Posts by swzzgs

There has already been a lot of discussion online about the tapestry shown in the PV for Ocarina of Time Remake, so before the upcoming TGS, I would also like to share my personal thoughts.

First, let me pour a little cold water on the discussion. At the end of the PV, the Triforce symbol on Link's hand begins to glow. Some people have interpreted this as Link obtaining the complete Triforce, but if you look closely at the moment when the glow fades, it is the Triforce of Courage that disappears last. So I believe that what Link obtains within the Great Deku Tree is still the Triforce of Courage. In the very first shot of the PV, there is also something beneath the Great Deku Tree that appears to be glowing; I suspect that it may be the Triforce of Courage within the Great Deku Tree. Of course, this does not mean I am absolutely correct.

If the tapestry is simply decorative, I still think it is an interesting detail. But if it is actually recording some kind of “Hero Link,” then a question immediately comes to mind: who, in the seven-years-earlier timeline, would know what happened seven years later? Some people believe that the tapestry belongs to the royal family, but judging from the Kokiri imagery in its upper section, I lean more toward it being something belonging to the Kokiri.

Time in Ocarina of Time is not simply about Young Link becoming Adult Link. Seven years later, Link sees familiar people and places transformed, and even he himself is no longer the person he once was. After defeating Ganon, he is then sent back seven years. This is not simply a matter of “returning to the past,” because he has already experienced the full changes brought by those seven years.

So I see Link's life as being cruelly divided by time into three stages: the child he was seven years earlier, the adult Link who truly experienced the world seven years later, and the Link who returned to seven years earlier carrying all the memories of that growth. His body went back, but his growth was not erased. He had already become someone else, and therefore could never truly return to his original childhood.

This also gives Navi's departure another meaning. I tend to agree with the interpretation of Good Blood and some Zelda theorists: Navi's departure may not simply be an exit caused by her “running out of power,” but rather the price of growing up, because only Kokiri children can have fairies. She accompanied the child who still belonged to the Kokiri Forest, but after everything Link experienced seven years later, he was no longer simply that child. Even after returning to seven years earlier, he could never truly return to the past. That, to me, is the cruelest part of Ocarina of Time's treatment of time.

That is why I pay particular attention to Link on the tapestry.

The clothing on the tapestry is not completely identical to the Link who actually appears in the game footage, especially the golden hat, which is different from the familiar green cap. It could simply be an artistic interpretation, or it could be clothing from a particular stage of his journey. Some people may even wonder whether it is related to the power of the Triforce of Courage. It could also point toward exciting new equipment and gameplay possibilities, but there is not enough evidence yet.

However, what interests me more about the tapestry is another possibility:

The Link on the tapestry is both “the Link who became a historical hero” and, even more importantly, “the Link as remembered by someone.”

If that is the case, Navi becomes a very reasonable candidate.

She is one of the few characters who truly accompanied Link through the period seven years earlier, the world seven years later, and his return to childhood. She saw the confident adult hero he became, but she also witnessed him when he was still a child. Building on the earlier speculation: if this really is a tapestry rooted in Kokiri culture, perhaps the Link depicted on it is not the handsome, heroic adult Link of seven years later, but the familiar, innocent and childish face from his childhood—the child who accompanied her throughout that long journey. That would also connect naturally to the PV's transition into a shot of Link still sleeping, without his cap. If you have played the N64 and 3DS versions, you may remember who wakes Link up in this state. The answer is rather obvious.

In that case, the tapestry would not simply exist because the “deeds of a hero” were recorded. It could instead mean:

Someone remembers the Link who can never return.

So if I connect all the clues surrounding the tapestry, I naturally arrive at this thought:

The creator of the tapestry was Navi.

If that is true, then what exactly is she recording: “Hero Link,” or “the Link she remembers”?

And that naturally leads into The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask.

After Ocarina of Time, Link enters the forest that can make people lose their way and eventually reaches the world of Majora's Mask. But is Termina located somewhere beyond an exit from the Lost Woods, or did it always exist somewhere else entirely?

Could those adults who became skeletons after becoming lost in the forest have also been trying to find some kind of exit? Or did Link reach Termina because Navi, the Deku Tree's children, or some other force we do not yet understand intervened? All of these possibilities can remain open.

I do not want to draw a conclusion.

Because one of the most moving things about Ocarina of Time is precisely that it does not answer all of these questions.

