Zelda

in my opinion the games can vary or go back to the roots, or better, a middle point

the first zelda was good because of the whole place to investigate with the next to none hints of where to go next

Skyward sword was pretty gppd with its new mechanics and methods

there are also bad things in the games like getting money to decipher the triforce parts locations in Wind waker for example

in the end, some will like the inovations, others will like the roots, its mostly many vast points of views

@ kristia

aye, the first time through, having to get rupees for the triforce parts was long and tedious. But if you do it right and get the biggest wallet and then go about it, it actually gives you enough rupees in those rooms to almost do it. Also treasure helps too.

But yea, it's like the debate on consoles and even the official timeline for that matter.

And yea, Nintendo has it tough cause they gotta balance both inovations and keeping to the roots to some regards. SS was definitely redemption for ST. But skyloft and the surface needed to be incorporated together more rather than being separate. it linearized it too far, despite what they wanted to do.

But all we can do is speculate.

Yeah, you have to be careful adding variation while still keeping a game series what it is.

Take the first four entries in Konami's main series.

Castlevania:
CV1: Six stages of sidescrolling action in a distinctive style, with three sections to each stage and stairs to go from one screen level to another.
CV2: The same action style in more of an adventure game.
CV3: Addition of vertical scrolling sections, three paths to the end, two with different stages 4-7 (out of 10) and one of those with two different stages 6, "partner" characters to find and transform into.
CV4: Eleven straight stages, secret rooms in stages 6 and 9, no partners, music changes within a stage, enhanced player powers.

Contra:
C1: Eight stages of platforming shooting, stages 2 and 4 forward scrolling, stage 3 upward scrolling, all the other stages sidescrolling.
SC (C2): Eight stages again, stages 2 and 6 forward scrolling, stage 3 pure sidescrolling, stage 7 pure downward scrolling, the other stages a mix of sidescrolling and vertical scrolling.
C3TAW: Only six stages this time, but stage 1 is pure sidescrolling, stage 4 is a race stage, stages 2 and 5 are top-down, and stages 3 and 6 are a mix of vertical and sidescrolling.
CHC: 2 different stage 2s to select, same stage 3 and 4 (with a secret boss and ending on stage 3), four different end paths (from 5-7 total stages) depending on what stage 2 you chose and what you choose after stage 4, mostly mixed scrolling with some racing. (By racing I mean the BG scrolls while your character doesn't move.)

Gradius:
G1: Seven stages of horizontal space-shooting with a ridiculously easy end boss.
LF: Six stages of the same, odd numbered ones horizontal and even-numbered ones vertical.
G2: Eight stages of only horizontal shooting, but in some you can move the screen up and down, and with a boss rush on stage 6.
G3: Ten stages of horizontal shooting, a forward scrolling stage 4(arcade only), a boss rush on the start of stage 10 (arcade) or stage 8 (console).

That's what I consider about ideal for variation in games (on average). Yes it may be highly varied on average, but it's my taste. As for plot variation, Final Fantasy is my compass. Again, near one extreme but my taste. I admit I was being a bit over-the-top in my OP though.

@bathead

On the side
derp I taught ya what OP meant but didn't clarify
OP = the Original Post of the entire thread by the one who made the thread.
my bad for not pointin that out before

I already knew what OP meant. I was referring to the thread I started: "Are all Touhou games pretty much the same?" or something.

@ bathead

ah ah
in that case other tip: use OP when referring to the thread being posted in's OP
specify if referring to others, otherwise most like me get confused ^^;;

It's strange that a game is named Zelda as we play a guy named Link and the story is always the same ( like mario ):
the princess get kidnapped and you have rescue her from Ganon or a "new" bad guy.
Would be awsome that they change that and for exemple having the hero dying at the end or at the beginning.
It would change a lot of thing and increase possibilities.

@ Madvicius

Well, there were the Oracle games...but instead of Zelda getting kidnapped it was two other chicks...

Oh wait...I think Link's Awakening there was no kidnapping.

Anyway...
At least unlike Mario, Link is saving the world instead of just the princess.

Yeah but it would be awsome if he could really die in the storyboard to add a bit more drama.
Imagine Link dying in the middle or the beginning of the game, one person would try to take
revenge for his sake and fight the guys who 's supposed to be the killed and there plot twist
Link's killer is Link himself from the futur that became bad for unknown reason and doing a
perpetual cycle so that Link keeps dying to the infinite and spawning into the futur as the killer.

Strange, That's what happens in my story with my character Aion...in a similar manner anyway.
Also it kinda sounds like Majora's Mask, except different, combined with a concept of Link to the Past where Link's Uncle is killed in the beginning.