Spoiler Allowing Failure to Be an Option

[Twilipower1984]

Does anyone think that failure should be an option in Zelda? Meaning if you die then you die or any events depend on time like in Majora's Mask. I just think the game is too easy when Zant takes away the bridge of eldin only after you cross it. Wouldn't it be more interesting to solve puzzles if you had to beat the boss to the punch versus them doing things after you do them. I also think that being able to doodle off in skyloft while ghirahim has zelda and is trying to steal Zelda's essence

 

[SpiritGerudo]

I somewhat agree with you. Majora's Mask was my favorite game and I LOVE the 3-day cycle in it, when the world would end if you didn't save it in time. Coming off your idea about solving puzzles in a way other than just fixing what the villain has already done, I would say it would be nice if there were multiple outcomes. Like, coming back to your bridge reference, if they changed how the bridge was destroyed, they could put in an option to fight, and if you won the first time then the bridge would stay and if you lost it would still end up how it is in the game. Things like that, I think, would make what you do have more consequence and would make the game more interesting, as well as give you more of an incentive to fight and win.

 

[Cfrock]

I don't really like the idea of if you die, you're dead. I remember when I was younger and played Resident Evil and how I would foam at the mouth and see red whenever I died and hadn't saved since I began. Having to start again after putting in a lot of hours is frustrating and makes me not want to continue playing.

The idea of time based events is intriguing though. The rub for me would be if you fail these events, would that be your only chance? Taking the Bridge of Eldin example, if I failed to cross the bridge before Zant spirited it away, would that be it? Would I not be able to cross the gorge and finish the adventure, therefore having to restart? Or would that trigger a new quest designed to return the bridge to its original state so I could continue?

If it's the former then it sounds like just slapping a time limit on most objectives which would inevitaly end up frustrating those who couldn't keep up and punishing them with having to start their adventure again.

If it's the latter then that would mean failure would provide a longer game with more to do but success would make the essential minimum more challenging and exciting as well as provide extra depth for speed-runners and more competetive players.

I also loved the 3-Day Cycle in Majora's Mask but I think it worked so well because the game was designed around it. For something similar (or indeed, the same thing again) to work, the game would have to be built with it in mind. It could easily be a great addition to a game, but it couldn't just be thrown in for the sake of it.

 

[Ventus]

In my opinion failure should always be an option. So, let's say that Link enter a scripted event in Hyrule Field. Him versus King Bulbin. Should the King successfully run away, outcome A would be that you have to track Colin down (wolf sense anyone?) and take out a camp of Bulbins. Should Link be able to overcome the foe, Link would save Colin and things would go their way from there.

This could definitely happen in SS, as well. Let's say that you rushed down The Horde. This would stop Ghirahim from FULLY completing the ritual, thus Demise would return weakened (i.e as he is in the finished product). If you took over for example eight minutes, Ghirahim would FULLY complete the ritual, thus Demise would return at full strength (i.e...as the real Akuma instead of a knockoff).

The concept can be applied pretty much anywhere. It allows for replayability, alternate routes, options...etc. In my opinion Nintendo should and could make great use of the feature.