It tells us that Link has grown, but never tells us how he is supposed to recover what he lost after growing up. It tells us that Navi left, but never explains exactly where she went. And Majora's Mask continues that unfinished emotional thread.

Perhaps this is why I believe the true tragedy of Ocarina of Time within The Legend of Zelda series is not Zelda's thousand-year wait in Tears of the Kingdom, nor the tragedy of Hyrule being submerged—both of those tragedies were ultimately overcome.

The saddest thing is:

The forest is still there.

I believe Navi is still there as well.

Link remembers everything.

But no matter how many times he manipulates time, he can never return to that childhood where he could live together with her.

This is my personal speculation and design theory, not a leak.

If Ocarina of Time Remake were to introduce a new second-screen peripheral, I don't think its greatest value would simply be “having another screen.”

The most obvious uses for a second screen are maps, inventories, quests, and other information displays. But these are essentially just ways of separating information. They do not fundamentally change how the game is played. The real reason for an additional piece of hardware should be a change in interaction itself. If the second screen is merely a display, its value is limited; if it can become another game space—carrying another character, perspective, location, or even timeline—then it can become a new medium for interaction.

So for the sake of this idea, I will call it SDS (Switch 2 Dual Screen).

I don't think it should be designed as “bringing the DS back,” nor should it be physically combined with the Switch 2 to create a dual-screen handheld. A more reasonable approach would be to make SDS a separate secondary interaction device. Players could use the Switch 2 alone, or place SDS separately in tabletop, TV, or handheld-oriented setups, with the two screens carrying different information.

Ocarina of Time would be an especially interesting game with which to test this concept.

For example:

Switch 2 main screen: seven years later.

SDS: seven years earlier.

The two screens would not simply display the same world simultaneously. They would represent two different temporal states of the same world.

Imagine a boss whose defenses have already become extremely strong seven years later, while seven years earlier it is still absorbing power from the forest. The player could use Young Link in the timeline represented by SDS to alter the source of that power, then return to the Adult Link timeline and see the consequences.

At that point, the player would not simply be controlling a character. They would be interacting with the causal relationship between two different points in time. Adult Link deals with the result; Young Link changes the cause. The two screens would not merely complement each other as information displays—they would jointly form one cross-time interaction.

This is also what would distinguish SDS from traditional two-player games.

In ordinary 2P games, two players usually exist in the same space and work together toward the same goal. SDS could instead allow a player to interact with different times, spaces, and information states at once. Its true purpose would therefore not be to expand the display, but to change the player's relationship with the game world.

This also preserves what was truly valuable about the DS.

The significance of the DS was never simply “it had two screens.” Its importance came from how two screens changed the way players interacted with information. If SDS simply reproduced the DS, it would only be returning to the past. But if that interactive idea were rebuilt around Switch 2 hardware, communication, and modern game design, it could become a new game language.

I also don't think SDS should be mandatory for Ocarina of Time Remake.

The game should remain complete without it. Players who purchase SDS would simply gain another way to play. In other words, it should be an optional interaction extension, rather than a device that makes players feel they are missing part of the game if they do not buy it. That also feels more consistent with the ecosystem Nintendo has built since the Switch launched in 2017: hardware creates new possibilities, but players can decide for themselves how they want to use them.

Of course, this would also involve substantial risks.

The first is cost. SDS would need an independent touchscreen, communications hardware, battery, mainboard, and enclosure, but it should not become “a second Switch 2.” Based on the product concept and the components we previously considered, around $159.99 seems like a plausible range for a premium optional peripheral. This is only a rough estimate based on the concept, however; the actual cost would depend heavily on Nintendo's manufacturing and production strategy.

The second is the player's perception of its value.

If SDS ultimately just puts a map on another screen, it would be difficult to justify a $159.99 price tag. It would need to demonstrate interaction that cannot be achieved with a single screen.

The final risk is third-party support.

If only Ocarina of Time Remake uses SDS, it could easily become an expensive Zelda collector's peripheral. That is why I think SDS should be designed from the beginning as an extensible peripheral, allowing Nintendo's second-party teams and third-party developers to decide whether their games can make meaningful use of it.

For example, a stealth game could use SDS as a second camera, allowing the player to manage two different sources of visual information at once. A horror game could similarly use the second screen to establish another viewing relationship. In that case, SDS would no longer be a peripheral exclusive to Ocarina of Time Remake, but a genuine interaction medium.

So what interests me most about SDS is not:

Quote

“Nintendo made another second screen.”

