What is unique about this upcoming release is that a Zelda title (a remake of one of my favorite games in the entire series) is being released supposedly around the same time as this new system itself, and to play it would necessitate buying the system almost as soon as it comes out, when the price is sure to be at its highest. This brings me to the central question of this piece: is it worth going out to pay between $200 and $250 plus tax and the cost of the game itself to be able to play this new handheld version of Ocarina of Time? Or would it be more prudent to hold off for a bit to see if the price of the system tapers off or to acquire a second-hand system and copy of the game at a reduced price?

Pros

Let us first measure the pros of buying the system and the game upon release:

1)      We have a brand new version of one of the most compelling and popular installments in the entire series being released alongside the system.

2)      The game, while likely to largely remain the same as its originator, is sure to have some differences and perhaps some new challenges given recent comments by the game creators.

3)      Other handheld Zelda titles are almost certain to follow in this game’s wake that will likely be made for this system, necessitating a purchase of this system regardless at some point for those who wish to continue on with the series.

4)      The system allows for a Virtual Console system, which makes adding older games for the Gameboy and Gameboy Advance possible.

There are many out there, like me, that have been so in love with the Zelda series up to this point that they have done absolutely whatever was necessary to obtain the newest release, even if that meant buying a new system at least initially solely for that purpose. Provided I have enough money saved up by that time, there is definitely a good chance that I will not break that precedent, though I do remain on the fence due to a few key differences, which will be highlighted next.

Cons

Now, let us consider the cons of buying the system and game upon release:

1)      While it is nothing new to buy a new system in order to get a new Zelda installment (I’ve been guilty of this for the main console systems for years), investing the $200 to $250 plus the cost of the game is certainly more than the initial cost of the DS or its successor systems, which began at $149.99 back in 2004, and this being for merely a handheld system rather than a main console system (the Wii itself was in this range itself upon release, around $249.99 plus tax). Normally, at least for myself, I only pay that kind of money for a main console system, which would make this a record for me in terms of cost of a handheld system strictly to get a new (and yet old) Zelda title.

2)      The arguably more highly-anticipated Wii installment, The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword, is slated for release right around the same time, which is likely to force many fans to have to choose between buying a brand new game for the latest main console system or forking out $200 to $250 plus the cost of this game itself just to play a game they have by-and-large already played and have been playing for years. Personally, I am much more curious and excited about Skyward Sword than I am about a rehashing of Ocarina of Time (largely because this is and yet is not a new game), though I am no less ecstatic that it has happened (I’ve said they should remake Ocarina of Time with better graphics for years).

3)      Though it has been confirmed that the game will have differences from the original version, will there really be enough differences to merit paying between $250 and $300 or perhaps more just for this game alone? Many of us already know the story and many of the secrets of Ocarina of Time, so will there be enough differences to make this game worth that kind of money?

4)      While it is true that there will undoubtedly be other brand new Zelda titles for the Nintendo 3DS, none appear to be on the radar screen as of yet (or at least have not been announced), meaning it could be many months or even years before any brand new Zelda titles are made for the 3DS. Bearing this in mind alongside the fact that Ocarina of Time 3D is not likely to be all that drastically different from its originator, would it perhaps be more prudent to wait for the price of the system to go down during that time between now and the time that they announce a brand new Zelda title made solely for the 3DS, thus saving money on the game system and likely the cost of Ocarina of Time 3DS (which will also undoubtedly decrease in price with the passing of time)?

Normally I would be going gaga over this release (or remake) of a Zelda title and would not be that overly concerned about the cost. Yet this instance is different in many ways, some of which are displayed above. With the timing coinciding with the release of the next major console game, the drastically increased price relative to previous handheld systems and the fact that the game is not a brand new game at all but rather just a rehashing of a previous game with improved graphics and a few small differences, I have been given pause to actually stop and question what the best strategy is in this case.

Bottom Line: If you have a lot of expendable money this coming spring, you will probably hold your nose about the money situation and buy both games, even if one means buying a whole new handheld system just to play it. If, however, your money situation is tight (as is for many at the present time), you may want to think twice before jumping in and buying both immediately. As for myself, I am definitely buying Skyward Sword upon its release as it is the next true installment for the main console system line and tells a whole new story that will likely change the course of the Zelda timeline. Whether I buy Ocarina of Time 3DS and the 3DS itself as a result will be determined by just how much expendable income I have when that time comes. Such a price increase, combined with the fact that the Zelda title being released with the system is not really new at all, will likely keep me on the fence all the way up to release of the system. What do some of the readers think about this and other issues concerning the upcoming releases however? Your input on these issues and others could help fence-sitters like myself determine whether purchase upon initial release of the 3DS is a wise decision or whether waiting it out a bit for prices to come down would be the best approach in this instance. Certainly such advice from readers could help someone like me reach a decision about whether to keep precedent or break with precedent in this instance.

