M
messymessiah
Guest
omg yes it would. id probably quit playing. this could turn out as bad as the cartoon or wand of gamelon...jeezus...
Link Talking Would NOT Be the End of the World As We Know It.
- Thread starter Azure Sage
- Start date
Blazestarre
*Insert title here*
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2011
- Location
- Midwestern US
I like Link as a silent protagonist, for a couple reasons. One would be that it is traditional for Zelda. One of Link's defining characteristics outside of the Zelda games is that he's a silent hero. Giving him dialogue would just be...weird. Another is my own creative mind. A big reason I like the Zelda series is because it gives you this huge world with a history, but a lot of it is still up to players' interpretations. This includes Link's personalities. I enjoy reading and coming up with Zelda fanfiction because of the endless possibilities fans can come up with. Yeah, it's a bit RPG like, but is there anything wrong with that?
If Nintendo did give Link some kind of dialogue (which I really doubt they will), I wouldn't hate it. Disappointed, maybe, but I wouldn't just dismiss any of the Zelda games. Now if Nintendo added VAing, then I might react a little differently. It might include much laughter. VAing just tends to be really bad in video games, at least in what I've seen. Usually it's extremely cheesy and over the top. I suspect the voice actors really don't take the dialogue very seriously or try too hard to be serious that it just comes across as laughable and/or cringe-worthy.
I've seen a lot of comments (some here, but mostly other areas on the internet) that imply that Zelda is behind the times because of the silent hero and lack of VAing. Why? Just because other games have it? I think that because Zelda lacks the elements means that it's becoming more unique. For me, at least, there is a huge nostalgia factor in playing the series, even the newer games. That is mainly due to the fact that, while the stories and items and NPCs change, there are core elements of the game that never do and it's not just gameplay. Things like Link's green tunic, the hearts for a life bar, a silent protagonist, cuccos, the Triforce image, and swords help make Zelda, well, Zelda. To change these main, and usually constant, components would change the 'Zelda' feel. Could it still be a great game, even if Link talked? Sure, but the first game that does will stick out like a sore thumb for long-time fans.
If Nintendo did give Link some kind of dialogue (which I really doubt they will), I wouldn't hate it. Disappointed, maybe, but I wouldn't just dismiss any of the Zelda games. Now if Nintendo added VAing, then I might react a little differently. It might include much laughter. VAing just tends to be really bad in video games, at least in what I've seen. Usually it's extremely cheesy and over the top. I suspect the voice actors really don't take the dialogue very seriously or try too hard to be serious that it just comes across as laughable and/or cringe-worthy.
I've seen a lot of comments (some here, but mostly other areas on the internet) that imply that Zelda is behind the times because of the silent hero and lack of VAing. Why? Just because other games have it? I think that because Zelda lacks the elements means that it's becoming more unique. For me, at least, there is a huge nostalgia factor in playing the series, even the newer games. That is mainly due to the fact that, while the stories and items and NPCs change, there are core elements of the game that never do and it's not just gameplay. Things like Link's green tunic, the hearts for a life bar, a silent protagonist, cuccos, the Triforce image, and swords help make Zelda, well, Zelda. To change these main, and usually constant, components would change the 'Zelda' feel. Could it still be a great game, even if Link talked? Sure, but the first game that does will stick out like a sore thumb for long-time fans.
Kombatgod
Timeline Exegete
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2011
- Location
- Florence, Italy
First I'd say change is always a nice thing to me. To know that they try something new gives a game the feel they're doing it because they think is good, not just to appeal audiences. So I think they should always try something new.
I believe the silent hero thing to be just useless. It doesn't add anything to the game. It may be a clever TRY to let people immedesimate with him, but is it really useful? When you play you decide what to do, but this has little to nothing to do with dialogues. In games whithout NPCs, the hero never talks, even if he's able to! Think of any shooter game or action games like Tomb Raider. In most games the character only talks in cutscenes and this also happens in RPGs, like Final Fantasy! When you talk to people they just answer and you don't get to hear the question because if you're searching for some temple it's obvious that the question is "where is that temple?" But then when the story needs to progress, they talk and do whatever they have to.
So it is absolutely ok for Link to not talk in gameplay, but if he HAS to talk it is silly that they make other characters say stuff for him. Also in the endings he doesn't even say like "It is finally over..." he just stands there with a smile on his face, maybe holding the Triforce over his head.
With the coming of new technologies they put new features in games, like 3d graphics, online games, voice acting...
The silent hero just seem to be something they didn't evolved while they could, a stupid inheritance from the 2d era. It also happened in other games, but most time they then changed. An example in GTAIII, the first 3D title in the series, where the main character was silent. That's basically a game where you can do whatever you whant, so maybe they thought it was a good idea, but they changed it with the next title, Vice City, and improved the plot a lot! They proved that having an appealing main character is better than having a blank one. They also made fun of it in San Andreas, by making CJ call "mute" the main character from GTAIII, that had a cameo there.
But even in GTAIII it was better than Zelda, because in there people give him missions and he's like a silent ruthless killer that do his job without questioning, so it actually added something to the character, and you never get to know if he can talk or not, he just never have to. In Zelda it is poorly done because some times other people actually talk for Link, repeating his question. So they basically include Link's sentence in the game but don't let him say it, like they're not allowed to.
In conclusion, Link talking may be an improvement. It may also be nothing special, but having him silent takes away many possibilities to improve the plot. If they keep him silent, they'd better make it better!
I believe the silent hero thing to be just useless. It doesn't add anything to the game. It may be a clever TRY to let people immedesimate with him, but is it really useful? When you play you decide what to do, but this has little to nothing to do with dialogues. In games whithout NPCs, the hero never talks, even if he's able to! Think of any shooter game or action games like Tomb Raider. In most games the character only talks in cutscenes and this also happens in RPGs, like Final Fantasy! When you talk to people they just answer and you don't get to hear the question because if you're searching for some temple it's obvious that the question is "where is that temple?" But then when the story needs to progress, they talk and do whatever they have to.
So it is absolutely ok for Link to not talk in gameplay, but if he HAS to talk it is silly that they make other characters say stuff for him. Also in the endings he doesn't even say like "It is finally over..." he just stands there with a smile on his face, maybe holding the Triforce over his head.
With the coming of new technologies they put new features in games, like 3d graphics, online games, voice acting...
The silent hero just seem to be something they didn't evolved while they could, a stupid inheritance from the 2d era. It also happened in other games, but most time they then changed. An example in GTAIII, the first 3D title in the series, where the main character was silent. That's basically a game where you can do whatever you whant, so maybe they thought it was a good idea, but they changed it with the next title, Vice City, and improved the plot a lot! They proved that having an appealing main character is better than having a blank one. They also made fun of it in San Andreas, by making CJ call "mute" the main character from GTAIII, that had a cameo there.
But even in GTAIII it was better than Zelda, because in there people give him missions and he's like a silent ruthless killer that do his job without questioning, so it actually added something to the character, and you never get to know if he can talk or not, he just never have to. In Zelda it is poorly done because some times other people actually talk for Link, repeating his question. So they basically include Link's sentence in the game but don't let him say it, like they're not allowed to.
In conclusion, Link talking may be an improvement. It may also be nothing special, but having him silent takes away many possibilities to improve the plot. If they keep him silent, they'd better make it better!
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2011
It should never feature Link talking in the game. If its manga, fan made movie, and etc its one thing. But it should never talk in the game. If its yes or no, various answer its okay. It will ruined the mystique of Link seeing his facial expression/emotion is great/fine.