Should Zelda Wii U be more like Dark Souls?

GuestFebruary 13th, 2013 by Guest

As much as we love them, it’s hard to deny that most every game in the Zelda franchise follows a highly formulaic structure. Start off in a small, cozy village, something bad happens, get a sword, collect three major items, a plot twist happens, collect a few more items, final dungeon, Ganon, game over. Usually the boss fights at the end of the dungeon require the item you just found to complete. The slingshot is ignored as soon as Link gets the Hero’s Bow. I’m not being critical, of course–after all, it’s the Zelda formula that holds up the games we all know and love–but we have to accept that innovation is required in the franchise to ensure that it avoids stagnation, and apparently Zelda series producer Eiji Aonuma agrees.

In the most recent Nintendo Direct, Aonuma announced that the team working on Zelda Wii U was considering a non-linear dungeon structure and some sort of multi-player feature. Freelancer Brett Phipps has had his own say on IGN, suggesting that Zelda Wii U could learn a trick or two from From Software’s Dark Souls, the open-world spiritual successor to 2009’s PS3 exclusive Demon’s Souls. What features of the notoriously difficult RPG does Phipps think that the upcoming Zelda title should appropriate? Hit the jump to find out!

Phipps picks out three core components of the Souls formula that Zelda Wii U could pick up. Firstly, the “innovative multiplayer” in Dark Souls. The multiplayer featured in Souls unobtrusively benefits the single-player campaign rather than stand out as an independent game mode. Bloodstains on the ground signify that another player has died at that point in the world, and the player can touch the bloodstain to watch the means of their death in order to try and avoid succumbing to the same fate. Dark Souls also allows players to leave messages for others, as hints, warnings, and even secrets. Phipps points out that Miiverse is a perfect platform on which to base this sort of indiscreet multiplayer. In his words:

“Imagine a Zelda where, instead of ‘HEY! Listen!’, you could look at the notes left throughout the landscape by other players through Miiverse. A simple touch of the GamePad’s screen could bring up whatever hint or clue has been left to alert you to whatever peril has befallen them in their journey.”

Phipps’ second point also involves the potential multiplayer aspect of Zelda Wii U. In Dark Souls, if you are stuck on a section, you can summon another player into your game to help you, but doing so has an inherent risk that the player you summon kills you and steals your stuff. While Phipps is sure to clarify that he doesn’t think this sort of feature would be totally suited to a Zelda game, he notes that a boss in Demon’s Souls, Old Monk, is actually controlled by another human player, and suggests that maybe Zelda replicate this idea with another player controlling a boss such as Shadow Link. He also mentions the possibility that some puzzles need more than one player to complete, so you’d be required to invite other players to help you out.

Finally, Phipps compares Dark Souls’ incredibly open world setup to the original Legend of Zelda, and questions why the next Zelda game can’t go one step past a non-sequential dungeon order, even suggesting that items apart from rupees and pieces of heart be available out side of dungeons such as the Cane of Byrna in A Link To The Past.

Let’s not forget that the Souls series is known for its brutality, of course, and Zelda is never going to come anywhere near Souls levels of difficulty. But both Demon’s Souls and its successor Dark Souls are also known for their innovation, as anyone who has played them will confirm, and Phipps makes a great argument for why the Zelda series should adapt some of what has made From Software’s series so successful.

What do you think? Should the team behind Zelda Wii U stick to what the series has been doing well, or should they look to shake up the formula? Do you think the ideas from Dark Souls would fit into a Zelda game? Let us know in the comments!

Source: IGN

Categorized under: IGN, Zelda Wii U
Tagged: , , ,

Share this post

  • Fidu

    No. Zelda should set new standards for the genre as it has done before. It should not imitate others.

    • Ake Sha

      Well said.

    • ganondork

      “Waaa, I’m a close minded fanboy! Booo hooo”

      • Fidu

        Your name suits you well, Ganondork.
        I’m a big fan of Dark Souls myself, but I don’t think it’s a very good inspiration source for Zelda.

        • David Byrad

          HEY LISTEN! This guy is a troll, ignore him Link. He doesn’t even understand that Zelda has been doing a variation of 96% of this stuff for a long time!

          • Tehlul

            …cause when someone points out the hypocrisy on this website their obviously trolling.

    • Axle the Beast

      I haven’t read the post yet, so this reply doesn’t really relate to the overall topic, but I have an issue with people not wanting Nintendo to imitate.

      There’s something you really need to understand about setting standards: To set a standard, you need to improve on something or bring forth new ideas, and even if your focus is on new ideas, you need to keep in mind what people expect and realize which ideas need to stay because obviously not EVERYTHING can change. Imitate SUCCESSFUL ideas is a must, ESPECIALLY for innovators.

    • Tehlul

      What’s wrong with imitation?
      True Zelda did set alot of standards for games of its genre, but if you expect it to be around for awhile it needs to evolve.
      Its the same with deal with Halo. It set a standard for most modern day fps games, but its taken some ideas from other shooters with Halo 4.

      • Joseph Siasnor

        Well said. As a wise man once said, “Imitation is the greatest form of flattery.” If Zelda borrowed ideas from Dark Souls, it doesn’t mean they ran out of original content, it means they liked some features and wanted fans who may not have played Dark Souls to enjoy them.

