Link....Using Guns???

[Chibi-Robo Link]

I don't want another "Shadow the Hedgehog" no all I have to say to this thread is no

 

[StrangeWig]

Horrible.

Simply because it's an idea completely free of any kind of logic. Like these: Let's go wild and give Link a lightsaber! Let's make the soldiers in the next CoD use magic! Let's give Kratos a star rod! Let's put red sheels in the next Need for Speed! Let's introduce fatalities in the next Street Fighter! Let's make Megaman fight against real dinosaurs! Let's take all the girls away on the next DoA! Why we're going to do this? For absolutely NO REASON!

 

[Hanyou]

There are a lot of misconceptions to address.

Sorry, but I am completely against this idea. Isn't that is what Halo and Resident Evil (and all that jazz) for? If Link had a gun it would soil the good name of Zelda! Little kids play Zelda, my little cousin had a go at Spirit Tracks at the age of 6. She didn't really get anywhere but children should be able to play a game without being scared of it if a gun suddenly appeared, it is also a bad influence.

Plenty of kids not only aren't afraid of guns, but use them on a regular basis. I've never handled a gun myself, but when I was a child neither I nor my parents objected to me and my friends playing Cops and Robbers, firing fake bullets at each other and pretending we were being shot to the ground. Guns shouldn't (and don't) scare kids. As for being a bad influence, I don't see how. Plenty of kids use actual guns for hunting purposes, etc. There's nothing inherently bad about guns.

No. Just.. no. Not now, not ever. Zelda games (And all of Nintendo's games) are pretty much the only quality games left in the market without the need for blood and gore. Adding guns to the Zelda series would be like giving Princess Peach breast implants or adding drugs as a collectible in Animal Crossing. [...] We have more than enough shooters in the gaming world, why ruin a classic, incredible series by adding guns, just to add to the CODs and Halos?

Um...no it wouldn't. Guns != blood and gore. Again, we can look to the Smash Bros. games. There are plenty of guns there, but I can't remember a drop of blood being shed throughout. One would actually expect weapons like swords to lead to more graphic finishes, but the E-rated Wind Waker even had you hacking limbs off some enemies with nary a drop of blood.

As for the argument about shooters, why would a Zelda game turn into one just because a gun was featured as a weapon? When I unlocked a revolver in Aria of Sorrow, that Castlevania game did not suddenly turn into a shooter. There's no reason to believe having a gun as the unlockable weapon would change the genre or even the spirit of Zelda.

Rather than complain about how guns are bad or whatever, I don't see a gun working from a mechanic standpoint. We already have 2 recurring weapons that 'shoot' (slingshot and bow), as well as less consistent distance-based items (boomerang, magic rods), so what exactly would a gun bring to the series? Killing enemies in one shot would only kill the difficulty, and frankly it doesn't need to be made any easier.

Well, it could change the dynamic a bit. I mean, what was the advantage of introducing a slingshot into the Zelda series when arrows already existed? What was the advantage of the magic rods? Perhaps guns could be more effective with the right amount of precision but also have extremely slow reload times. I don't know how they'd use it, but even if it were strictly an aesthetic decision, I don't see what would be wrong with it.

As for bumping up the rating, there are plenty of T-rated titles with guns. Twilight Princess was rated Teen and I imagine a number of future console Zelda titles will be (I'm surprised Ocarina of Time wasn't, frankly). I doubt guns would bump that up. Hell, Donkey Kong 64 is an example of an E-rated game that implemented liberal use of guns. If anything, a bow and arrow are more brutal.

I've already voiced my dislike for the more advanced technology that we have seen in the past, such as the train from Spirit Tracks. I believe that the more advanced technology takes away from the game, and the series as a whole.

Why?

Also, what did you think of Majora's Mask, which implemented clock- and steampunk technology? What about the Goron Mines in Twilight Princess, which were extremely technologically advanced? What about the cyberpunk look of the Twilight Realm (admittedly, that last one rubbed me the wrong way)? Furthermore, depending upon how broadly you define the term, guns have been around in some form or another at least since the 14th century.