When the ethereal Sages attempted to execute the former Gerudo King of Thieves, the Triforce of Power activated within him for reasons unknown (possibly because the Triforce may be split amongst its predestined holders across all time if it is ever split apart), and he broke free of his bonds. After seemingly killing one of the Sages and threatening the others with the same fate, the remaining Sages activated the nearby Mirror of Twilight, sending Ganondorf away into the prison world of the Twilight Realm. There, he would influence the wicked Twili known as Zant a century after his banishment to the realm, encouraging Zant to use what power he would be granted by Ganondorf to seize control of the Twilight Realm and then invade Hyrule. Though Zant invades Hyrule and Ganondorf’s spirit is released from the Twilight Realm, Link arises to once again answer the call for the salvation of the kingdom from evil. Both Zant and Ganondorf are seemingly killed, restoring peace to both Hyrule and the Twilight Realm. The true ruler of the Twili, Princess Midna, shatters the Mirror of Twilight as she is using it to return home in order to prevent similar tragedies from befalling either world, closing off the only known road between the two worlds.

Next we have Spirit Tracks, the latest game that came out in 2009 in what is supposedly the “Adult Timeline” established at Ocarina of Time’s ending. In this story, we learn that Tetra (Princess Zelda), her pirates, and Link all eventually discovered a new land in which to re-establish the kingdom of Hyrule, which they were searching for when we last saw them at the end of Phantom Hourglass in 2007. This game takes place roughly a century following the events of Phantom Hourglass and the re-founding of Hyrule by Tetra and Link. In the back-story of the game, we learn that the land that would become the successor Hyrule was once terrorized by a powerful enemy, the Demon King Malladus. The Spirits of Good, who presided over the land and acted as mankind’s guardians, waged a protracted war with Malladus for control of the land, causing much death and destruction before the Spirits exhausted their powers to trap Malladus’ essence deep underground and seal his prison with the titular Spirit Tracks that would span across the land and the great Tower of Spirits that stands at the center of the kingdom. In the present, the kingdom’s shady Chancellor, Cole, secretly seeks to release Malladus and return him to power. To do this, Cole causes the Spirit Tracks to vanish by means of tainting the four temples that provide the energy that runs through the tracks to the Tower of Spirits and keeps Malladus’ shackles intact. Eventually the Chancellor’s plan is revealed to the new Link and Princess Zelda, Tetra’s descendant. Cole reveals his devilish nature and abducts the Princess’ body, separating her spirit from it in order to use it as a vessel for Malladus’ essence. Ultimately, the duo perseveres and succeeds in destroying both Cole and Malladus to restore peace to the kingdom by the conclusion of the story.

This leaves one to ponder a simple yet pivotal question: where does the series go from here? With the series’ greatest villain, Ganondorf, supposedly dead in both timelines (turned to stone and drowned beneath the sea in The Wind Waker and run through with the Master Sword in Twilight Princess) and the setting of Hyrule once again present for both timelines, it remains to be seen what direction the series creators will take it now. However, we now know one concrete fact that will have implications for both timelines for the first time since Ocarina of Time (previously the only game confirmed to have a place in both timelines) with the announcement of the heavily anticipated Skyward Sword, the first game made exclusively for the Nintendo Wii (Twilight Princess having originally been a Gamecube project ported to the Wii), and its confirmed placement in the timeline, which has been confirmed to take place an unspecified amount of time before Ocarina of Time.

The game supposedly reveals the origins of the Master Sword, originally known as the titular Skyward Sword, and is confirmed to include Link and Princess Zelda (these incarnations of the characters preceding those seen in Ocarina of Time and thus making them some of the earliest confirmed incarnations of these characters chronologically). When asked if Ganondorf would make a return, the game creators refused comment, neither confirming nor denying that Ganondorf could have a role in the game. However, as Ganondorf was an established middle-aged being at the time of Ocarina of Time and this game is confirmed to take place an unspecified amount of time before the events of that game, the answer to this question remains in limbo for the time being.  A key to determining the answer to this question could come in the form of an idea of exactly how many years Skyward Sword precedes Ocarina of Time. If this amount is small, such as a few decades, it is conceivable that Ganondorf could at the very least make an appearance as a younger version of himself. However, if this game follows precedent (as many of its predecessors have done) and takes place decades or even centuries before Ocarina of Time, this would seem to decrease the chances that Ganondorf could be involved in the game as this would be before his time.