    • David Byrad

      It wouldn’t be copying…. Zelda was doing it long before Dark Souls…

    • David Byrad

      Zelda has already been doing most of this stuff WAY before Dark Souls.

      Open World? LOZ

      Tips From Players? The Handheld WW Games

      Killing the player? IT WAS NOT SUGGESTED

    • Johnson

      Zelda hasn’t set any standards since the the N64.

  • newman

    Always knew the Dark Souls and Demon’s Soul would be a blotch on the industry and this proves it. Keep that crap away from Zelda.

    • Alexander Tischler

      Explain how they are a blotch on the industry.

    • Awesome

      You sir confuse me. They are both excellent games that are extremely fun to play. They don’t offer locked on disc DLC, they aren’t produced every year so that the quality of the game goes down, they aren’t just a hallway that holds your hand the whole time, and they are legitimately hard.

      The ability to go invade another person’s game and possibly kill or help you was amazing. It made the game really feel like you were going to die literally every second. Just adding in actual players trying to kill you furthered it. I’m not saying that should be done for Zelda, but I just think you have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to Dark Souls and Demon Souls.

      Honestly you sound like a misinformed fan that doesn’t want change to a series. I love Zelda. But if the games don’t change some from game to game then what is to make it not have the Call of Duty feel. Activision and Call of Duty sir are blotches on the industry. Dark Souls and Demon Souls….not so much. Next time you make the decision to bash a game, please at least have played the game you are criticizing or have watched gameplay and/or reviews.

  • Hoff123

    No, because Nintendo keeps trying to cater to both super noobs and super hard core players…and look how well that’s working out…lol. FI and WALKTROUGH STONES!!!

    OK, sorry I guess I’m maybe being a little harsh here but come one, how can a game possibly be both for “casual” and “hard core” gamers and still be awesome? There is definitely gonna be some compromises.

    • Ake Sha

      Well Walkthrough stones were a good compromise. You don’t have to use them at all.
      Fi though… erm, I agree that she was.. rather, annoying, to say it nicely ^^”

    • Jam9t3

      I think that to make the game more open to all players, an easy and hard mode would be a very nice addition. Beginner mode is for players who are new to zelda games, Intermediate is for players who are experienced with playing zelda games before, Hard mode is for the more hardcore players who are looking for a challenge, and maybe after doing the hard mode, Master Quest mode will be unlocked, which is only for the crazy pros, things between modes that could change could be: Hints given, Damage taken by enemies, Damage given to enemies, Enemy skill, Weak enemies are replaced by harder ones, Mini-bosses will be multiplied ( E.g You normally fight 2 lizafos, Hard mode: 3, Master mode:4, beginner: 1), Maybe even bosses are multiplied (You have to kill the same boss twice in a row in hard mode, thrice in master, or maybe you just have to attack their ‘Weak’ points a few more times to kill them). These additions would really make the game more open to all players.

      • Nevan Lowe

        I like that Idea. That way, non hardcore people can still play Zelda, but Zelda would be the way it was 20 years ago. Hard.

    • erikingvoldsen

      …Not quite. Nintendo is only trying to cater to casuals. Since OoT, the only acknowledgement they’ve given hardcore gamers is removing cell shading and making a Rated T game…something they said they don’t want to do again, despite having some of the best sales in the series.

      • Hoff123


      • David Byrad

        Thanks for the derping, Nintendo!

      • TheMaverickk

        A T-Rated game that didn’t even need to be T-rated due to there being no content in the game even remotely more “graphic” then previous E rated Zelda’s.

        In fact OoT showed green blood splatter, and it was rated E.

        Twilight Princess was the most shallow excuse of a hardcore game ever. It was all surface, and no substance.

      • JuicieJ

        I don’t think you can accurately say Nintendo is catering to the casual audience anymore after Spirit Tracks and Skyward Sword. They may not have been “hardcore” games — quotation marks used because the term hardcore is grievously misused in the gaming community these days — but it brought back the difficulty Zelda needed in both combat and puzzle-solving. It was the ideal balance for Zelda, as it provided an experience that both new and experienced gamers can enjoy.

        • BlackRaven6695

          I’m glad at least one person hear sees sense.

      • BlackRaven6695

        This comment REEKS of ignorance.

    • BlackRaven6695

      The thing is the ‘walkthrough stones’ you mentioned are just what a game needs to appeal to both “casual” and “hard core” (hate using those labels but we’ll go with the terms you used) gamers. Nintendo haven’t utilized them properly yet but they actually give the developers an excuse to make the game extra-challenging while still keeping it possible for less dedicated gamers to complete it. And it’s not like your ever forced to use them so I don’t get what the issue is.

      • Hoff123

        Yeah, I know… Fi on the other hand…lol. Also if there was like different difficulty levels, I’d like to play on hard IMMEDIATELY, and not AFTER playing through the whole game.

        • JuicieJ

          Difficulty levels are definitely something Zelda’s long overdue on.

  • Hoff123

    Oh, and no, I DO NOT want Zelda to become like Dark Souls, though I’d like it to become more “open”.

  • Skyfolk

    Why would anybody want to alienate an entire fanbase like that? What an awful suggestion.

    • Alexander Tischler

      How would it be alienating a fan base?

