Breath of the Wild Should Zelda U Be More Like Skyrim?

[Pancake Wizard]

I picked up a copy of Skyrim recently and have been playing it nonstop. And the thing that bugs me is that I haven't played a single Zelda game since. I love Zelda as much as the next guy, but I just have more fun with Skyrim than Zelda. So I thought that Zelda could inherit a few elements from Skyrim. With the Wii U, there's really no excuse for not making Skyrim level graphics (when I say Skyrim level I don't mean that particular art style; although that would be nice). I think having Zelda DLC's would be good for those who beat the game and have nothing to do. Having an extremely large and open world would also be good. Maybe even throw in regular third person mode AND a first person mode like they almost did in OOT.

The biggest reason I like Skyrim is the replay value. You have a reason to create multiple characters. One character could be an Imperial battle mage and an other a heavily armored Stormcloak with a Broadsword. One particular idea I like for Zelda is the concept of some kind of war in which no side is completely good or evil.

So tell me your thoughts. I want to know if I'm the only one who thinks this.

 

[Deeds]

Yes. Skyrim is amazing, and just downright epic. Keep the magical, emotional feeling of LoZ, but use the extentiveness of Skyrim. That would be so good.

 

[Vaati101]

Absolutely not! I want Nintendo to come up with they're own ideas instead of copying from another game, regardless of how epic Skyrim is. I take a very dim view towards DLC and I will be really annoyed if Zelda has it. Including all these features won't feel like a Zelda game anymore, it will just be a failed attempt at trying to be like Skyrim.

 

[Deeds]

Absolutely not! I want Nintendo to come up with they're own ideas instead of copying from another game, regardless of how epic Skyrim is. I take a very dim view towards DLC and I will be really annoyed if Zelda has it. Including all these features won't feel like a Zelda game anymore, it will just be a failed attempt at trying to be like Skyrim.

Yes but, there's a way that it could be done. I mean that it would be nice to have an open world like skyrim, to have the visuals like skyrim. I don't mean different character types and stuff like that, I mean a skyrim First-person/third-person option.

You have to admit, DLC would be great if it was free. There's nothing bad about it if free.

 

[Vaati101]

it would be nice to have an open world like skyrim, to have the visuals like skyrim.

Zelda sort of has a open world anyway and Nintendo should keep it they're way to be honest. In terms of Visuals, Twilight Princess Graphics in High Definition is good enough for me.

You have to admit, DLC would be great if it was free. There's nothing bad about it if free.

There are some genres of games that suit DLC very well, especially the competitive type of games, but for singular adventure games like Zelda it just doesn't fit even if the DLC was free. To me free DLC makes me think that the developers couldn't be bothered to complete the entire game. With the way Zelda is developed there is no excuse to not completely finish the game.

 

[shogun_zidane]

Well Skyrim plays like every other Elder Scrolls game, just updated. Zelda is a series that keeps to its roots but isn't afraid to step into new territory. Wanting Zelda to play like Skyrim is sort of like wanting Call of Duty to play like Gran Turismo. I am aware that those latter games are completely different but is just an example. I feel Zelda should always be hubbed and not sandbox. Skyrim is one of the greatest games IMO of the decade along with Skyward Sword and Resident Evil 6. So to my point I think if you want Zelda to play like Skyrim then play Skyrim, and try to make your character look like Link. IMO they need to stay the way that the series paves them to be.

 

[DarkestLink]

I see no reason for Zelda to copy a weaker game or series.

 

[JuicieJ]

I'd say it should take ideas from the recently-released Far Cry 3. I'm not talking about the mature stuff, of course. I'm talking the RPG and open world mechanics it has. Skyrim is nothing compared to Far Cry 3. It's polished in nearly every way possible, whereas Skyrim left a lot to be desired in many areas. Things like Far Cry 3's upgrade system and freedom of choice would be perfect for Zelda Wii U, and even if Nintendo doesn't look directly to it for inspiration, I hope Zelda's HD debut has similar functions.

 

[Ganondork]

Everyone has become obsessed with turning Zelda U into an Elder Scrolls game. Skyward Sword showcased a few RPG elements - and yes, I liked them. However, I don't particularly care for the idea of just turning Zelda into an RPG. How will he upgrade his skills without having a leveling system? It was an alright concept in Adventure of Link, but I don't think a lot of people particularly cared for Link's leveling up. I may be wrong; I've never seen that complaint, nor have I seen its praise. So archetypes would automatically be out unless a leveling system is implemented.

I don't think Zelda should really copy any other game. Borrowing elements? Sure - go for it! However, my largest complaint about the Darksiders series is its obsession with being like The Legend of Zelda - and subsequently try to win the affection of the Zelda fanbase. That has always annoyed me, and to see Zelda do that would betray every image I have of the series. Honestly, I see Zelda as the Nintendo series that stands proud over all of Nintendo's other first party series and prevail as the others fail. However, copying another series would just destroy that for me.

