A Super Mario 64/Zelda Hybrid?

[The Wanderer]

I've been thinking about possible Zelda spin-offs recently, and one that stuck in my mind was a cross between Super Mario 64 (or Sunshine, or Galaxy) and the general gameplay of Zelda. It would obviously bear the basic formula of Zelda, but I think it would be interesting to see how that formula gets translated to a Super Mario 64-style game.

For those unfamiliar with Super Mario 64 or its successors, the game revolves around starting from a central hub (in this case, Peach's Castle) and gaining access to new worlds whose entrances are all in various points of the castle. Each world has its own "missions" (for lack of a better term) where you complete an objective to get a Power Star. More Power Stars open up more worlds, and each world has its own Stars until you reach Bowser at various points in the castle and face off with him. It's a very simple style of gameplay, but quite engrossing.

I don't know exactly what this 64/Zelda hybrid's hub would look like - Castle Town would be a natural place to start. Hyrule's a big place in and of itself, so its worlds could take all kinds of forms. Rather than one giant, cohesive overworld, exploration would take place in each massive sub-world...like Banjo-Kazooie or Donkey Kong 64, only even bigger and with better graphics. Each world would be crawling with secrets, from hidden main collectibles to mini-games to boss fights to entirely separate dungeons.

Furthermore, each "Star" (or whatever replaces them, hereafter known as "main collectibles") would bear a riddle rather than a simple name. It could be lyrical or a few simple lines to make you scratch your head and ponder its true meaning, but each would help point you in the right direction and give you some basic instructions. Bosses, dungeons, and puzzles would abound, even outside of each mission's objective. All missions would also have some bearing on the story, whether to show the effects of the main evil on the general population, to further the development of important characters within those worlds, or to present the next big plot twist that advances the story.

I'm aware this will probably seem silly at first glance, but it has the potential to be a never-before-seen gameplay mechanic with all kinds of themes and appeals. Zelda wouldn't be losing its formula with this approach: it would just be altered for a different experience. Also remember that this would be a spin-off, not a main entry to the series. I am not proposing The Legend of Zelda replace its current formula with this. But I do think it would be a great, fresh take on the formula and something to revitalize the series if done well.

So what say you? Is this completely unnecessary or even a bad thing, or is it something you'd like to see? What other spin-offs would you want to see made?

 

[A Link In Time]

I am completely opposed to this idea. Although the original intention was to produce a 3D Zelda game similar to Super Mario 64 with Hyrule Castle as the hub, the title which ultimately developed, Ocarina of Time, stands as a paragon of what Action-Adventure games should be. Nintendo has followed that blueprint closely since and succeeded because of it.

Skyward Sword was a step in the wrong direction with its disconnected overworld. The three regions below the sky-Faron Woods, Eldin Volcano, and Lanayru Desert were large discontinuities lacking fluidity. Twilight Princess may have featured a large pointless expanse in between but it was more believable and rewarding to traverse an open expanse replete with enemies.

Discarding the overworld and crafting missions with worlds of their own teaming with dangerous denizens and puzzles largely neglects the exploration aspect of Zelda and Action-Adventure games in general. There can't be action without adventure. While scouring areas for secrets is highly rewarding, the first half of the labor and the most rewarding for most is speaking with NPCs, following scattered hints, and travelling to the next location.

 

[DarkestLink]

SM64 and Zelda are like Video Games and Movies. They're both awesome, but in their own way. They don't work well together. SM64 and Zelda are just too different.

 

[The Wanderer]

I knew this would receive some opposition, but I feel obligated to further explain my point. This hybrid idea is a mere spin-off; to pull from JuiceJ a bit, a spin-off is a spin-off. It is not part of the main series, and thus Zelda as a whole would maintain the gameplay we expect from it. To hold a spin-off accountable for the entire series would also warrant a comparison to video games at large. Metroid is not bad because it doesn't have the core Zelda gameplay. Neither are Star Fox, Halo, or Final Fantasy. Games of that nature are good on their own merits. Similarly, a Zelda spin-off can be good on its own merits since it is not representative of the entire series. It can be different without having to be bad. And remember, the core Zelda mechanic of exploration is still there. It would be presented differently, but this doesn't mean it would diminish.

Actually, if you think about it, this hybrid proposal would probably bear deeper exploration mechanics than most Zelda games before it. Skyward Sword is often blamed for being linear, but many previous Zelda titles also bore numerous issues that hampered exploration - empty overworlds, lack of changing environment, lack of secrets or nuances. The hybrid idea is a fusion of space, scenery, and detail into many worlds (not three like Skyward Sword, but multiple).

I knew Skyward Sword would inevitably be brought up since it utilizes a "hub" (Skyloft) with three separate "worlds" (Faron, Eldin, and Lanayru). The SM64/Zelda hybrid is not intended to be anything like that. Skyward Sword may as well not exist; this is essentially its own thing. The controls would resemble Zelda, the motivating factor would resemble Super Mario 64, and each world would be a massive (read: mammoth) take on Banjo-Kazooie/Donkey Kong 64 (perhaps the individual areas of Xenoblade Chronicles would be a better comparison). To reiterate, the idea sounds farfetched and silly, but so did a first-person Metroid game. The latter turned out to be highly successful and enjoyable. Spin-offs to any long-established and relatively unchanging franchise are always met with some skepticism, but the fears are often washed away when a talented development team pulls through. The hybrid could be no different.

I was once opposed to the idea of a female Link until I realized I had no real reason to be. It was simply "different" (that word is coming up a lot). This spin-off is "different," but different doesn't always equal bad. It's a new way to see exploration with Zelda's controls and basic formula, not a replacement. A spin-off is a spin-off and doesn't necessitate a change for the whole series.