Given this information, I think many would agree that the driving force for the story of any game is the game’s villain and the quality of that villain. Ganondorf has proven to be an immensely popular villain, exemplified by his constant reappearance throughout the series in both his humanoid form (Ganondorf) and his demonic alterego, Ganon. However, given the uncertain status of Ganondorf’s involvement, this leaves one to wonder: if the King of Evil is not included in this story, just who will be worthy enough to take his role as the primary antagonist of the story (especially given that this is a major console game)? To be sure, there have been some surprisingly impressive villains that have filled in for Ganondorf at certain points in the main console games since the release of Ocarina of Time, such as Majora, Vaati, and Zant. However, at the end of the day, Ganondorf has overshadowed most all other villains seen in the series and was even the true force behind two of the villains previously listed in two games, Four Swords Adventures and Twilight Princess. If the King of Evil is revealed to be in this game, it will likely be in a plot twist (a la Twilight Princess) or in a cameo, given the game’s placement in the timeline. If on the other hand however he is not the true villain, fans are left with little clue as to who will fill that vacuum.

Considering that this game tells the origins of the Master Sword (which during Ocarina of Time was said to have been enshrined in the Temple of Time for quite some time by that point), I personally think this game may well take place long before Ganondorf’s birth, thus making any chance of an appearance on his part fairly slim.  Though not impossible to imagine given how the designers were able to fit him into the story of Twilight Princess and make it work, I just feel that this game will be set before Ganondorf’s time and thus make an appearance by him more difficult to fit in. I’m at a loss for who could be a compelling villain for this story to be perfectly honest, and considering that the villain of this story will drive the tale of the Master Sword’s origins, he or she would certainly go down in history amongst the other major console villains such as those previously listed. Who do you think could be a fitting replacement for Ganondorf? Are there any villains we have seen before that could fit in with the game’s placement in the timeline, such as Twinrova (400 and 398 years old purportedly during the events of Ocarina of Time)? Is there a chance Ganondorf could indeed still remain the true force behind this game’s events? What do some of you think?

Now that we have discussed Skyward Sword a bit, let us turn our attention back to the two timelines discussed previously. Do you feel that Ganondorf truly died in Twilight Princess, or that his spirit was sealed away somehow by the Master Sword? Now that Malladus is destroyed, what new threats could face the new Hyrule featured in Spirit Tracks? Is it conceivable that Ganondorf could somehow be reincarnated or resurrected to once again menace this new Hyrule as he has been and done in the past? Do you think that the handheld games will stick with the continuation of the “Adult Timeline” as has been done in the last few games? Will the main console games now be relegated to the “Child Timeline” or prior to both since the original Hyrule still exists in that timeline? I’d like to hear some of the fans’ input on what they feel will be the future of the Zelda series and see if some share similar or different ideas of what is to come from what I currently believe.

I’ll be the first one in line to cry out my opinions, and immediately dart for the pitchfork. (An interesting thought, actually, is that taking a pitchfork to one of the said “developers” would develop less bloody violence than what they often put in the games. How’s that for realism?) Personally, I go quite the other way; I think that the more restraint they show when attempting to appease the Halo/Mortal Combat crowd, the better the games will turn out.

Often times, I think that game developers hear the message board crowds shouting “We want more realism in our games!”, and end up gathering the idea that “realism” equals a violent M-rated game. This is a sad misunderstanding. What is meant by the majority of gamers is that they want to have logical concepts in games. Yes, blood is a part of said realism, but a very small one, and even then, only when applied to the normal and appropriate circumstances. It’s like saying that eyes are created for reading. Although that’s true, it’s only a small part of their intended functions, and thus it should be treated as that.

What I’m getting at is that death is one of those realistic realisms that gamers want. They don’t want a simple gore-fest. They don’t want a “You failed. Would you like to continue?” message on their screens. They want to feel the adrenaline rushing through them as they see their health is low, and know that they don’t want to ever see what the effects of their “death” will be.

In the next article, we’ll take a look at what those effects could be, as well as some examples. If you have any ideas as to how death could be made more realistic and emotional (in a serious way), please leave a comment, or write to us at zeldainmypocket@hotmail.com. Why would you want to do this? Because it just so happens that part four will be connected with a Q&A session, and the questions will be non-existent if nothing comes in, right?

It carries no weight, meaning or purpose, other than to show that you failed. Nothing is either permanent nor difficult to reclaim. At the moment, the only game that I can think of where death has real meaning is Tom Clancy’s The Sum of All Fears, where if one of your squad members is killed, they’re gone for good, along with their awards, etc. Despite this fact, it wasn’t too important. All that happened was that your squadmate’s name was changed; no different sprites, or anything of that caliber.