It would just turn into a game in which you shoot everything once with a well aimed shot and they would be dead. Not to mention the fact that he genre of the series would change and become much easier, unless they gave it difficulty settings, which Nintendo wouldn't do.

Consider the enemies Link fights--Stalfos, Wolfos, Keese, Textites, Dodongos, etc. Many of these enemies are already armored (or could be made armored very easily), and some go down in only a couple of arrow hits already. Do you really think a single headshot is going to take down a Dodongo? The fact is, for many of these enemies hand-to-hand combat is preferable even with long-range weapons, and, gun or not, it's likely to stay that way.

I doubt that the addition of guns would attract anyway near the same figure of gamers that would leave the series either.

I'd be curious why those fans would leave in a fit over a simple weapon when they've stuck with the series well after the Goron Mines and Majora's Mask as a whole showcased comlex, advanced technology, complete with some form of electricity. You said you were disappointed about some advancements in technology for some of the worlds, and I don't doubt that, but did these advancements really do irreparable harm to the series or prevent other games from taking more traditional approaches (case in point: after MM was released the Oracle games did not have very advanced technology)?

If Link picks up a gun then his name shouldn't be Link anymore it should be joe or bob or some other plain jane name because anyone can pick up a gun, anyone can use one. [...] All those people who want Link to use a gun obviously don't realize that they don't fit in the series at all. They would rather play games like Grand Theft Epona and LoZ Modern Warfare. Hopefully that never happens in my lifetime..

I'm a fan of neither first person shooters nor the Grand Theft Auto series. In fact, I'm averse to both. But there are plenty of games in different genres (I already named off Final Fantasy and Skies of Arcadia) which use limited advanced technology and never manage to loose their sense of wonder or magic. As for guns being cowardly, please don't say that. Cops, soldiers, etc. are not cowards, nor are those who defend themselves with the use of firearms, even if the aggressors do not wield guns. Nor, for that matter, were those who used long-range weapons like bows and arrows in the past against fighters more accustomed to close-range combat. You are already able to attack such enemies with long-range weapons in the Zelda series, so I fail to see how it would make Link more "cowardly" to use a gun than to use a bow and arrow.

What is so bad about a magical adventure that also happens to feature a gun as a collectible weapon? This question has not been properly answered by the opponents of guns in the Zelda series. I have no intention of being rude, but it looks to me like most of the arguments have more to do with straw men and unfounded assumptions than fact.

EDIT: One more post to reply to.

Simply because it's an idea completely free of any kind of logic. Like these: Let's go wild and give Link a lightsaber! Let's make the soldiers in the next CoD use magic! Let's give Kratos a star rod! Let's put red sheels in the next Need for Speed! [...]

Good one. Here, let me try.

Let's put Link on a Train! Let's put Link in a boat in the middle of a flooded Hyrule! Let's put Link in a world with a circular time system! Let's give Link a musical instrument that's central to the gameplay! Let's give our next Zelda game a light/dark world dynamic!

You could call anything arbitrary.

 

[Satsy]

Hanyou: I suppose when it comes down to it there are a lot of double-up items in the series. I am not sure what the point of ever adding the slingshot really is myself, since I've only see one game in the series use it effectively. The boomerang and the hookshot as separate weapons I can understand since though they can both perform the same features, they can also perform entirely separate ones that have advantages that allow them to be separately defined weapons. And it does come to a point in some games where items entirely rule out one another, making a small selection of items that are always useful, and the rest either go rarely used, or unused (or can only be used in specific dungeons).

Which again brings me to: What advantage would a gun bring to the series that there aren't already weapons that more than fulfull the features? For distance firing, you have the slingshot (for distance firing with actual impact you have the bow), fire you have lanterns/candles/fire rod/din's fire, blast radius you have bombs and bombchus... the only thing I don't think the series has yet is something with rapid fire. But I also don't see that lending anything positive to puzzle solving anyway.

That all said, it's not like the series has completely decided against propulsion-and-gunpowder based weapons in the past -- Wind Waker, PH and ST already have cannons. Plus the wind-pot weapon in MC is like those air-guns I've seen about. This kind of weapon is probably the closest we'll ever really see to a gun in the series without actual guns making any sort of appearance.