It is:

Quote

The DS changed how players interacted with two screens; SDS could take that idea further and change how players interact with two information spaces.

From DS to SDS, this would not be a return to the past, but a way of taking dual-screen interaction itself into the future.

Ocarina of Time has been discussed for almost thirty years, and time is already one of the most developed themes in Zelda studies: child and adult Link, seven years of sleep, the Temple of Time, the split timeline, and Link as a traveler through time. By comparison, the “flute and sound” side of the game is often treated mainly as music appreciation.

I would like to ask a broader question:

Quote

Besides time, could Ocarina of Time have another important medium at its core—sound?

The original game already gives us a strong basis. The Ocarina is not merely an item. It is a language through which the player interacts with Hyrule. It can call a horse, change time, teleport Link, summon storms, solve puzzles, and interact with NPCs.

It therefore has several identities at once:

• musical instrument;
• game command;
• puzzle key;
• time tool;
• communication medium;
• carrier of player memory.

The player does not simply use the Ocarina. The player plays it, and the world responds.

Players can forget a dungeon route but still remember how to play Zelda's Lullaby, Epona's Song, Song of Time, or Saria's Song.

Quote

Operation memory can become emotional memory.

A remake should therefore preserve not only the melodies, but the feeling that “I am playing this song.”

1. The real challenge is not making the music bigger

A remake could easily make the soundtrack more orchestral, detailed, and cinematic. But that is not necessarily the most interesting direction.

The harder question is:

Quote

Can music become something the player actually uses?

Many gameplay melodies are structurally simple. Their strength comes from a few memorable notes that players can recognize and reproduce.

That simplicity creates an opportunity:

Quote

If players can remember a few notes, why can't remembering sound itself become part of the game?

The challenge is not simply rearranging old music, but turning sound into part of the game's rules.

2. The broken melody in the Lost Woods

One of the most interesting details to watch in the remake PV is the brief, fragmented presentation of the Lost Woods melody.

This does not prove that Nintendo is hiding a music puzzle. It could simply be a nostalgic reference designed to wake old memories.

But from a design perspective, a fragmented melody is interesting because a complete melody means completion, while a broken melody naturally suggests something missing, unfinished, or waiting for a response.

That leads to a possible evolution of the original system.

Original:

Find the song → play it → the world responds.

Possible remake:

Hear a fragment → remember/search → understand the melody → try to play it → the world responds.

Quote

A complete melody is an answer. A broken melody is an invitation.

This fits Zelda's traditional design language, where the game often gives the player fragments rather than directly stating the solution.

3. Music could become a puzzle in itself

Imagine a melody being distributed across different places or moments: an NPC hums one part, a stone tablet contains another, the environment provides a rhythm, and the player remembers the rest.

The player would not simply collect items. They would collect:

Quote

sound across time and space.

Because music has sequence, rhythm, pauses, and relationships, the puzzle could ask not only whether all fragments were found, but why they belong together and in what order.

Then music itself becomes a kind of maze.

This could even create a very Ocarina-like inversion:

Quote

Instead of using the Ocarina to control time, the player uses time to reconstruct the Ocarina.

4. Sound and time: leaving a sound behind

Sound is normally immediate:

play → hear → disappear.

Ocarina of Time, however, is fundamentally about time.

So a natural design question follows:

Quote

What if a sound could be left behind?

A sound created seven years ago could still be heard seven years later.

Then sound becomes more than sound:

Quote

a message from the past.

Imagine Adult Link entering an abandoned place. There is almost nothing there. He plays the Ocarina, and a familiar melody answers from somewhere in the distance.

He follows it and eventually realizes:

Quote

It was a sound left behind seven years earlier.

The player would not simply see the past.

Quote

The player would hear the past.

This would make time more than a change of map state. Time itself could become part of the sound system.

5. Sound could also become a way to hear space

Another direction is using sound as a perception mechanic. The series already has examples where sound can help detect hidden spaces. Modern hardware could extend this through distance, echoes, materials, reflections, water, and obstacles.

The Ocarina could become a tool for listening: play a note, hear a response, and use the sound to locate a hidden space.

The game would not mark the destination on the map.

Quote

The player has to listen for it.

Exploration would become perception.

6. Seven years ago and seven years later could hear each other

If time and sound were truly combined, the game could go beyond simply switching between two eras.

A player could:

play a sound seven years ago

↓

hear its consequence seven years later

or the reverse.

