The Future of YOUR Zelda Classic

I would like it to become, at least, an all around Zelda clone, capable of copying each 2D Zelda exactly. however, I would like it to be more, capable of making (almost) any style game you can think of, like Final Fantasy or Mario

Add Kinstones.

*b* wrote:I would like it to become, at least, an all around Zelda clone, capable of copying each 2D Zelda exactly. however, I would like it to be more, capable of making (almost) any style game you can think of, like Final Fantasy or Mario

The only way ZC could accurately copy all of the 2D Zeldas would be if the engine was totally rewritten - it wasn't designed for that in the first place, and I wouldn't be surprised if lots of the current features have been more or less hacked on uglily into the source. However, we never know how the far future will look like.

There are other editors available for Final Fantasy and Mario game, and I doubt that Dark Nation would be working on Zelda Classic if he really wanted to make editors for other games - I would prefer ZC to concentrate on action-adventures (Zelda and beyond) myself.

Jigglysaint wrote:Add Kinstones.

I haven't played the Minish Cap yet, so could please detail exactly what Kinstones could serve to improve and add to the game? And how could they be added to the current framework?

splatty

... ... Stop making the developers nervous please. It sure as heck is making me nervous.

I doubt ZC will ever become something truly fantastic, like what you're foreseeing. It's pretty darn cool the way it is now.

Britannianhero4 wrote:... ... Stop making the developers nervous please. It sure as heck is making me nervous.

I doubt ZC will ever become something truly fantastic, like what you're foreseeing. It's pretty darn cool the way it is now.

That's right! I think ZC is already really fantastic and when all the bugs are fixed I wouldn't want to see too many new things added anymore. Of course it still needs new enemies, combo types, items and stuff, but I think ZC shouldn't become a "you can do any kind of game with this" game maker.

Particularly because you're living proof that it can do that already. 😉 ( :clap: )

I was gonna just say, who the hell are you splatty, but then you proved you're not an idiot. The only way ZC could accurately copy all of the 2D Zeldas would be if the engine was totally rewritten - it wasn't designed for that in the first place, and I wouldn't be surprised if lots of the current features have been more or less hacked on uglily into the source. However, we never know how the far future will look like. 😉

So anyway, Zelda Classic is already far beyond what was originally the target I believe. The reason it's kept going is because people just want more and more. And certain things are possible to add, other things not. I think ZC will just be done with whenever it gets to a good solid point. Afterall, at that point, why not just leave it to set in stone?

If someone wants a game builder thing like ZC that doesn't do things ZC was never meant to do, a new project could be started. :O

Mottzilla wrote:
So anyway, Zelda Classic is already far beyond what was originally the target I believe. The reason it's kept going is because people just want more and more. And certain things are possible to add, other things not. I think ZC will just be done with whenever it gets to a good solid point. Afterall, at that point, why not just leave it to set in stone?

Personally, I'd like to see ZC take its capabilities into an entirely new direction... enemies not mutated from older ones, but entirely new creations.

punkonjunk1024 wrote:Well... There's always more to be added. When DN retires from programming, I'm betting a good chunk of eager members hands will shoot up to take over... When I started with ZC, I got V1.84 from Cnet.com downloads, and used that for maybe 2 years... until I found AGN. This was all say, 3 years ago. probobly longer...
And that was a "good solid point" right until I found version 1.90.

Personally, I'd like to see ZC take its capabilities into an entirely new direction... enemies not mutated from older ones, but entirely new creations.

I would also like a few items like roc's feather and so on to add more flexability with the game. Also, I would also like a few new combo types to add more types of puzzles like a step-on-all-floor-tiles-only-once-to-open-the-shutter-door style puzzles. 😛 Although, those may give us a few more bugs, I sure they will be worked out in the future. 😛 I do know this: Zelda Classic has evolved ovr time and I'm pretty much happy with it thw way it is. 😛

As a response to a few people above - I am a great fan of Zelda Classic as it currently is, and I have no interest in having in turning into any sort of generic game creation software - which makes me surprised that it appears that some people have taken my comments in that direction. That was not my intention, so I apologize if I made myself misunderstood.

I think the gameplay of Zelda Classic itself is great, and while it could still be expanded in a few directions (new enemy types might be of interest), I am quite happy with what is there. However, making "deeper" quests with more flexibility and ways to manipulate the game world is something I would wish for.

What I am talking about are things which could make "subplots" and "missions" more viable to program - thus my constant harping on concepts such as very basic scripting, global toggles/flags, conversation systems, and global variables - tools which are neccessary to allow just that. These are the type of elements which makes any of the later Zeldas stand out from the original Zelda (as great as it is) - not just "enemies" or "items". It was about about fulfilling quests for NPCs and changing the world (dark world/light world) and the like - everything which would be easier to make (or indeed, only possible to make) with toggles and global variables.

Last year, I started working on a small space adventure-type game engine for fun and giggles which used its own logical scripting engine to make your own quests. I eventually stopped working on it for personal reasons (I left the country for a few months, actually), but the basic setup for scripting engine was fully functional, with if/else clauses and freely-definable variables. Of course, I don't know how the internals of ZC look like, but I see no reason why global toggles or simple scripting shouldn't be possible to implement in ZC, either - as long as it is fully optional.

However, as I mentioned in my first post, I believe the most important improvement for ZC possible (besides the extremely-important bugsmashing) would be user-friendliness. I am afraid that the current system might scare off potential budding questmaking maestros who might provide us all with hours of entertainment.

Then again, I tend to babble a lot, so I may indeed be the idiot you were afraid that I was, Mottzilla, for slightly differant reasons, however. 😊

splatty

don't forget it's only a beta, not the finished product

There are very simple things that could be done to make more believable story elements, such as taking out certain sounds at certain times in the game. A lot of people won't notice the impact because they probably haven't tried too hard to make a cutscene before, but take it from an unique quest maker, this would make a huge difference.

I believe that with my creativity and abundance of reason, ZC could be very flexible, while still being as simple as it is now. But, I feel that kind of input isn't mine to force on anyone.

I also have RPG Maker 2 and that can make hundreds of different games, so I'm pretty happy.😛 Also, about user friendliness...Well, nothing can prevent newbies frequently asking questions. There's always gonna be a flood of clueless people. So if I did have any significant impact in anything related to ZC's development, I would keep the interface the same. With added features comes more complexity. As long as there's a help source, there's no need to shove help down people's faces. There are help sources out now for ZC, and I'm sure there are more being developed. Although, it might be a good idea to give out URLs in the program to help sources, so people will have no excuse for being braindead.