    • David Byrad

      Why would you even ASK a question that redundant? Oh yeah, cuz you want Zelda to never innovate nor go back to it’s roots and stay stuck in this rut only to die out within 10 years. _-_

      • Skyfolk

        You’re kinda dumb, or you don’t know how to read english. Please quote when I sais “I never want Zelda to innovate.”

        My question is this: How is being more like an existing game innovating in the slightest? Your idea of innovation seems to be copying another game franchise, which means you’re probably a 360 fan.

        • David Byrad

          No, Zelda has ALREADY been doing a form of 96% of this stuff already!

          It won’t be imitating, it’ll be combining previous Zelda elements into one!!!

  • Morten Hoeben

    Here’s a weird suggestion.. Want Dark Souls gameplay mechanics? Play Dark Souls. I want typical yet new and intuitive Zelda gameplay, so I’ll go ahead and play Zelda. Instead of whining about how Dark Souls has no Zelda gameplay. IGN whines too much.

  • Hermit

    Zelda should definitely not become anything like Dark Souls. It’s a good game but it’s a game of it’s own and Zelda doesn’t need to borrow anything from it. Zelda should remain Zelda. In all honesty though it’s about time for Nintendo to come up with some new character and story ideas for a brand new series.

    • David Byrad

      Navi: HEY LISTEN!
      Link: SHUT UP!!!
      Navi: Me?
      Link: No I can stand you, it’s that Old Hermit I don’t like.

      • Hermit

        Lol. So were you disagreeing with me?

        • David Byrad

          Well, you obvious do not notice Zelda has done many of this stuff before. Open World Exploration? That’s obviously seen in LOZ.

          • Hermit

            It’s a no brainer that Zelda is an open world game. Zelda has done a lot of things in it’s life span. I would never argue with that. I simply think it’s time for a fresh start though.

  • Dark Link

    Think about Castlevania Lords of Shadow… It’s a copy of GOW (that is a good game) and now, castlevania is DEAD.
    Zelda should just INNOVATE (Just like skyward sword with the Motion PLUS) , Dark Souls is a really great game, but zelda has its own merits

  • Nevan Lowe

    I like the “BRUTALLY DIFFICULT!” part of this, and the notes left by other players.

  • Alexander Tischler

    Having played Dark Souls, and playing Zelda games for 20 years I can say that I support everything described here. The multiplayer controlled bosses seems a bit iffy to me, but everything else sounds great. I’d much prefer player left notes than having an unhelpful companion. The open world of Dark Souls was one of my favorite aspects. One of my roommates and I set off playing around the same time and we took different paths through the game at times and both found it to be a rewarding experience.

    Zelda is a great franchise, but as Matt wrote, the series follows a now stale formula. This doesn’t mean it’s bad per se, it’s just tired. I support them finding new ways to integrate the community, and making it feel fresh and open again.

    • David Byrad

      Why would ANYBODY vote down this post???

      Oh yeah, cuz they are afraid of change and would much rather have it die off. -_-

      • Alexander Tischler

        Thanks, mate.

        It’s a shame to see so many fans resistant to change when the creators themselves acknowledge that the franchise needs to be taken in a new direction. It’s a slap in the face to the developers for fans to turn so rabid when new ideas are introduced. What’s that, you trusted and defended them after every game, but the moment they want to try something new they’re evil and throwing you under the bus?! Hyperbole to some extent of course, but I support this new vision and am eager to see how it plays out.

        • chaoswanderer

          I am not saying I am against the change, but I can see how they are afraid. Look at Resident Evil, it’s turning into another Halo. They wanted the change to be a little more action oriented and so far it’s killing the series. Number 7 is still the favorite in the Final Fantasy Series yet 6 games have come after it. We play these games because we love them, we want changes just not drastic ones that change the genre all together.

          • Awesome

            Resident Evil has it’s ups and downs because it is changing genres. The change of adding a non linear world or having items found outside of dungeons is not a change of genre. It is still a Zelda game just doesn’t follow the stupid structure that has become commonplace with most of the games.

            As for Final Fantasy VII, meh I love me my Final Fantasy IX

          • rjhewgyrfu

            Mario CONSTANTLY changes genres. I mean, I think there’s a Mario game for every possible genre you can imagine. And yet it’s as beloved as ever. :P

            (PS, this comment is sarcastic. I do agree with you.)

          • snakeoiltanker

            actually FFVII is one of my favorite games, but the new battle system in FF XIII is really awesome, and way better than the old command system of the past. if finally make you feel like your the one controlling the player in battle, instead of just giving commands, so change can be good

    • rjhewgyrfu (aka ruifgyqforug)

      But… I still want a companion! (Especially if it’s a hot chick. :P:P:P)

      It makes the game feel… Better. Like you’re trecking through an adventure with someone you know. Just seeing hints would make it feel like other people have passed here, and then left (unless they introduce online multiplayer, BOO!) and left you alone. I don’t know…

    • trippytriforce

      yes, agree 100%. but difficulty levels should be added to allow both new players to enjoy the game and complete masochists like me to be stuck on the first level for a year.

  • Kbehr91

    I like the open world and Key Items in non dungeon places. That doesn’t break away from what zelda has done before, just make it better. The rest is crap. There would be stupid little notes that just have pictures of dumb stuff all over the place, blood everywhere from all the deaths, and why would anybody risk having their stuff stolen? If you want a game more like Demon’s Souls and Dark Souls, go play those games. I wanna play Zelda for Zelda. Go Nintendo!