The player would no longer ask only:

Quote

“Where should I go?”

but also:

Quote

“When should I listen?”

This would extend the original idea of time becoming part of space:

Quote

Time could become part of sound.

The two eras would not necessarily need to meet directly. Their sounds could connect them.

7. From sound as a key to sound as a language

Zelda already has a tradition of music functioning as a key.

Old logic:

Play the correct song → the door opens.

That is sound as a password.

A more advanced version would be:

Play something → the world answers.

That is sound as communication.

The difference matters.

A password means:

Quote

the player entered the correct answer.

A language means:

Quote

the player interacted with the world.

This suggests a progression:

instrument → key → language → information → memory → medium across time.

The important question for a remake is therefore not simply how many new songs it adds, but:

Quote

Why does the player need to play?

8. Modern input should serve interaction, not technology

If modern Switch hardware and microphone capabilities are used, the point should not be “there is new hardware, so we must use it.”

Button input could remain reliable, while humming provides optional expression. The game might recognize approximate pitch relationships or rhythm rather than demanding perfect singing.

Then the player is not playing a music minigame.

Quote

The player is trying to communicate with the world using their own voice.

If the world responds, “I remember this song” could become a genuine gameplay ability.

9. 32 MB → 64 GB: the real test

The original Ocarina of Time faced extreme hardware and storage limitations.

The question in 1998 was:

Quote

With so little space and power, what is worth keeping?

A modern remake faces the opposite problem:

Quote

With vastly more storage and hardware power, what is actually worth creating?

The interesting question is what that additional design space can create.

This makes 32 MB → 64 GB more than a content upgrade.

1998:

Limited resources → creativity is necessary.

Today:

Abundant resources → designers must decide what is worth creating.

If the extra capacity only makes the original world prettier and the music cleaner, it is simply a larger version of the same game.

But if it enables richer environmental sound, echo-based exploration, musical puzzles, sound linked to time, more natural performance, player voice input, and deeper world reactions, then modern technology is being used to create interactions that were impossible in 1998.

That is the real opportunity.

10. The possible evolution of the Ocarina

The idea can be summarized as a progression:

1998

Sound = music + input

↓

Already established

Ocarina = key

Melody = player memory

Music = environment

↓

Possible remake evolution

Sound = clue

Melody = puzzle

Echo = spatial perception

Recorded sound = information across time

Player performance = communication

↓

Seven years ago ↔ seven years later

Sound becomes a bridge between eras.

↓

Ultimately

Quote

The Ocarina is no longer merely an item that lets Link change the world.

Quote

It becomes a medium through which the player understands the world, communicates with it, preserves memories, and crosses time.

This does not mean Nintendo has implemented any of these systems. The PV fragments do not prove it.

But the original game provides the conceptual foundation, while modern hardware makes many of these ideas plausible.

That is why “the flute and sound” is worth discussing alongside the obvious theme of time.

The real question is not:

Quote

“Will Nintendo add a new music feature?”

It is:

Quote

If Nintendo wants Ocarina of Time to become a landmark again in the modern era, how far can the simple instrument that once required only a few buttons be reinvented when the player has modern storage, audio, input, and processing power?

The answer could be much more interesting than simply adding more songs.

It could mean redefining how the player communicates with Hyrule.

In 1998, the player picked up the Ocarina and felt like they were using an item.

A sufficiently ambitious remake could make the player realize:

Quote

“Wait… I wasn't just listening to a song.”

Perhaps that is what making Ocarina of Time “new again” could mean: changing the relationship between the player and the sound.

This is a speculative framework, not a leak or claim about unreleased information.

Quote from Kaynil

Thank you so much for sharing your deep thoughts on the matter. Definitely there is a lot of room to talk about what we hope this to become and what we hope it won't.

Your description on the bosses, I think the franchisee in general can benefit with that. They are dungeon dwellers after all. It would be nice to see more of them around the dungeon. I guess it is nota completely new idea to mud the world with the dungeon itself, and with the technology nowadays, that could definitely work.

I agree with you on the importance on how you frame things. Like "How much new content should be added?" versus "How would Nintendo reinterpret the design ideas of 1998 with today's philosophy?". It really changes the focus of it. Because rather than just thinking about it being cool, it is more about how well could it serve the game. I am sure many people are already trying to figure out how to walk the line between passing the limitations the original game had in development and changing things in a way that it simply won't be the same game.

