Choices

[HyruleHistory10]

Ok.... Here is the question. Do you think that Zelda would be able to function with decision based choices? Here is an example in case you do not catch what i am saying.

You walk into a down and Ganondorf just set fire to a house. Once inside you realize that you can only save one before the house burns down. Now UNKNOWN to the player one person will later in the game become and Ally and the other a Boss, but without any of that info you MUST pick one and then the game will be shifted a littled bit based on this choice.

Could Zelda work with choices like this that could give alternate endings or extra side quests? Or do you think that Zelda is better with a straight forward A - B - C format?

 

[TriFiERCE]

I feel exactly the same way! Changes in the game by certain choices made earlier.

 

[MsNerrrrd]

It maybe something new and exciting, but I think it wouldn't suit Zelda in a way... But in a way it would... Blaah, I can't describe what I'm meaning by this ._.

 

[JamesBond007]

You should play Oracle of Seasons and Oracle of Ages. You need to make few choices in both games, but this won't change the ending.

 

[Sir Quaffler]

I think this is actually a fantastic idea. Having certain choices that will permanently alter the way the rest of the game goes is something I really look forward to being implemented in games more often. Instead of using all that processing power to make that rock as shiny as possible, we should be using them to create dynamic game stories that can vary wildly from person to person depending on how they play. In regards to Zelda, I want to have situations where if you fail to act properly you must live with that mistake; like in TP if you didn't get out of that bomb shack or off that burning bridge in time you can still progress through the game, but now you have serious burns as a constant reminder of your screwup. Or in SS if you didn't act correctly towards Ghirahim or weren't able to defeat him quick enough he would be able to breach the barriers between him and Zelda, and you would immediately be forced to track him down before he summoned Demise.

 

[rock]

In my Cardinal Kingdom development, I explored the nature of choices in this sense. I didn't have anything as monumental to whether or not you'd fight a boss or not, but some choices made would pit you against people more often, creating "mini-bosses" in a way.

I didn't think the game should have a Fable state of being, but I wanted Link (and Zelda) to be recognized as either MORE or LESS of a hero, using a Hero Meter to determine this. The more people you help out, the easier the game becomes as you accumulate more allies and rights of passage, but the less people you help out allots you far fewer allies and you aren't known for good deeds which makes the game more difficult.

For instance, certain side quests to obtain items grant easy passage to (in this example) scaling a mountain. But not helping doesn't mean you can't reach the point on the mountain, it means the player has to find an alternative path. Also, as my design features the ability to kill "pedestrians" the view of Link (and Zelda) in the public eye changes from heroes who are less bothered by NPCs or heroes who are feared and therefore threatened more so by NPCs. Still, none of this affects the course of the game because of the level at which these side quests could possibly affect the outcome- essentially, in order to not have a thousand variations of the game the in-game adjustments would be minimal- would be too great. Instead, there would be points in the game where these allies are "critical."

Just one more example to cover the range of side quests. There is a rebel group who often comes to your aid throughout the game. It's a small band of NPCs, but depending on how many people you help, the rebels numbers can grow, allowing those moments where they are needed to be easier to get through. Ie. there are 3 Kokiri brothers who are abandoned and need food to survive so teaching them how to fish provides them this ability to do so and they become strong enough to join in these fights; there's a drought for Hyrule farmers and continuing down this sidequest provides ample food for the citizens, which would imply a stronger Hylian army and surrounding citizens, making them more capable of performing certain tasks later in the game (someone might walk slower, exposing you to elements or dangers more longer periods of time, etc.).

They are small things, but overall affect how the player plays the game. Therefore, it truly makes the game challenging for people rushing through the game so as to not simply adjust the casual vs. hardcore aspect with completely segregated options. Everything's intertwined.

 

[Seth]

This is something a few series of tried recently. GTA IV is one notable example. You face certain points in the game where you can make choices, these choices effect the outcome of the story. You can play the game many times and get multiple different endings. The pros of this method include a high replay value. In other Zelda games when you replay the game your experience is the same each time. Sure maybe you skip a side quest, or do it in a different order, but for all intent and purpose it's the same. This isn't bad per se, I've played OoT hundreds of times, but no doubt having choices in the game adds tremendously to that.

There are two ways to go about it. The GTA IV method with multiple endings, the only real negative here is the timeline and all that. Would one ending be canonical? Would they all be? Zelda timelines are confusing enough as it is without creating 14 more alternate timelines (Don't you know!? Zelda ABC is on the timeline where you beat Ganon with the MS with Navi as your companion. Zelda DEF is on the one where you beat him by yourself, but only if you got the hover boots, Zelda GHI is on the timeline where you DON'T get the hover boots ). Another way would be to have one static ending, but multiple ways to reach that ending. Both, if done well, could add a lot to the series.