    • David Byrad


      • Blake Wigert

        He may not want that but everytime I play on a server on Minecraft there’s always that/those asshole/s in diamond armor hunting newbies, makes me wonder how the got it in the first place, anyways I’m sure something similar could happen if this is implemented, personally I would enjoy a 2 player (physical) split-screen over and online multiplayer due to the fact you wouldn’t have to rely on the internet connetion between the two or more players,having people join and leave immediately, etc., nevermind people with mics that never stfu, my biggest irk of the multiplayer of today especially when you are unable to mute them, also the ability to kick players is often used incorrectly, kicking someone who is being a jerk is one thing, kicking someone for exploring or sniping is another, my example being Left 4 Dead 2.

        • David Byrad

          No, I mean that he didn’t want that feature PERIOD. He used it as an example.

  • erikingvoldsen

    Noooo….for the love or god, I am sick of people suggesting Zelda copy an inferior game/series.

    • David Byrad

      Stop trolling us dude…

    • TheMaverickk

      It wouldn’t be copying…. Zelda was doing it long before Dark Souls.

    • David Byrad

      It wouldn’t be copying…. Zelda was doing it long before Dark Souls.

      • TheMaverickk

        This is kind of a creepy response…………….. control C anyone?

  • Arcane Neko

    I think this would be simply amazing. I have been thinking about this for years~. It would be a perfect way to incorporate multiplayer into a Legend of Zelda game, besides the way Four Swords did it!

    And just because they take inspiration from a game, doesn’t mean they’re copying it. Sheesh. Dark Souls was a simply amazing game, and I can see developers for years using some aspects from it. Look at Star Citizen, even a space sim said they’re inspired by the Souls series!

    Either way, it’s a Zelda game. It’s going to be awesome no matter what they do.

    • ruifgyqforug

      What if you want to beat up Dark Link and nobody’s online who want to play as him?

      Or what if nobody wants to team up with exactly you for that multiplayer puzzle you’re stuck on, and prefer to play by themselves and only summon other people when they need them, without actualy helping others themselves?

      What if a hard bit of a dungeon/the boss room is so full of blood stains (or whatever they add in LOZ WIIU) that you can’t see the actual texture of the room you’re in?

      No, multiplayer is not my taste. I just finished FS Anniversary Edition 100%, and gosh, Hero’s Trial was HARD. Why? Because the rooms where you’re locked in with a bunch of enemies were designed for multiplayer, and when you’re playing alone it’s hard as heck.

      On the other hand, I think that after all, leaving in-game messages is a good idea. You should, of course, be able to turn them off, and I’m sure Nintendo could make some awesome features, like a thumbs up/down system, where only messages with a good rating would be displayed so as not to spam you.

      • Matt

        I think you should play a Souls game to see how these features are successfully implemented. In Souls, if no one is online to play as the Old Monk, it becomes AI-controlled. And very few bloodstains actually show up–I’m not sure how they work out which ones are presented to you, but I promise that the room doesn’t get covered in them, similar to the spraypaint in Zombi U.

  • Nikki

    I think they should keep it the way it is with it being more “open” so dungeons don’t have to be done in a certain order if players don’t want too(does make it harder for strategy guides to be used though), and if it becomes multi-player, have it optional and not “required”.

  • Guy

    Required to play with other players? Srry, but that’s a load of BS. Maybe an OPTIONAL co-op function, but required? That will NOT work.

    • David Byrad

      Um, we did not say it was required. We simply said it should NOT be required lol.

  • TheMaverickk

    So sick and tired of this discussion and comparison.

    I hate how every time Zelda for Wii U is brought up, for whatever reason people have to reference Dark Souls, as if it’s the only fantasy adventure to be ruthless or to not hold the players hands.

    Despite the fact that early Legend of Zelda titles were in fact much like Dark Souls…. long before the game ever existed.

    The original Legend of Zelda sent you out into the world to figure things out on your own, with nothing more then a sword in hand. The enemies were relentless and sometimes you barely made it out of a dungeon with a few intact hearts.

    If anything a Zelda U would be going back to it’s roots… not becoming more like Dark Souls… not to mention Miyamoto had even wanted players originally to be able to create and share their own dungeons in the original Legend of Zelda. Something that could be brought back….
    and I think the idea of leaving messages and clues, or map sharing would be the best way to have a community of Zelda adventurers.

    Anyways just pointing out the fact that I’m tired of hearing about Dark Souls, as great as it is, it didn’t break the mold in regards to giving players freedom…. it actually is just emulating an old school experience, something many of us older gamers grew up with.

    • Matt

      I think the reason that the author on IGN brought up Souls is because it’s the first game in a long while to give players freedom like that. Also the bloodstain-based (and player-summoning) multiplayer and human bosses are surely unique to Souls, as back in the day when games were this open, we didn’t have multiplayer.

      • TheMaverickk

        Well there are other contemporary games that give that same freedom.

        To be honest I’d like to see Zelda emulate some design elements from La-Mulana rather then Dark Souls.

        That game is incredibly hard both in combat and in puzzle solving. La Mulana is a great example of how many great puzzles can be designed without needing some special item to solve them.

