in its time. First epic 3d world experience on a console, first epic experiences of fighting with sword and shield, riding a horse and shooting a bow. EPIC and affecting storyline. Incredible level design. Incredible graphics and music. And finally the most advanced control scheme EVER devised. As long as Nintendo keep on doing this with the technology that it has in its hands Zelda will never get old or boring. And they will never need to learn shit from anyone.

My favorite part has to be when he says, "Has Link ever been through a forest? Not really. Yes there is the Lost Woods and the Forest Temple. But I mean a real forest. Why have we never had to travel through a forest to get to the village on the other side?".

Thank you, Noah, and keep em' coming :)

I HATED WW. </3 I'm usually all for storylines and not graphics but the graphic design was so bad I couldn't concentrate on the plotline much. The graphics made me vomit, it felt like it was hand drawn by a two year old. Also, the bull that you had to go through to get all the Triforce pieces? And if you were off by even the slightest when you lowered the crane into the water, you had to wait 5 minutes for the crane to pop back up and do it all over again, THAT and I was sick of only seeing water..

I loved Ocarina of Time because it was amazing, they kept a lot of elements from the Zelda series in there but enhanced the graphics and gameplay. There's no need to start introducing guns to Link, that'd just be really F—ing stupid. I'm still upset about Spirit Tracks, I mean.. please a train? o.o;

Twilight Princess was amazing as well, your seriously telling me they didn't do a lot to improve by that game? You should get your head examined.

And Dark Link, "Now send me a screenshot of when Link is in a forest and actually surronded by trees in a 3D zelda game that plays some significant purpose."

Go play Twilight Princess and go to the Forest and… http://images.amazon.com/images/G/01/videogames/d… look! Trees! Even a waterfall. I've played all of Twilight Princess, I own both the Gamecube and Wii version of the game and there are many times where Link is surrounded by trees. For instance when he's in wolf form and he has to jump from tree to tree to get across the poisonous clouds below him. o.-; So what the heck are you talking about? Are you sure you've played the game?

If fans were really fans, they wouldn't buy into a lot of this poo. A fan doesn't mean buy every single Zelda game, no matter how crappy it is.