 

[StrangeWig]

Let's put Link on a Train! Let's put Link in a boat in the middle of a flooded Hyrule! Let's put Link in a world with a circular time system! Let's give Link a musical instrument that's central to the gameplay! Let's give our next Zelda game a light/dark world dynamic!

You could call anything arbitrary.

All these are pretty logical to me, as long as a fantasy world in concerned (except for the train in ST, that was weird). A flying land above Hyrule? No problem, after all, this is a magical world! But guns in Zelda?! WTH?!

Don't you remember how Shadow the Hedgehog sucked, because we were like: "Guns in Sonic?!?! WTH?!"

 

[Hanyou]

Which again brings me to: What advantage would a gun bring to the series that there aren't already weapons that more than fulfull the features? For distance firing, you have the slingshot (for distance firing with actual impact you have the bow), fire you have lanterns/candles/fire rod/din's fire, blast radius you have bombs and bombchus... the only thing I don't think the series has yet is something with rapid fire. But I also don't see that lending anything positive to puzzle solving anyway.

I think a gun could be a decent upgradeable weapon with much slower loading times than the bow but more powerful fire. Alternatively, it could just be a temporary replacement in a game with a setting suitable to it. I don't exactly know what functions it would have, but I'm sure functions could be found for it--simply deciding that guns should never appear in the Zelda series because adding them would be arbitrary is unfair in my view. Hell, guns with powerful enough fire (this is a fantasy game, after all) could act as bomb arrows for hard to reach places. Bomb arrows so rarely make an appearance that replacing them would be no huge loss.

Not to mention that The Minish Cap (which you mentioned) brought us some new and strange items that sort of performed functions other items already performed in the Zelda series, but with a twist (I still think the Mole Mitts acted sort of like bombs, insofar as walls were concerned). I couldn't conceive of those functions. I'm not a creative person. But when they were added, they didn't take anything away from the game, did they? So the fact that a bow and arrow already exist is no reason to discount the gun--it could replace or supplement the bow, no harm done. It would be just like trading one mode of transportation for another, and would carry its own advantages and disadvantages.

All these are pretty logical to me, as long as a fantasy world in concerned (except for the train in ST, that was weird). A flying land above Hyrule? No problem, after all, this is a magical world! But guns in Zelda?! WTH?!

Don't you remember how Shadow the Hedgehog sucked, because we were like: "Guns in Sonic?!?! WTH?!"

Again, you seem to be making the mistake of assuming guns and fantasy are mutually exclusive. Guns can coexist with magic just fine--it's just that no fantasy world you conceive of can offer us guns.

Shadow the Hedgehog didn't suck because of guns, it sucked because of its careless execution and awful level design, something Sonic games have been suffering from since the Dreamcast faded into oblivion.

I should admit I was wrong about FF VI and after researching, discovered that there are no gunpowder-based guns, even though gunpowder exists and is referenced by name. There are, however, laser guns aplenty, which brings up some interesting questions of its own. If Beamos is acceptable (that one skips straight to laser guns), why can't less advanced technology be acceptable as well? Also, my point about Skies of Arcadia still stands. No, the game does not have a traditional medieval aesthetic, but neither does The Wind Waker or Majora's Mask. I'd also like to add that the Soul Calibur games actually feature a character with a gun in his sword, named Cervantes--the fact that these are fighting games should make this particularly "egregious," but it doesn't damage anything. The setting of these games is unquestionably medieval and fantasy-based; even if some non-canon characters like Vader make cameo appearances, Cervantes is a canon character.

My point is, if a Beamos and a cannon blend in flawlessly with Zelda's worlds, so can a gun. It doesn't need to take over the game, it doesn't need to be the only method of combat--I just think it can fit in as another item in Link's repertoire. What makes futuristic technology like laser beams more permissible than technology that would possibly use gunpowder or something like it, which already exists in the Zelda universe? When Beamos showed up in A Link to the Past, did they stand out as something particularly bizarre, or did they seamlessly integrate? I'd argue the latter.