 

[Ventus]

I totally agree with this proposition, however there are two glaring flaws I immediately see: one, you said it should be a spin-off. Why should it be a spin-off? What's the use in trying to switch up the formula if it is going to a half-hearted attempt at money? If your argument is that "it would be too radical a change, the fans wouldn't be able to handle it" well I throw that argument to the wind. Us fans have survived cartoon graphics, touch controls, dark browns and even motion controls. Changing the entire structure of a Zelda game wouldn't be different at all, especially since your proposal has elements of Four Swords Adventures dotted everywhere. I don't agree with making this a spin off title, as there is no use.

Second, this:

All missions would also have some bearing on the story, whether to show the effects of the main evil on the general population, to further the development of important characters within those worlds, or to present the next big plot twist that advances the story.

Now, I'm not too big on story/plot, but I would like some missions to be there just for the sake of developing minor characters within the worlds. Minor characters, like the bulk of the cast in Majora's Mask, also have a chance to make the greater whole shine. Why exclude them in favor for "important" characters? Sounds a bit harsh to me. ;p

But yeah, aside from those two points I wholly agree with this change of pace/style. xD

 

[SpiritGerudo]

I've said this before, and I'll say it again: too many spin-off games (like Link's Crossbow training or ZeldaKart or a SM64/Zelda hybrid) would ruin the series (for me, at least), so no, just no.

 

[The Wanderer]

I totally agree with this proposition, however there are two glaring flaws I immediately see: one, you said it should be a spin-off. Why should it be a spin-off? What's the use in trying to switch up the formula if it is going to a half-hearted attempt at money? If your argument is that "it would be too radical a change, the fans wouldn't be able to handle it" well I throw that argument to the wind. Us fans have survived cartoon graphics, touch controls, dark browns and even motion controls. Changing the entire structure of a Zelda game wouldn't be different at all, especially since your proposal has elements of Four Swords Adventures dotted everywhere. I don't agree with making this a spin off title, as there is no use.

Second, this: Now, I'm not too big on story/plot, but I would like some missions to be there just for the sake of developing minor characters within the worlds. Minor characters, like the bulk of the cast in Majora's Mask, also have a chance to make the greater whole shine. Why exclude them in favor for "important" characters? Sounds a bit harsh to me. ;p

But yeah, aside from those two points I wholly agree with this change of pace/style. xD

Yeah, I actually agree with most of what you say. The hybrid idea is just that: an idea. It can be easily molded to suit a changing fanbase if need be. If one large overworld with Super Mario 64 influences is better than one central hub with numerous portals to other worlds, we could go with the former. This is largely conjecture. I also agree with how Zelda fans have survived a lot of changes in the series, usually to discover they make the game even better. To quote A Link in Time a bit, Ocarina of Time was a paragon of action-adventure gaming; Nintendo followed that blueprint closely with the rest of the Zelda series and succeeded because of it. However, it could also be argued Retro Studies deviated from the blueprint set by previous Metroid games when making Metroid Prime and still succeeded because of it. A talented development team can work wonders.

In regard to your two points, I think you're confusing the term "spin-off" with "low budget" somewhat ("What's the use in trying to switch up the formula if it is going to a half-hearted attempt at money?"). If this is the case, then "spin-off" doesn't necessarily mean "less time and money spent on development." Paper Mario is deemed a spin-off, but each game clearly has a lot of effort put into it. If you're referring to why it would be a spin-off and not a part of the main series, it's because people play Zelda expecting a special type of gameplay, and this spin-off is a pretty big departure from it. If this was only done once, I don't think it would be a big deal (Majora's Mask was known for being pretty different from the rest of the series but is now accepted as a fan favorite). If this became a new direction for the entire series, Zelda would lose people because they wouldn't receive what they got involved for.

Your second point, of course, makes sense, and the hybrid idea could easily be molded to fit it. Perhaps there would be rewards for learning more about the general population or one side-mission per NPC. Whatever works, really, but I like your mindset. Each world can only have so many missions, so those might be saved for the "more important" characters, but the "little guys" shouldn't be neglected, either.

 

[Ventus]

In regard to your two points, I think you're confusing the term "spin-off" with "low budget" somewhat ("What's the use in trying to switch up the formula if it is going to a half-hearted attempt at money?"). If this is the case, then "spin-off" doesn't necessarily mean "less time and money spent on development." Paper Mario is deemed a spin-off, but each game clearly has a lot of effort put into it. If you're referring to why it would be a spin-off and not a part of the main series, it's because people play Zelda expecting a special type of gameplay, and this spin-off is a pretty big departure from it. If this was only done once, I don't think it would be a big deal (Majora's Mask was known for being pretty different from the rest of the series but is now accepted as a fan favorite). If this became a new direction for the entire series, Zelda would lose people because they wouldn't receive what they got involved for.

Oh, yeah that's definitely true. I was mixing up low-budget with spin-off, when that isn't really what "spin off" means. After all, Kingdom Hearts is technically a spin-off from the Final Fantasy series.

I can see what you mean with the part I placed in bold; many fans would be turned off if the rest of Zelda was fashioned after this proposition. The problem with this, though, is that I don't know if this idea would bring in more players than it loses. I don't think Nintendo has experimented much with the series, so I can say with a bit of confidence that the fans have come to expect the same old stuff in a different skin. I mean, I like the idea, but I can't speak for others.

 

[New Link]

I agree with everything ALIT said!

 

[HyruleHistory10]

Wasnt this what they did in Ganon's Castle in OOT and WW where you had to go into separete 'worlds' or sections that resembled the dungeons then return to the central hub the progress?