Then of course Nintendo has to contend with the Zelda fanbase who is arguably as bad as the Call of Duty fanbase that we love to bash so much. We beg for change - "We didn't want Twilight Princess to be Ocarina of Time 2.0!" we cried - and yet complain when Skyward Sword offered too much change. Nintendo can't really make a major change without half of the fanbase crying in protest. Look at Irrational Games and how they're catering to fans cries of disapproval over the cover of the upcoming title, Bioshock Infinite by creating a cover-picking contest. Precedents have been set this year that show that the fanbase has a large say in what goes on with the game, regardless of how trivial - or important - the matter is. Nintendo no doubt wants to keep the fanbase happy.

I see no reason for Zelda to copy a weaker game or series.

A bit subjective, don't you think? Skyward Sword has sold a total of 3.52 copies - source here - whereas Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim sold 7 million copies within the first week - source here. I'd say while Zelda is older, Elder Scrolls is an equally impressive series.

As a side note, it's nice to see that the Skyrim hate on Dungeon Gaming Network is finally over.

 

[JuicieJ]

A bit subjective, don't you think? Skyward Sword has sold a total of 3.52 copies whereas Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim sold 7 million copies within the first week

It sold more, but in virtually every gamers' choice for 2011's GOTY, Skyward Sword took home the prize over Skyrim. It even won head-to-head against it in G4's Death Match. Considering it sold only half of what Skyrim did, I think it's clear which of the two was liked more in the gaming community.

 

[Hanyou]

Why do people always reach for Skyrim? I mean, it's fun, and it's a hell of a lot better than the mess that was Oblivion, but it's got nothing on Morrowind. If you want Zelda to copy an Elder Scrolls game, at least pick the best one.

In any case, when I first played Morrowind, it struck me how it was kind of like the original Legend of Zelda--you weren't given instructions right off the bat and were set loose to explore the world. That said, it actually gave you far more directions in the long run than The Legend of Zelda did. As I said in another thread, I wouldn't mind a Zelda game being less linear. I also wouldn't mind more RPG elements, and I guess that's where Skyrim could come in, since it's simplified, but frankly I'd like to see them go back to the really simplified Zelda II leveling up stuff.

Also, I should add: combat in Zelda games is far, far superior to that of the clunky Elder Scrolls games. Take your pick--they're all slow, cumbersome, and they're just not great action games. That's part of the reason I've never been a fan of streamlining the combat for Elder Scrolls games. Skyward Sword's combat is far, far better than Skyrim's, and frankly any Zelda game would come out on top pitted against any Elder Scrolls game in that department IMO.

I really just want Zelda to be Zelda. That doesn't mean it can't be more like Elder Scrolls in some ways, but Nintendo needn't borrow any ideas--if it's more like The Elder Scrolls, that should happen by chance.

 

[The Wanderer]

It is true that one game series cannot constantly pull from other franchises simply because those aspects are nice. Eventually, you will have a Swiss army knife that does a whole lot of nothing. The real issue is that Zelda is based on adventure and exploration. The first Zelda was almost completely open, leaving you to find and conquer dungeons in the order you chose. That game's flaws could be argued, but it should be clear Zelda's true core is exploration, placing yourself in a beautiful but dangerous new world to uncover the way you want to. Without having played it, this sounds strangely close to Skyrim, but its appropriateness is evidently losing its place in modern Zelda. No Zelda overworld that I'm aware of has been truly open since A Link to the Past at the latest, and many other aspects are making Zelda less about exploring things your way and more on beating dungeons how Nintendo sees fit. Still fun according to the majority, but Skyrim seems to be capturing Zelda's core essence more than Zelda itself is.

Which is why pulling certain (not all) elements from Skyrim would be appropriate for Zelda. Since the two share such similar bases and goals (or are supposed to), it would almost be foolish not to learn from one another. Does Zelda need to pull from Super Mario Bros. or Devil May Cry? Eh...not particularly, unless some concept in those franchises could be altered to work with and make sense in Zelda. But as Zelda and Skyrim both bear the cores of open exploration, it would make sense for them to learn from each other. Many fans have been asking for a return to the open overworld, and considering Skyrim was so popular and successful, Nintendo should take at least a little notice.

 

[JuicieJ]

Also, I should add: combat in Zelda games is far, far superior to that of the clunky Elder Scrolls games. Take your pick--they're all slow, cumbersome, and they're just not great action games. That's part of the reason I've never been a fan of streamlining the combat for Elder Scrolls games. Skyward Sword's combat is far, far better than Skyrim's, and frankly any Zelda game would come out on top pitted against any Elder Scrolls game in that department IMO.

I agree, but what's wrong with streamlining a combat system? That's something The Elder Scrolls was in need of, and Skyrim was a pretty good step in the right direction. Still clunky and floaty, but infinitely better than any previous entry's.

 

[Castle]

Well, if you want to play Skyrim, why not just play Skyrim? Or any other Elder Scrolls game for that matter?

 

[DarkestLink]

I've never really understood the fan's (and sometimes Nintendo's) desire to change certain series. Super Paper Mario and Paper Mario Sticker Star come to mind. If they wanted to implement these drastically different ideas, why not make a new series instead of changing an old series? The same could be said for Zelda.