Finally, I'd wonder how many people would argue Twilight Princess was ruined by the use of a bazooka near the game's climax. Sure, it's a cannon, but what makes this gunpowder-driven device less technological and more palatable than a gun?

 

[Ice6661]

it might just be me but i like the fact that they dont use guns in the zelda games
i mean if you think about it this way how many games now a days have guns,
like preious people have said, if i wanted to play a game that used guns, i'll go play COD, GTA, fallout 3, or heck even devilmaycry they use guns.
i suppose bringing in guns could have an interesting twist on the game but! in a magical world like zelda i beliece that they shouldnt have them

excuse my bad spelling sorry guys =\

 

[Austin]

Why Link Shouldn't Have Gun

I won't lie. I hate the idea of playing with Link using firearms. It seems way too far, and I'm too use to using the traditional bow and arrow. However, that isn't the big reason why I don't want to see firearms in Legend of Zelda. Introducing firearms into Hyrule, would change more then how we would play LoZ. Using our world as a model, firearms changed the way wars were fought, and how nations were ran. In the medieval days. Wars were pretty much won with big armies, and best armor. When firearms were introduce, it changed a lot. Wars became one sided, fast.

When nations acquired firearms, they didn't hold discretion when using them. They invaded other nations and conquered new lands with ease. One of first to do this was Spain. When they conquered new areas, they were one sided fights. My main point is how will Hyrule be introduced with firearms. Nintendo can't just randomly give Link a firearm and call it good. They need a properly introduce firearms, but that is not easy. How will Hyrule change with the use of firearms? Would there be a lot of new wars? Will races perish? Gerudo, Zora, etc.

Another thing that sort of makes it hard for a proper introduction of firearms is magic. Our world doesn't have magic, so it never played an influence, but Hyrule does. I personally say magic is more powerful and useful then firearms. However, for a simple race like Hylians, firearms would give them the competitive advantage. In the end, it would create war as stated above.

Hyrule doesn't want them. Firearms came after the invention of canons. Hyrule has had canons in Twilight Princess, Wind Waker, Phantom Hourglass, and even Spirit Tracks, but no firearms. For firearms to be introduce properly, they have to be introduced after canons. A LoZ game with firearms, would pretty much have to come after Spirit Tracks.

 

[StrangeWig]

Again, you seem to be making the mistake of assuming guns and fantasy are mutually exclusive. Guns can coexist with magic just fine--it's just that no fantasy world you conceive of can offer us guns.

Shadow the Hedgehog didn't suck because of guns, it sucked because of its careless execution and awful level design, something Sonic games have been suffering from since the Dreamcast faded into oblivion.

I should admit I was wrong about FF VI and after researching, discovered that there are no gunpowder-based guns, even though gunpowder exists and is referenced by name. There are, however, laser guns aplenty, which brings up some interesting questions of its own. If Beamos is acceptable (that one skips straight to laser guns), why can't less advanced technology be acceptable as well? Also, my point about Skies of Arcadia still stands. No, the game does not have a traditional medieval aesthetic, but neither does The Wind Waker or Majora's Mask. I'd also like to add that the Soul Calibur games actually feature a character with a gun in his sword, named Cervantes--the fact that these are fighting games should make this particularly "egregious," but it doesn't damage anything. The setting of these games is unquestionably medieval and fantasy-based; even if some non-canon characters like Vader make cameo appearances, Cervantes is a canon character.

My point is, if a Beamos and a cannon blend in flawlessly with Zelda's worlds, so can a gun. It doesn't need to take over the game, it doesn't need to be the only method of combat--I just think it can fit in as another item in Link's repertoire. What makes futuristic technology like laser beams more permissible than technology that would possibly use gunpowder or something like it, which already exists in the Zelda universe? When Beamos showed up in A Link to the Past, did they stand out as something particularly bizarre, or did they seamlessly integrate? I'd argue the latter.

Finally, I'd wonder how many people would argue Twilight Princess was ruined by the use of a bazooka near the game's climax. Sure, it's a cannon, but what makes this gunpowder-driven device less technological and more palatable than a gun?