        Not to mention the puzzles are actually really clever. Or in some cases the puzzle is that you set off a trap XD

      • David Byrad

        Actually, the human bosses thing was emulating a very well known element scrapped from the Banjo Kazooie Sequel, Banjo Tooie. Originally, you would control the evil devil ghost of the near-sighted mole bottles who was now known as… DEVIL BOTTLES!!!

        You would run around as any enemy you pleased and would kill the player, or get killed trying. Then you can change to another nearby enemy to try again. I would have LOVED to play as Old King Cole. Sadly, Devil Bottles never made it due to the lack of sufficient Beta-Testing prior to release.

  • Romaniscow

    Nintendo needs to step ALL the way out of the box. Id go as far as saying they should throw the formula away. Make a NEW way of playing, dont even try to go back to what the classics were. Why not begin in the middle of the story, where the hero fails and tries to redeem himself and the *newly expanded and in-depth* world. Doesnt need to be dark and gloomy like TP or have to be like OOT or LTTP. Stop looking backwards. Sure most of the themes have been done before, but Zelda has yet to try out all the story-telling, game-playing techniques that are out there and are yet to be invented. And if theres one thing I dont like about Zelda, its the fact that the series doesnt seem to have a solid visual stylle. Just a rant from a fan.

  • Sam Curtis

    i just want to have the item i went through the trouble i got to be more useful, master quest made it clear you needed items for the other dungeons, and made something like the bombchu a must have. Open world exploration would be ideal. Starting off in a cozy village is fine, but lets have another reason to leave it other then save the world, ss and tp did this well we had to save the kids and the girl in tp, and in ss we had to find zelda. Zelda would be nice if we have to do more then kill a boss with an item we found. Maybe we need and item form another dungeon to beat another dungeon or vice versa idk.

    • TheMaverickk

      I’ve always thought it would be cool if Link was a treasure hunter.

      There is a sort of Indiana Jones quality to him….. entering ancient temples, and dungeons in search of valuable items, and rupee’s, all while solving puzzles and traps.

      It would be cool if that’s how an adventure started, and then he eventually get’s wrapped up into a save the world sort of quest, and begins having to grow into a hero.

      I’m fine with the usual Link back story, but in my mind he’s always been a bit of a teasure hunter ;)

      • David Byrad

        That… Would.. Be SO STUPID!!!

        And by stupid, I mean really awesome.

        Can you imagine: Indiana Jones, Link, Han Solo, and Rebecca Black ALL ROLLED INTO ONE!!! Well, minus the Rebecca Black part though. YUCK!

        • TheMaverickk

          Yeah Rebecca Black…… how’d that get in there? LAWL

          But yeah, there is a treasure hunting aspect to Zelda…. in that sense I kind of think if Zelda is to take any idea’s or inspiration from another game it should be La-Mulana.

          • David Byrad

            Yeah the RB thing was a joke. But I really do think that’d be epic.

            Imagine: An actually useful economy. One where you can’t max out your wallet within one dungeon. One where you have to trade and hunt for your Rupees, and dynamically spawning treasures. Something that uses the SS treasure idea and makes it not… Stupid.

            I mean really! I got 5900 Rupees just from selling about 50-75 treasures. And I STILL haven’t fell below 5800 ONCE! Now THAT is broken. I really wish the economy was more dynamic. -_-

          • TheMaverickk

            Well I never got that many rupee’s because you can’t get a wallet big enough to hold all of that money until late in the game.

            But I will say you make a lot more rupee’s in Skyward Sword then other Zelda games thanks to the treasure/crafting items.

            Mind you there was a lot more to purchase from Beedle’s shop, and even the regular store seeing as the only place you can get new Shields is by purchasing…. you can’t find them for free anywhere.

            Not to mention that upgrading items cost Rupee’s as well.

            So I think being able to make more money made sense, but for avid collectors who were grinding for collectibles and hunting for the Goddess’ Cubes they probably were rolling in more money then they knew what to do with.

  • Sam

    I think it would be awesome if they kept the dungeon formula, but A. have a lot more dungeons than usual and B. expand on the open world part of the game. They could add tons more side-quests, optional dungeons and items, a bigger map and expand on the weapon upgrading system from Skyward Sword. I want a Zelda game that still feels like a Zelda game, but I can sink 100+ hours into one playthrough and still find new stuff.

    • Sir GearHeart

      Well according to Hyrule Historia the original Zelda game was going to let players make and share new dungeons but that idea was scrapped. Well we have the tech now and I would play it. So unlimited dungeons anyone?

  • Flaming Lemons

    The Miiverse notes feature sounds like it would be cool, but I have no clue about how that could be integrated into the story. And I’d be okay with multi-player as long as it’s nothing like four swords and you don’t HAVE to play with other people… I don’t have anyone to play Zelda with ;_;

    • TheMaverickk

      Well in ZombiU you can actually spray paint messages on the walls for other players to find in their games. You could warn them of enemies or secrets.

      Nintendo could easily implement a similar function, and probably make it work 10 times better and more effectively. Like letting players leave written messages, and make them more visible.

      I personally think a Map making and sharing mechanic would be awesome. They got rid of the compass in Skyward Sword, and marks for chests and locks and stuff where placed on the map for you. So what if in Zelda Wii U you get a dungeon map and there are no marks on it what so ever…. but you can draw on the map using the tablet.

      So you have to use your observation skills and mark things on the map as you see them, puzzle information things like that. Then those maps you make can be shared with other players. So you can share your discoveries with others…. it could help other players who are stick or can’t find things.