I love the Spyro trilogy. They updated stuff but also kept the core of the Playstation 1 games. I am definitely both excited and nervous about what direction will OoT take. Is it a remake adapted where parts will be expanded so we can have the game we felt when we first played it in our N64 or is it going to e a while reimagination where while the main story might remain a lot of beats are altered and added to expand upon, similar to say the FFVII 'remake' has turned out to be so far.

Personally, the only thing I dread is the UI menu to select items that have been from the latest games from BotW to EoW. I really hope they just enhance the UI of the original menu where everything is on view. How will they handle the C actions will be interesting, in that note I am curious too how much the interface would borrow from the 3DS version.

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I really like the point you made about the difference between adding new content and reinterpreting the original design ideas with today's philosophy. I think that is probably the most important question for an OoT remake.

For me, the interesting part is not simply asking "what new things can Nintendo add?" but "how can the original ideas become more alive with modern technology?"

1. Bosses and dungeons

One thing I always found interesting about Zelda is that every boss has a different identity and requires a different way of thinking. However, for new players, the first few minutes inside a boss room are often the moment when they need to discover the rules of the fight through trial and error.

A remake could move some of that learning process into the dungeon itself.

For example, a dungeon could contain mechanisms or enemies that use similar defensive patterns as the boss. Or the boss itself could appear as part of the dungeon environment, allowing players to observe its behavior and experiment with possible strategies before the final battle.

The purpose is not to make bosses easier, but to make the dungeon and boss feel like one connected experience.

2. Expanding dungeon and puzzle design instead of simply adding content

I think puzzles and dungeon exploration are some of the most important parts of Ocarina of Time. Because of that, I prefer extending these ideas rather than constantly adding new systems or content.

The boss idea I mentioned is also based on this principle. It is not about adding more enemies or more battles, but about expanding the relationship between exploration, puzzles, and combat.

A remake should make these elements feel fresh again while preserving the original design philosophy.

3. C buttons, external devices and UI

About the C buttons, I think they are interesting because they represent something beyond simple item shortcuts.

If modern hardware includes external devices such as cameras or other interactive features, I think Nintendo's philosophy would be to make them part of the game experience rather than just hardware functions.

For example, C buttons could become a way to activate different external interactions. A camera function could potentially capture player expressions or movements and use them as part of gameplay. Even imperfect recognition could become part of the fun, because Nintendo has always been good at turning unexpected player behavior into entertainment.

For the UI, I think a similar philosophy could apply.

Instead of a traditional grid-based inventory, I would like to see something closer to an "open dungeon" approach: an inventory that feels like a real container. Items could exist as 3D objects inside a visible space, without strict borders or artificial categories.

However, removing grids does not mean removing limitations. Players should understand the size and shape of objects naturally, so managing space becomes part of the experience rather than just a number.

Of course, these are only ideas, and I am also curious about how Nintendo will balance the original game with modern design. The 3DS version already showed one possible direction, but a Switch/Switch 2 remake could explore something completely different.

A personal analysis and speculation.

Before I begin, I'd like to make one thing clear: this is not a leak, nor a prediction. It is simply my personal interpretation of how Nintendo could approach an Ocarina of Time Remake, based on the company's design philosophy and the evolution of the Zelda series.

More Than a Remaster

The greatest achievement of Ocarina of Time wasn't simply being the first successful 3D Zelda.

It fundamentally changed how players experienced a three-dimensional world.

Many mechanics that later became standard were established here:

• Z-targeting
• 3D spatial exploration
• Time travel as gameplay
• Dungeon-driven progression
• Music integrated directly into gameplay

Because of that, I don't think the biggest question for a remake is:

Quote

"How much new content should be added?"

Instead, the real question is:

Quote

"How would Nintendo reinterpret the design ideas of 1998 with today's philosophy?"

1. Time Is About Change, Not Travel

Many people describe the core of Ocarina of Time as the transition from Child Link to Adult Link.

I think it goes deeper than that.

The game is really about how time changes both the world and the individual.

Seven years pass.

The people you knew have changed.

Places you remember no longer exist in the same form.

Even Link himself has become someone different.

Time travel in Ocarina of Time isn't just a gameplay mechanic.

It quietly asks a philosophical question:

Quote

If you suddenly lost seven years of your life, would you still be the same person?

If Nintendo remakes this game, I believe the biggest opportunity isn't expanding the story.

It's allowing players to truly feel how the world has changed.

