Legend of Zelda online ARPG?

[ChromeAlchemist]

-snip-

You know I completely forgot about most of the bloody races, the Sheikah, thank you for that.

And yes I was thinking of making each class unique by racial difference, I put it in a post above.

This would make no sense, Zelda has no real classes in the game other then the hero link. There are no other real heroes that stand out other then Link or Zelda so where would your random Joe-Shmoe character fit into a Zelda Universe? also with the timeline that Zelda follows it would be impossible for the game to settle in one era for to long

This wouldn't be a main story game, more of a side story within the same mythos, and there wouldn't be a real central hero to this. Don't think hero of time on this one.

Also timeline wouldn't be hard, just set it two minutes after the end of Ocarina of Time and you have everyone except Link and Ganondorf, and a world you can feck with at your discretion.

And what would be wrong with separating the talents of link into various classes? Setting it as a single class with varying abilities through races would work well I think, but seperating into different classes could work as well. You have people that can use magic, so that's a mage. You have people who only use swords, so they could be knights or warriors, and so on and so forth. Hell you even have that lady with the Poes, you could have shamans (but of course this may be going too far into MMORPG territory)

 

[Fanboy]

What's the deal with all these "Change Zelda" threads?

How about instead of drastically changing a long running and successful series, make an entirely new game. Why does it have to be Zelda?

 

[searanox]

What's the deal with all these "Change Zelda" threads?

How about instead of drastically changing a long running and successful series, make an entirely new game. Why does it have to be Zelda?

Because people are dumb and think that they're the first person to ever have this totally radical idea, as if it hasn't been discussed by Nintendo themselves a thousand times over before. Anybody can come up with silly stuff like this. It's implementing it all, debating every little point of every little gameplay system and mechanic, that's what actually takes talent.

Oh, and they want to do this to Zelda because they like Zelda, but have no idea why Zelda actually works. Nothing more to it.

 

[1337stephen]

I don't know how they would pull it off without changing it so drastically that it becomes a different game, but if Nintendo released a Zelda MMORPG and they pull it off well and it's still Zelda, then I would definitely pay to play it.

 

[ChromeAlchemist]

Attempts? Do you mean Four Swords? If so I personally thought that was a great game, and I don't mean this as a main franchise title, in a sense it can't be one.

Four Swords is good for what it is, but if you want a spin-off Zelda title that has high production values, then Nintendo sure aren't going to deliver it themselves.

Plus I don't think you got what I meant. I didn't say MMO, I said ARPG, and there is a difference.

My mistake. I read your post incorrectly.

Yes definitely, like I said it would retain the feel of zelda, only you would be fighting with others. Since I am sure you have played a zelda game before, the fighting system does feel very acrobatic, and is very skill based (think dark link in OOT, where you needed to use skill to win...unless you used the hammer).

Co-op works in simple games where players have relatively equal abilities (not necessarily skill levels), because progression in those cases is usually entirely linear and limited by how quickly the players can defeat enemies and move forward. It works with Call of Duty and Gears of War because those are relatively simple and entirely linear games with very little to do outside of shooting things; even Fable 2 can pull it off, but that's because Fable is fairly limited when it comes to its presentation of story and depth of gameplay mechanics compared to what Zelda offers.

Zelda is not about combat, and for the most part it is not that linear; it's about exploring a fairly open-ended world where exploration and problem-solving skills are key. That emphasis on individual achievement doesn't rule out co-operative gameplay, but designing a game in this fashion would be incredibly difficult if it were to stay true to the Zelda framework (I'd say impossible). I really do not think you have thought this idea through very much - you want Nintendo to make this dream game of yours, but you haven't actually worked out how you would create such a game. You've got a bunch of random ideas that sound really neat on paper; try implementing them, especially on a limited budget and with limited manpower. Either of two things are going to suffer: size, or quality.

Whoa whoa whoa now, I didn't say I wanted nintendo to make this game, not once. I am just toying with the concept of this. Plus I am not a games designer and don't claim to be, like I said this is just me bouncing ideas about. You seem to be responding as if I said I am asking for a development team and a ridiculously high budget, when in reality I have asked for nothing but your thoughts on the concept of this and if it appeals to you.(of course this was way before it went into detail).