      I think the idea of players helping other players is better then having built in “Walkthroughs” or hint systems. It makes players feel skilled and connected with others.

  • Mseevers95

    Don’t trust anything IGN posts. Their site is exclusively Microsoft fanboys.

    Besides you can’t spell ignorant without IGN.

    • Ake Sha

      That last line. I love it. :’D

  • Mseevers95

    I think that Zelda should drop the bow for one game so the slingshot can get more focus.

    Besides a Scattershot upgrade why not ammo upgrades that let you shoot iron balls instead seeds? I’m honestly a little tired of bow.

    • TheMaverickk

      Or just drop the slingshot and give the bow earlier on in the game.

      Personally I think that they should just give players a standard starting inventory at the beginning of a Zelda game. Similar to the original Legend of Zelda.

      As Link sets out on his quest at the start of the game he should be given (or can buy them from the shop) the bombs and arrows as part of his starting gear.

      They are two of the most versatile items for puzzle solving and exploring. Not to mention they need to bring back the ability for arrows to pick up elements if shot through them…. like shooting an arrow through a torch would set it on fire… this was missing from TP and SS.

      Also giving a beginners item set means the first set of dungeons would be free to have a wide variety of puzzles… it makes a non linear format more plausible and engaging.

      • Sir GearHeart

        That is actually a very good idea. I am now sad I did not think of this.

  • trippytriforce

    yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes. Harder, “bloodstains” (could be fallen traveler things from ph), more open, and just some change, YES.

  • VitaTempusNexus92

    They should have it be like in the Battle Quest attraction in NintendoLand where there can be a skeletal corpse left at the spots where player(s) have died at but more like PH with the warnings.

    • TheMaverickk

      This is more what I would have in mind. I thought it was a smart edition. Not to mention that it actually gives some freedom for having tougher bosses…. cause there is the potential that they become easier by having skeletons in the boss room that will give you hearts.

  • Jo Five

    I know there’s a big emphasis on “multiplayer” and “connectivity” these days, but I really prefer my Zeldas to be single-player and not MMOed. If multiplayer were just a fully optional “icing on the cake”, I’d be happy. Zelda is the kind of thing I’d rather experience for myself in-game, and the only outside-of-me part would be having a friend on the couch watching and offering solutions, not in the game vandalizing the landscape and trolling other players. Besides, for the most part, Link is a “lone hero”. No extra bells or whistles or gimmicks, no need for a mass-online connection or a special peripheral I have to shell out $50 extra to attain, just a simple, fun game I can play over and over again. So when the game is no longer the “next big thing”, it won’t be impossible to enjoy because you can’t find multiplayer support; you can just take it off the shelf as-is and replay it and it’ll be just the same as remembered.

    The Zeldas might be “formulaic”, but stale as it is, it’s not “broken”. The formula is used because it works.
    On another note, Link to the Past did have its fair share of non-dungeon items. The Cane of Byrna was not required (but extremely useful if you didn’t forget you had it). The Magic Cape was useful, but I think it was only required for a single Heart Piece, and for attaining the aforementioned Cane of Byrna. The Ice Wand was referred to immediately after the first dungeon and was required for Turtle Rock’s boss. The Zora’s Flippers could be bought; they were required for Swamp Palace, and the Bombos, Ether and Quake spells were granted as soon as you had the Master Sword and walked to a stone or provoked a Dark World sea monster (much like the Great Fairy Spells in Ocarina of Time; two of of Lttp’s spells were required to open Misery Mire and Turtle Rock, but only one Great Fairy spell was required; Din’s Fire for Shadow Temple).
    But the reason why Link to the Past was non-linear was because you could grab the item and walk out, then go to the next dungeon with it, or that each dungeon didn’t require the item from the last dungeon to win it. Ice Palace could be skipped safely since the item was Blue Mail (a defense boost). I always skip Skull Woods because I don’t need the Fire Wand for Gargoyle’s Lair, and I find the Titan Mitts more useful in the overworld. One time I finished the Palace of Darkness last because I took the magic hammer out, left, and finished all the other dungeons. You could do the same with Ocarina of Time to a point; you’d need the Hookshot but you could skip the Forest Temple and complete the Fire Temple without the Bow or walk into Forest, take the Bow, skip Fire and complete the Water Temple, or get a Gerudo membership, then steal the items from the first three temples and complete Spirit first, and do Spirit and Shadow in the order of the player’s choice. In Majora’s Mask, you could pick up the Bow, walk out of Woodfall and continue onto Snowpeak, and Tatl will say upon completing the second dungeon that you still haven’t finished the first.
    Modern Zeldas like Twilight Princess and Skyward Sword made the dungeons plot-sensitive, so you could only access them when you earned the right map tablet in the last one, or the right Silent Realm song, or if the right member of your adventuring party was available to get you to an outer region. It’s thematic and theatrical, but it’s annoying from a player standpoint because it’s like adding a lot of extra fillers to get from Point A to Point B and restricting where you can explore around. Open-ended would mean being able to freely wander around the overworld and walk in and out of dungeons at one’s own discretion without event flags or arbitrary blocks (well, maybe a few blocks) imposed on it.