2. Sound Could Become the Most Important Upgrade

The title itself combines two central ideas:

Time and Music.

The Ocarina was never just a musical instrument.

It was how the player communicated with the world.

Its melodies changed time, opened paths, solved puzzles, and connected different parts of Hyrule.

Modern hardware could push this idea much further.

Imagine hearing the same village in two different eras.

As a child:

• lively music
• birds
• people talking

As an adult:

• silence
• empty wind
• distant echoes

Without seeing anything, players would immediately understand:

Quote

Seven years have passed.

I also think Nintendo could redesign the Ocarina itself.

Not by making it complicated, but by making it feel more like performing music while still remaining accessible.

Nintendo has always preferred lowering the learning barrier instead of increasing mechanical complexity.

3. Hardware Should Serve Gameplay

One thing Nintendo has always done well is designing hardware around play.

The Nintendo 64 controller wasn't interesting because it looked unusual.

Its analog stick made 3D movement intuitive.

The Z button made combat readable.

The C buttons simplified item usage.

Every design decision served gameplay.

If Ocarina of Time returns on modern hardware, I expect Nintendo to explore new interaction methods.

Joy-Con aiming.

Motion-assisted tools.

New forms of puzzle interaction.

But none of these should ever replace traditional controls.

Nintendo's philosophy has always been simple:

Quote

Hardware exists to create new ways to play—not to show off technology.

4. Tears of the Kingdom May Point Toward a New Dungeon Philosophy

One of the most interesting ideas introduced by Tears of the Kingdom wasn't simply its open world.

It was how it redefined dungeons.

Traditional Zelda dungeons are built from rooms, locked doors, keys, and carefully designed routes.

An open dungeon doesn't remove those elements.

It changes where the boundaries exist.

The Wind Temple is a perfect example.

Long before entering the dungeon itself, players are already solving environmental challenges, navigating storms, and climbing through the sky.

When the title "Wind Temple" finally appears, it doesn't begin the dungeon.

It confirms that you've already been inside it.

The real entrance isn't a doorway.

It's the moment the player realizes the dungeon has already begun.

5. Water Temple: Preserve the Rule, Not the Layout

The Water Temple remains one of the most controversial dungeons in Zelda history.

Many players remember the frustration.

But I don't believe the water level itself was the problem.

The real issue was the amount of backtracking and limited guidance created by the hardware of its time.

The core mechanic should remain.

Changing water levels constantly reshapes the dungeon by opening new paths, closing others, and changing how every room functions.

As long as water continues to define the player's relationship with the environment, it will still feel like the Water Temple—even if every room is redesigned.

6. Bosses Should Complete the Dungeon

Modern games often separate exploration from boss fights.

You enter an arena.

The door closes.

The battle begins.

Zelda has always had the opportunity to do something more interesting.

A boss could exist throughout the dungeon.

The player might encounter it long before the final battle.

Watching where it moves.

Learning which areas are dangerous.

Understanding its behavior.

In that way, the boss becomes part of the dungeon's teaching process.

The final battle isn't disconnected from the dungeon.

It is simply the final lesson.

7. Nintendo Doesn't Give Answers—It Builds Understanding

One of Nintendo's greatest strengths has always been teaching through interaction.

Players aren't simply told what to do.

Instead, they gradually understand how the world works.

Knowing that a boss is vulnerable to the Hookshot isn't the same as knowing when, where, or why to use it.

The game teaches the rules.

Players discover the solutions themselves.

That sense of discovery has always been one of Zelda's greatest strengths.

Conclusion

As an old Zelda fan, I don't want a remake simply because it would look better.

I want it because I want to experience that feeling of discovery again.

I already know the story.

I know the dungeons.

I know the bosses.

The real challenge is making familiar places feel unknown once more.

If Nintendo succeeds, players won't simply say:

Quote

"The graphics are better."

Instead, they'll say:

Quote

"I thought I knew this world... but Nintendo made me understand it in a completely new way."

To me, that would be the true purpose of an Ocarina of Time Remake.

In the end, I think a successful remake should answer a few simple questions:

• Does it preserve the original game's core ideas?
• Does it redefine exploration rather than simply expand it?
• Does it use new hardware to improve gameplay instead of showing off technology?
• Does it teach players how the world works instead of giving them direct answers?
• Do the bosses remain the final expression of each dungeon's design?

If the answer is yes...

Then it wouldn't simply be a remake.

It would become a new Ocarina of Time.