The lights are on
Hyrule-heads unite! Green tights welcome. The Legend of Zelda is one of gaming's most famous franchises, and the power of the Triforce is collected here.
I'd like to know what all of you think of the idea of a Zelda game with guns. I personally will be happy either way, because I'm sure Nintendo will make it work. Anyway be sure to tell me what you think, and I'll be back with a post detailing my reasons for being neutral. I'd doit right now but I don't have time, so I'I'll post it soon.
That would be funny. Nintendo would like automatically have to make that game teen. It would be like a gun toting Mario. I don't think it's likely, but I can't say it's impossible. He also already uses gun substitutes.
Sorry it took me so long to post my promised reasons, but here goes:
Firstly, I'll say why a lot of the arguments agains them are wrong:
This is incorrect because, plainly and simply, most of the other weapons are more violent. Think about it; would you rather have a single, relatively clean entry/exit wound, or be lacerated and essentially bleed to death when attacked by a sword? How about be pumped full of arrows, blood pouring out of you? Or be killed by blunt force trauma with a hammer or ball and chain?
2. It would change the playstyle too much
This makes no sense to me; It more than likely would handle essentially the same as a bow, and It's not like you can't have puzzles based around a gunpowder weapon but can based around an elastic thrust weapon. Beyond that, if there's one thing taught to us by Skyward Sword, it's that, as long as you keep the basic formula, change can be very, very good.
3. Too futuristic
This one is outright laughable. Firstly, there are steamboats and steam engines in the DS Zelda games, which weren't invented until the 1800s, whereas the first muskets were in the 1500s if I'm not mistaken. Besides that, we still don't have technology like the hook shot, and item that's appeared in almost every game since a link to the past.
If you're still not convinced it isn't a horrible idea, look at how fun the cannon was in phantom hourglass.
Now I'll disprove some of the claims for it, since I am neutral, not for it either.
1. Zelda needs it to still be popular
Because suddenly in 2012, all games that don't have guns suddenly stopped being popuar, without warning.
2. It would drastically improve combat
Again, it more than likely wouldn't change the gameplay all that much, it's much more likely it would be similar to the bow in most ways.
3. It already has enough futuristic elements that there's no reason not to
This is the one that always really bugged me about the common arguments for it, because it's not really an argument in favor of guns. It's an argument in favor of neutrality. That's like saying there's no real reason not to spend all my free time jumping on a trampoline, so I'll do that.
Anyway, those are my rebuttals. I know that these aren't all the arguments used from either side, these are just the ones I ran into most. Be sure to post your thoughts as well as justification for your thinking.
P.S. Musicalham, you never really told what your take on whether there should or shouldn't be, just whether you thought it was likely.
I would like to see guns stay out of Zelda personally. I like the fact that they are not there and I disagree with you saying that they would not change the game play................. Dont get me wrong I liked that they were introduced in the Fable series and thought that it was implemented extremely well, but they do not belong in zelda. It doesnot bother me that they have things like steamboats in some because it just fits but guns dont. The power of the sword and striking down your enemies is a feel that is dying through out the gaming world. As I mention Fable, look at fable 2 for example ****SPOILERS***** at the very end of the game you get a quick time prompt to press b and when you do you fire your pistol and the bullet soars through the head of the boss ending his life and the story. So why it might be cool in theory to have in there it would almost ruin it an a way. Zelda is innocence, Gannon Evil, and Link is courage. There is nothing courageous about being able to fire a gun, but to have the skill to wield a sword and be able to harness and master your skill with it is pure bliss.
The bow is fun to use but like gadgets on Batman's belt thats all accessories are in Zelda games and while typically when it comes to the bosses and having to use those new accessories on them Links weapon of choice is the sword. If guns where in it they would take away from the sword whereas the bow merely compliments it.
Well I guess I don't care if guns in Zelda games. I'd prefer if they didn't but it wouldn't influence how I like the game. I don't agree that games that don't have guns aren't popular. I don't see it as impossible. I'm not going to freak out if they do add guns, but I just don't see Link carrying around a semi auto shotgun shooting down baddies. I don't see Zelda suddenly becoming unpopular because it doesn't have guns.
Exactly. Although I'm sure if they did add guns they would be more along the lines of medieval rifles.
I agree with everyone's opinions that guns should never be in the franchise entirely, but like life, if a series lives long enough, anything can happen. I personally hope it doesn't happen, but if they did, it could be made into something unique. No Call of Duty machine guns wish scopes or anything, but a kind of suction gun or spell rifle or something. Whatever you could shoot, it could still be magical like in Skyrim. If anyone can think of something like that, Nintendo could.
How about no? I am sick and tired of guns being the main focus of most games, which is why I use Zelda to experience something different. Please keep your assault rifles and noob tubes in your military fps.
I don't understand what the point would be. They obviously aren't going to turn the game into a shooter, and there are already ranged weapons in the form of bows, slingshots, boomerangs, etc., so I just don't see the purpose of having guns in the game. It would be a completely superfluous addition to the series, and it wouldn't add gameplay mechanics to the series that don't already exist through other items.
Unless it's a magic potato launcher that kill Redeads in one shot. Then I'm in.
Why not? I'll tell you why not. The folks at Nintendo have added some pretty imaginative weapons and items to the series over the years. A gun is not imaginative. A gun is the cheap, easy, "everyone else is incorporating them" way out. Nope, you'll never convince me that a gun will ever be better than any of these: zelda.wikia.com/.../List_of_items_in_the_Legend_of_Zelda_series
Keep the bland, tired, overused guns out of Hyrule.
I share ADAMWOOLLEY's opinion that if they did it at all, Nintendo would probably do it well, but yes, I would initially be against any radical changes like guns. It COULD be impressive, but yeah, what's not broken doesn't need to be fixed. Regardless, I think the Hyrulian NRA would get on their case. It probably won't happen any time soon within the Wii U's lifetime in any case.
Hylian, not Hyrulian. =)
Hah, thanks. Make that mistake all the time. Zelda's HYLIAN inhabitants wouldn't be too happy 'bout that.
Ha, this is a funny co-incidence that I happened to see this today. You were right the first time. I was playing Four Swords Adventure and I noticed that the campaign is named "Hyrulean Adventure", so I looked it up. Hylian refers specifically to the main race of human/elf like people in the game. Link is a Hylian. Hyrulean refers to the nationality of someone who lives in Hyrule. Which is to say, a Zora is a different race from a Hylian, but a Zora who lives in Hyrule would still be Hyrulean. So, since it would be the -National- Rifle Association, Hyrulean would be the correct term.