  • Rinku

    i say just on difficulty that is all, Dark Souls is one of my favorite games, just like zelda, but imo zelda should just take the difficulty aspect of dark souls, if they want to put a hint system

  • Sir GearHeart

    Throwing out my two cents. First off, having played Dark Souls and Demon souls they are not that hard when compared to Kaizo Mario or IWBTG or even Super Ghouls and Ghosts. A lot of what made Souls games so popular was that it was a main stream “hard” game something we have been lacking for a long time and its filling of that hole makes it seem a lot better than it really is. Don’t get me wrong I like them, its no LTTP Just felt the need to say that first.

    Now on to Zelda and the Souls games. My argument against multiplayer in Zelda of any kind is simple. I don’t want to play with some raging loser with a mic, some idiot who has no clue what he is doing, or a griefer. (Make it optional and give us some control over who we play with a la friend codes or something better. Also lets avoid the problem with the original Four Swords, a game that requires four players is not a fun or easy one for many.)

    As for the idea of notes, make it optional even though I see it as a complete waste of time. Mostly as everyone will want to say something and the majority will have naught to say but “Hi” at best. I for one also like the sidekicks even if they do tend to grind on ones nerves.

    Now lets talk about open worlds, Lttp DSouls, and beef gates. A Link to the Past is in my opinion one of the greatest games of all time. Now my memory might be shot but I remember doing some of the later dungeons out of order but there was a lot that you had to do in order. (take that with a grain of salt its been a long time since I’ve played Lttp.) Now Dsouls, yes its an open world but a lot of it is what you might call a Beef Gate. Now the best example off the top of my head of this is Fallout New Vegas, things that are much tougher than you on this path and on that path but not the “correct” path. You can go the other two ways but the game discourages you from doing so. Its harder to see in DS as the difficulty being what it is. But its rather clear that there is a path of least resistance to the game. Now this is where it gets a bit tricky. For every iota more the game world is open the harder it is to tell a good story. This is why even open world games such as GTA or Fallout or Elder Scrolls have a mission path. You must do mission A before B of the story. Sure you can go and mess around doing Side Quest Z or something but to get the story you are still mostly on the rails. Now relating this back all to a new Zelda game, have the first three or so dungeons be a set path. Open up the story with them. From there Build up the threat, then you have a series of stand alone dungeons that can be taken in any order. Then you bring it back with a story event and end it with the final dungeon. The catch to doing this though is that any dungeon would have to be completable with any or near any load.

    Things that may help such a game are, more enemies with depth, cutting back on the use of gimmick items, and giving us a alternate world like the dark world. I think a return to Minish Cap would work well in 3D. As the Minish dungeons could be accessed only after being able to shrink down which could be what the first few set dungeons are about. From there you would explore a detailed world trying to find the Minish dungeons. The key to this is not a “large” world but a detailed one. It can be large but the world should feel dense and the dungeons should be hidden well, possibly even semi randomized in location. Admit it you would love a game like Minish Cap meets Majora’s Mask with elements from Link to the Past.

    Well hopefully I did not make a fool of myself in my first post here.

    And on a side note IGN tends to be crap and in my humble opinion will always be such and as such anything that comes from it should be avoided like the plague.

  • Zeldaman101

    The Legend of the Zelda mixied whith dark souls, imagine the possibilties. Nintendo should give that a thot, or give up on zelda forever

  • DeltaDragon

    The formula is pretty standard since at the first zelda game, so it would be nice to change it a bit. Also I think maybe they should do something like in “Kid Icarus: Uprising” where they fight like against each other. Like with Regular Link, Zora tunic Link, Goron tunic Link, or Dark Link. Or having them play the story together. Maybe put in bonus parts for multiplay only. So I want to know what you guys think.

    • Sir GearHeart

      This is a bit tangential but what they say about multiplayer in this video explains why I am against every game having multiplayer,

      This is backed up by some strong points through out the rest of the comments in response to this article. Ranging from people wanting to be able to play the game later down the road when the multiplayer is just no longer supported, to just the simple fact that sometimes we don’t want to deal with people but to be able to enjoy a game without some numbskull running our fun. If you like multiplayer games great for you, but at the moment more and more games are going multiplayer and some times it hurts the game, as I see it games like Legend of Zelda are for when YOU want to experience something. Now if YOU want to go show off by getting a 30 kill streak or owning some noobs or just screwing around with friends their are better games BUILT for that. Zelda could be made for that sort of experience, but would it still be Zelda?

      I know more than a few people think a Zelda MMO of some kind would be cool, and it could be, but then you have to ask what is it really? Not everyone can be Link after all, or maybe they are and its one giant race to be the Hero. The problem is that cheapens the game. Its always been about YOU as Link trying to achieve something.

  • Vink

    Start off in a small, cozy village, something bad happens, get a sword, collect three major items, a plot twist happens, collect a few more items, final dungeon, Ganon, game over.

    This formula was used in ALTTP, OoT, WW, TP and SS. 5 games
    This formula wasn’t used in LOZ, AOL, LA/LAdx, MM, OOA, OOS, PH and ST 8 games.

  • EponaLover101

    I think they would lose money since killing and bloodstains might lose the younger crowd which gives Nintendo a LOT of money.

  • Noah Pierce

    Phipps has a point: the Zelda games are too generic and obvious

    • TheMaverickk

      I wouldn’t say the Zelda games are generic.