Oh well, Ok I'll admit I don't know how to explain to you why I don't think a gun mixes up right with Zelda, as you said, we have a HUGE cannon in Twilight Princess that launches us to the sky, and I didn't think that was weird or out of place. I also don't have problems with mixing modern stuff with fantasy, an example is that I don't see anything wrong with the world of Fable 2, or the fact that Cloud uses a sword in FFVII (actually, I think it's pretty cool ).

I mean that it's not about mixing high tech with low tech, you mentioned Skies of Arcadia, well I LOVE the idea of flying pirate ships (actually, I'm crazy searching for somewhere to play this game!), and there are many more examples in the Zelda franchise where low tech and high tech have (misteriously! ) been mixed in a very positive way! My problem is, specifically, about Guns in Zelda. For some reason, I still can't imagine the cam hopping on Link's shoulder as he fires a rifle (of course, I know we're not admiting he'd use something like an AK-47).

Anyway, as it seems, in the end, this fell in a matter of opinion, do you agree with me that, with so much possibilities for awesome stuff to add in a fantasy world, the least fun would be a gun? (well, if, at least, it had some sort of magical power!)

 

[Hanyou]

Introducing firearms into Hyrule, would change more then how we would play LoZ. Using our world as a model, firearms changed the way wars were fought, and how nations were ran. In the medieval days. Wars were pretty much won with big armies, and best armor. When firearms were introduce, it changed a lot. Wars became one sided, fast.

Your historical account is impressive, but I'm not sure how relevant it is to Hyrule. Their world obviously operates by entirely different standards than ours, and there doesn't even seem to be a precedent for imperialistic wars outside of Ganon's takeover of Hyrule. If the issue was not addressed in previous Zelda games, I doubt it would be addressed in future ones simply as a result of Link's use of firearms. You're certainly right about guns having an impact on warfare, but the first documented wars--or imperialist accounts--came from an age well before guns.

Another thing that sort of makes it hard for a proper introduction of firearms is magic. Our world doesn't have magic, so it never played an influence, but Hyrule does. I personally say magic is more powerful and useful then firearms. However, for a simple race like Hylians, firearms would give them the competitive advantage. In the end, it would create war as stated above.

You seem to be reaffirming my point here, at least at the beginning. A world with magic is a world very much unlike ours, and while elements of it may resemble ours, there is absolutely no reason to believe guns would give Hylians so obvious an advantage that they would readily take over other nations.

Hyrule doesn't want them. Firearms came after the invention of canons. Hyrule has had canons in Twilight Princess, Wind Waker, Phantom Hourglass, and even Spirit Tracks, but no firearms. For firearms to be introduce properly, they have to be introduced after canons. A LoZ game with firearms, would pretty much have to come after Spirit Tracks.

This depends upon how you interpret the timelines. While most accounts generally place the original Zelda games in the adult timeline (that is, after Spirit Tracks), I don't believe this has been confirmed by Nintendo at all. Furthermore, Hyrule seems to have no problem unlearning certain technologies--both timelines have steam technology (it's apparent in Twilight Princess and Phantom Hourglass) yet, however radically one would expect them to change Hylian politics and its economy if one is relying on information from this world, they seem to have virtually no impact in the long run.

Precedent in the Zelda universe discounts long-term technological impact. Even assuming guns were to have a permanent impact in one timeline, it would most likely be restricted to one timeline, leaving the other one free to explore progress and regression. Nintendo shifts between timelines with ease. And finally, if you do not buy into the split timeline theory for some reason, then you must accept that technological development haas never made a permanent, discernible impact in Hyrule.

Finally, this thread is about Link wielding firearms in Zelda games. Your point is moot if the Zelda game in question takes place in another dimension like Termina or in a dream world like Koholint Island.

For some reason, I still can't imagine the cam hopping on Link's shoulder as he fires a rifle (of course, I know we're not admiting he'd use something like an AK-47).

It would look very similar to the camera hopping on Link's shoulder as he fires a hookshot, I assure you.

 

[StrangeWig]

It would look very similar to the camera hopping on Link's shoulder as he fires a hookshot, I assure you.

Would there be Headshots too?