So to get this centered on The Legend of Zelda, we should at least ponder the question “If Link dies, why aren’t there more severe consequences?”  I mean, shouldn’t something powerful  happen? If Link didn’t often die (assuming it’s an easy game when it comes to the matter of running out of health), I think it would make for a more powerful experience to have something that displays to players the physical pain, anguish and defeat and that Link is experiencing. One of the things that the developers behind the series often talk about is how they want the player to not just play as Link, but feel as though they are him. One of the best ways to connect to a person other than yourself is to experience their pain. In this situation, though, the first step is to make Link’s feelings and failures real. The second is to convey them onto the player. I doubt that this could be done within one game, but maybe two or three. I think that if Nintendo, as well as the Zelda team are able to master the emotional connection of responses from the gamers to the players, every series they touch will be improved.

Now let’s be clear; I’m not suggesting that when Link dies, you have to restart your entire quest. Maybe that’s an idea for an unlockable “super hard” mode, but not for normal gameplay. Also, I’d like to see something more creative than “punishment” (as in taking away an important item that needs to be reclaimed. This isn’t Runescape). A possible idea (coming to my head as I’m writing this) would be having a skeletal Link walk around until he’s able to reach someone or somewhere where he can be restored to himself. That’s just one fleeting idea in a single facet of this topic; there are so many other thoughts and issues that could be covered here, and some of them will be in the next part of this article.

that fact was not lost on the critics; many argued that it was too easy, saying that it removed the possibility of any sort of disorientation. They also claimed that it was an attempt to cover up the fact that the enemy’s artificial intelligence was somewhat poor. (An example being that monsters would only be able to correctly attack in a front-to-front stance with their opponent, as opposed to being able to modify attacks from the side, block, etc.)

The end result is that many felt as though Z-Targeting made the game far too easy, and thus took away from the gameplay elements in Ocarina of Time, as well as its sequel, Majora’s Mask. I would argue that this is an incorrect fact. Although it certainly took away from the difficulty that would have stood in place of the Z-Target system, I would like to point out that the said “difficulty” is as unrealistic as a real-life “personal targeting system” would be.

Think about this for a moment: If you were in a real life combative situation, would you really be spinning around in a desperate attempt to locate your opponent? Chances are, no. Even after turning around a time or two, you’d still have a good idea of which direction you were facing, as well as your attacker’s location. You naturally have a decent sense of direction, and taking away that realistic ability to make a game more “difficult” is pointless. Just to cover myself, I’m on the bandwagon that thinks that the Zelda series has become far too easy. But to take a look from a different angle, there are far better ways to increase the difficulty within Zelda, as well as the general gaming sphere. As a side note, without Z-Targeting, the player would be dashing madly about trying to get his camera fixed behind him.

Some of you may be asking “what does an auto-target system have to do with the handheld games?” I’m asking “why doesn’t it?” You see, as of now, the handheld games have been devoid of a legitimate targeting system. Part of the reason is that they take place from either a top-down or angled viewpoint. As previously mentioned, the idea of Z-Targeting was to prevent unrealistic and unnecessary disorientation; implementing it in such a mode would be pointless, and would add in the “easy” factor, rather than the realistic factor.

From Oracle of Seasons & Ages all the way through Spirit Tracks, I can’t think of the last time I used my shield for a non-quest purpose (i.e. deflecting a Deku Nut or pushing through a wall of flames)! If Nintendo decided to take a step forward, and make future handheld games more combat-friendly, they could implement this realistic, adventurous feature. The best we’ve seen so far is the Zora Warriors in Phantom Hourglass and Spirit Tracks. Why are we missing the legendary Darknuts? Why haven’t we had a Dark Link appearance recently? Where is the fearsome, nail-biting competition that had us stuck for days in Ocarina of Time, Majora’s Mask, and even A Link to the Past? It’s gone, my friends. It’s gone.

However, there is still an opportunity for Nintendo to regain ground in the action/adventure genre for their handheld titles. They need to stop having their gamers run around Hyrule on fetch quests, exploring endless, similar dungeons, and attempting to reach the final boss. What Zelda needs is a total overhaul. Nintendo has claimed that they’re doing this for the upcoming Zelda Wii game; I sure hope they are, but regardless, they need it even more desperately for the handheld games. They need to be challenging like N+, as fun and enjoyable as Tingle’s Rosy Rupeeland, and as innovative as Animal Crossing: Wild World. If they fail to do this, well, they’ll still be making more money than Sony and Microsoft. But we, the fans will be disappointed.

The 3DS will open new doors, and I say that there’s a chance we’ll even see a fully functional 3D combat system. Seems a bit odd to think of for a handheld video game system, but it’s coming. On a somewhat unrelated note, have any of you noticed that we still refer to the system as “Z-targeting”, even after the “L” button replaced “Z” for Wind Waker and the Gamecube version of Twilight Princess?