One interesting way to do this would have the choices even effect which dungeons you access. Imagine replaying a Zelda game, making different choices, and in doing so allow you to access new dungeons! There is a lot of cool ways to implement this idea and it's something Nintendo should definitely look into.

I think this is actually a fantastic idea. Having certain choices that will permanently alter the way the rest of the game goes is something I really look forward to being implemented in games more often. Instead of using all that processing power to make that rock as shiny as possible, we should be using them to create dynamic game stories that can vary wildly from person to person depending on how they play. In regards to Zelda, I want to have situations where if you fail to act properly you must live with that mistake; like in TP if you didn't get out of that bomb shack or off that burning bridge in time you can still progress through the game, but now you have serious burns as a constant reminder of your screwup. Or in SS if you didn't act correctly towards Ghirahim or weren't able to defeat him quick enough he would be able to breach the barriers between him and Zelda, and you would immediately be forced to track him down before he summoned Demise.

I was with you until that...I think it would be great to have choices with negative outcomes. Maybe even losing a beloved character or companion. However, I don't want a situation where I play with Link looking like a burn victim the entire time

 

[The Wanderer]

At the very least, I'd like for future Zelda games to constantly give you choices, even if it only affects dialogue. If we're supposed to be linked to this hero in green, we should be free to speak our minds as such. This means plenty of dialogue branches encountered frequently throughout the game, not just a select few moments. Skyward Sword was a step in the right direction, but now Zelda should kick it up a notch.

I do like the idea of choices that affect gameplay and story, even if those choices are irreversible (though I am leery of the latter). I don't support choices that completely close down certain areas of the game (like opening one dungeon but closing off another); one of my gaming pet peeves, especially in games like Zelda that encourage exploration, are no-return situations that limit your game content. Zelda should encourage exploration, not forbid it if you made the wrong choice.

But think of the ramifications of this for sidequests. Remember the Anju and Kafei sidequest from Majora's Mask? It's time we had another quest of that caliber, something that involves players deeply and emotionally. In a way, that sidequest did have multiple endings - you had to go back in time to access them, but technically it's there. What if you had a sidequest that determined whether a character you grew attached to lives or dies? What if Link can ask women out on dates and set the whole night up, risking rejection or gaining true love? There are so many possibilities with sidequests that Zelda can and should explore. I think the sidequest is a dying breed in the modern Zelda world, and it's time we snatch it from the jaws of extinction.

 

[Night Owl]

I think it could work, I mean we have a start (kind of) already with dialogue options.
It might push Zelda into the RPG category if our choices had an effect on the game.

What if we made the way we interact with enemies change how Link evolves?
If we fight head on a lot, Link would gain strength making it easier to kill enemies.
but if we evade enemies Link would gain speed making it easier to avoid them.
Just a few examples.

I think it could make Zelda even more immersive, imo.

 

[Azure Sage]

I don't really like games that have choices that affect the rest of the game like that. Sure, it adds a sense of depth, but I'm not a big fan of it. I'd always worry about whether or not I picked the right choice, and if I ended up picking a choice that led to an outcome I didn't like, I'd reset the game and start a new file in a heartbeat. These kinds of choices put an unnecessary stress on me, and I'd just rather be able to enjoy the game without worrying about the choices I make in it.

 

[Sir Quaffler]

@TheWanderer:
Sure, have lots of dialogue options, but don't ape off what Mass Effect does. I've played a few games with choices that did not incorporate a good/evil paradigm (as in having the good choice be blue and the evil choice be red). Instead they have all the choices be colorblind if you will and instead of simply choosing whether you want to be good or evil they were very subtlely written, and the only way you could get what outcome you desired was by paying attention to the characters and using deductive reasoning. This I am a huge fan on.

I was with you until that...I think it would be great to have choices with negative outcomes. Maybe even losing a beloved character or companion. However, I don't want a situation where I play with Link looking like a burn victim the entire time

Yeah.. that was just a random example. Perhaps it would be better if his clothes were burned and you had to get them mended. I was just trying to think of different scenarios, but I agree; on second thought I would not want to play as a burn victim. That would be taking it a little too far.

 

[RegalBryant]

I have an idea. You play as Dark Link, who is actually a robot, and you have a hero meter which changes where you go in the story, and you get guns and motorcycles and fight aliens and stuff.