      They are clearly distinct from many other games out there (in regards to it’s gameplay and it’s visual style), it isn’t a series that blends in amongst the sea of other games. That is what it means to be generic.

      Obvious… or predictable is something that they have become in recent entries. There are some Zelda tropes which could use some freshening up, and to a certain degree Zelda has been making an effort to do that.

      Still the formula of getting a dungeon item, and then using it to solve every puzzle in that dungeon is getting old. Not to mention it’s what makes the Zelda games far too predictable.

      One aspect of older Zelda games is that you’d often find yourself trying out various items in a situation to figure out which one would work. Then when you did find out what was the answer it was more gratifying to have found it.

      This is just one attribute that should be put into consideration for future Zelda games. I personally think that Link to the Past had one of the best inventories of any Zelda game. Not to mention some of the most clever puzzles.

  • Jeremy Abrahamson

    Primarily a better NG+, with more challenge, etc would be the main thing. Dark Souls was clearly influenced by Zelda 1 in the first place, so it would be a full circle.

  • Pathway Star

    I think that they should take a few things from that series but not to much to where they would become that game. But of course they wouldn’t do that. (hopefully)

  • itsameluigi1290

    Well, I dunno about a Dark Souls Zelda, but, after playing Lego Batman 2, with all the fun puzzles, I can say that a Lego Zelda would be great. I even felt like I was playing Zelda at times in the Lego Batman!

  • Pitch

    IMHO, the multiplayer mode could be interesting, but a Zelda game in which you cannot play the main story in single player… a game where you must absolutely team up with other players (knowing that 70-80% of online players are total selfish jerks who make fun wrecking their teammates’ game) would be awful. The only thing I absolutely want from a Zelda title is that I can play it entirely without having anyone else interferring in my game…

  • Martial.Law

    On-line multiplayers have been created as a Marketing strategy for increasing sales, but not for improving game experience. Multiplayers make a gamer depend on other players being online at the same time or willing to do the same thing as you do. A real gamer likes to be the lone wolf, the alpha male, the one who seizes evil.

    The best thing about Zelda is that Link is a silent, modest, altruist and low profile character. This makes you feel like you are Link himself battling evil around a plagued world that once was Hyrule , now it is the Dark Land and then will be the Golden land.

    Zelda must innovate through new Zelda ideas, not through other games’ ideas. And Zelda is non-mainstream, that’s part of Zelda’s charm. If you start a Zelda multiplayer, it will be considered as retarded for all the true Zelda fans.

    Create more dungeons, add riddles, puzzle the gaming experience, add more types of errands, more side quests, more hidden and secret items, more secrets around Hyrule, more complexity to the bosses, more variability or maybe a quest that depends on which road you take, but please don’t destroy the essence of Zelda.

    • JustSaiyan210

      Well said.

  • ShadowsofTime

    Make Zelda a POSSIBLE multiplayer, meaning that if one can’t use wi-fi, they can still play through the entire game. I don’t think it will help the series whatsoever if a person can still all your items upon killing you. That would only work if you could get a shop that sells hundreds of different items, weapons, armors, etc. Besides, with Zelda, you are supposed to be more pre-occupied with the dungeons puzzles, enemies, etc then having someone else attack you with the intent entirely upon stealing your stuff and watching you die. If Zelda was made multiplayer, there should be a no friendly-fire rule so one can’t slay you with a Din’s Fire or a Light Arrow. You would have to completely change the formula that makes the games so fun in order to make multiplayer worth it.

  • DemonFire

    The rings form the Oracle games would be perfect in terms of keeping the power in Dark Souls in Zelda. Think of it The Legend of Zelda: The Dark Soul of Majora or something. -_-

  • DigitalGhost

    “In Dark Souls, if you are stuck on a section, you can summon
    another player into your game to help you, but doing so has an inherent
    risk that the player you summon kills you and steals your stuff.”

    – That’s not true. That’s not how Dark Souls works at all. Both can happen, but not simultaneously like you said. You can summon someone to help you OR someone can unexpectedly teleport into your world and kill you. Not at the same time.

    • Aaron McNair

      Both can happen at the same time moron, I’ve invaded dozens of world with sun bros and white souls in them.

      • soul

        He means that if you summon someone, THAT certain person can’t kill you. So no need to be harsh..

  • naga

    if theres gonna be co-op, it should be optional. lets remember here that there may be people who either dont want to enable any kind of social network or cant figure it out for whatever reason. If co-op has to be necissary, it should only be for… extra rupees in a mini game or something small like that. What i mean is it should be possible to beat the game 100% without any social network enabled. as for non-linear dungeon setup, i think there should be a strongly suggested order at the very least. I am stongly opposed to having nonlinear dungeons. it could make some of the dungeons too easy or too hard. i dont want to end up doing the hardest dungeon first and the easiest dungeon last. maybe… a skull kid or something blocking you off from a certain part of Hyrule untill you finish certain tasks or something, including beating certain dungeons. That at the very least.

  • austin vidionin

    no zelda is zelda

  • johnwolf

    I’m not sure i want Dark Souls in my LoZ. Don’t get me wrong, multiplayer zelda has been an Idea as long as multiplayer in the Elderscrolls franchise; but i just don’t see the appeal here. i play Dark Souls for Demon’s souls gameplay. i play a LoZ game for LoZ gameplay. just….no.