Also when I said it could stay with the formula, I didn't mean to a tee, I mean the title of the thread says Zelda ARPG, and that is quite a departure from the series already (as it is action adventure).

And not everything has to be a WoW clone, I said in the OP akin to monster hunter, which could also be similar to phantasy star online.

 

[ChromeAlchemist]

What's the deal with all these "Change Zelda" threads?

How about instead of drastically changing a long running and successful series, make an entirely new game. Why does it have to be Zelda?

Because people are dumb and think that they're the first person to ever have this totally radical idea, as if it hasn't been discussed by Nintendo themselves a thousand times over before. Anybody can come up with silly stuff like this. It's implementing it all, debating every little point of every little gameplay system and mechanic, that's what actually takes talent.

Oh, and they want to do this to Zelda because they like Zelda, but have no idea why Zelda actually works. Nothing more to it.

I never said I was the first person to come up with the bloody idea, and I didn't say Nintendo have not thought about it, but I haven't seen it been done on this forum and would like to know peoples thoughts. I am not going to run to Nintendo and ask them to make it, this is just a fantasy thread about a fantasy game. This is a bloody forum of discussion, and right now this is being discussed, not actually being pitched to anyone. You really shouldn't assume things like you are.

 

[Archemetis]

Seriously, just bring out another Four Swords game, I never got play the original (tempted to buy them) but the concept and the teamplay idea always intrigued me.

 

[super_smash_jesus]

I just don't see this working myself. The thing about Zelda games, is they are exploration, but offer little multiplayer abilities. The entire concept about Zelda generally is that there is a myth of a single hero that saves hyrule, be it through the triforce, a stupid talking hat, or otherwise.

By all means, I would love to see a multiplayer aspect to Zelda, but how it gets done is a big issue. In terms of 2 players, which is really all i could see working considering link has always had assistance from one other indivdual throughout games, than a setup similar to Fable 2 might work, so long as it was polished, and well....not shitty like Fable 2's. I figure so long as there is one person who is the destined one, and the other character is more or less a ghost assisting that person.

I don't know, I am reluctant to change Zelda games because I love them the way they are, I think ARPG or MMOs could use to create their own story and characters, and not take something like zelda down to their level.

 

[ChromeAlchemist]

What's the deal with all these "Change Zelda" threads?

How about instead of drastically changing a long running and successful series, make an entirely new game. Why does it have to be Zelda?

Like I said somewhere, I'm not talking about it being changed, on the contrary I feel Zelda is doing fine as is and I am a long time lover of the series (although I have not played Twilight Princess properly yet) but this is just a fantasy idea for a spinoff game, which could expand the Zelda mythos. I don't wan't to think of a new game idea, and this whole thing was in light of another thread.

 

[KeyMaster45]

There are games that can work if you shoehorn a multiplayer system into them, then there are others that don't. Zelda is one of them. The mere mention of a Zelda game gets people riled up and their wallets at the ready. Don't fix what isn't broken, doing so can, and will break it.

And this is the second mention of someone wanting an MMO for a single player Nintendo game. Why does everything have to become playable with friends, rather; why do we want games that we know are just fine as a single person experience to have multiplayer capabilities.

EDIT
You know what, forget everything I said. I'm just going to say NO. N-F'ing-O. I'm not going to let people who want multiplayer ruin another franchise of games.

 

[Squarewave]

A while back someone made a zelda MMO based on a link to the past, it was rather fun, but as it used artwork from link to the past and was even called zelda online at one point they ended up getting sued. they ended up changing the name and some of the artwork

I Forget what they changed the name too, I remember there being too many bugs and exploits (it was a pvp game there was expoits that would one shot people ) In all fairness I think there was only a few people developing it in their spare time.

 

[Mr. Fister]

Heh, there's never gonna be a Zelda MMO. You have to remember, this is Nintendo we're talking about here.

That, and two simple words will destroy any chance of this: Friend codes.

 

[MrEco]

This entire thread(and idea) are full of massive amounts of win!