-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Legend of Zelda Wii U Gameplay Demo
- Thread starter zakislam
- Start date
- Status
TheMoon
Member
The only game Kyogoku worked on was Twilight Princess. There is no overlap other than the normal EAD-employee pool sharing. Animal Crossing is EAD 2 (now making Splatoon), Zelda is EAD 3.
We just need a new snapshot of the map so we can spend a week just on the map again. That was glorious!
Expansive my ass. It had a non-linear structure and things you could see here and there but every past Zelda game I've beaten, even the GBC ones took me at least 3 playthroughs before I beat them 100% and my first playthrough was at least 25 hours. ALBW took me 18 hours and I beat it 100% on my first playthrough and there is one thing that kind of destroyed the idea that the world was "expansive" for me: Almost every side-dungeon ends up being one of those wall-puzzle dungeons that give you a Silver rupee at the end... and I already had 9999 rupees before beating half of those, so like TP this game had a serious problem with giving you stuff you could spend money on.
In the end I think ALBWs world was very predictable. In the first 5 or 10 hours of the game I did get a little bit of sense of wonder, but by the end of my run that sense of discovery was completely gone from realizing there wasn't really any secrets that were really good and the fact that I had 100% everything on my first playthrough. It felt shallow and superficial to me, and I don't want future Zeldas to take too much from it.
ShockingAlberto
Member
What I find irksome is that EAD3 threw Zelda's heritage into the garbage bin and, gradually, transformed the series into a linear, 3rd person puzzle game, with animu aesthetics, meaningless fetch-quests, ridiculous amount of handholding, and boring, super-relaxed, worlds that probably belong in an Animal Crossing game
I doubt they care.
It has become obvious by now that, somewhere within Nintendo's over-managed and overly centralized structure, certain higher-ups, are more concerned about forcing on people what they, personally, think that people "should" enjoy, than giving them something that actually resonates with them.
When people deny my "Zelda is too fractured to appeal to everyone" argument in the future, please remember this bit of ranting craziness.
TheMoon
Member
It's nice that through you quoting his post I retroactively got confirmation that putting that poster on "the list" was the right move.
No disagreement here. I would rather read a 6000 word libertarian analysis of Tetra's Trackers than endure one person's scathing critique of a particular Zelda dungeon and how it betrays series heritage. Which is to say, I would rather imbibe actual poison.
Whaaa? Really? The SS Iwata Asks had a bunch of Animal Crossing people I thought?
Welp, whatever. I still think Zelda could take some pointers from both Pikmin and Animal Crossing.
Also...I hope money is important in this game. :S
Well, truly, Tetra's trackers is the purest representation of the Invisible Hand theory, as each of the links, in competition, are still furthering a goal that benefits the group as a whole. The pirates themselves are indicative of a free market, and each link, in searching out for the pirates, properly acts and behaves in a manner consist...
I agree with this, although has there ever been a Zelda where it was important outside of one, single money sink? It was important in TWW, but mainly because of Tingle. It was important in TP, but mainly because of Malo Mart. Both were really awful implementations.
This is something that both SS and ALBW did pretty well with the upgrade and item rental systems respectively. I'd hope that continues. Until those installments, rupees hadn't been in such high demand since... Link's Awakening, probably?
Well done. Now, I die.
TheMoon
Member
http://iwataasks.nintendo.com/interviews/#/wii/zelda-skyward-sword/6/0
Arisa Hosako worked on part of a dungeon in SS and worked on an AC game before that. That's pretty much it (like I said, aside from the usual crossover between all EAD games).
Because handheld games don't count for some arbitrary reason. Console Zelda(TM) can only be like Console Zelda(TM) so that we can bitch about what we hated in the previous Console Zelda(TM) while ignoring that most of these things were already addressed in the Handheld Zelda(TM) which came out after that.
SweetDonuts
Member
I just assume they haven't played it, because if they did they wouldn't be ignoring the fact that a lot of the issues they with Zelda were addressed in ALBW.
LegendofLex
Member
What?
The modern analogs to Zelda 1 (from an ambitious open-world perspective) are Minecraft and Skyrim, both of which are immensely more popular than Zelda is and ever has been.
Because even though ALBW was technically non-linear, it implemented that non-linearity in the shittiest way possible:
- Instead of actually tiering difficulty provide a rewarding experience for players who are brave and skilled enough to venture into tougher areas sooner, it made the difficulty relatively flat
- Instead of removing item-based barriers to progress, it simply shifted all of those barriers to the dungeons and shifted all of the items into a single shop (creating the laughable and not-really-fun scenario where, if you haven't purchased all the items, you can get to a dungeon entrance, but can't get inside)
- It still has joke combat, where most enemies will literally walk right into your attacks because they're scripted to keep advancing in a straight line toward you and tend not to deal damage until they get much closer than the reach of your sword
Because it's 1 out of 5 games. It's still just an exception. And it still was very far from perfect as others have mentioned.
(the other 4 games being TP, SS, PH, ST. Everything after WW has been somewhat mediocre)
Well...
The team that works on handheld Zelda is different and smaller than the main Zelda team. And sometimes they make decisions that work well on handheld but not well on console. I liked ST a bit more than SS because some of the shining moments in ST didn't really show up in SS at all. So sometimes the problem is that the two Zeldas don't communicate or transition well with each other.
Minecraft is poplar not because it like zelda 1 , it poplar because it is lego the video game. Even then minecraft is more rogue like than zelda 1. and I dont consider skyrim to be a modern along to zelda 1. Also both of those appear on system with higher install bases then zelda games
LoZ1 made kids talk to each other on the playground. The game was so cyptic and full of secrets that kids needed each other. Pokemon did the same, by forcing kids to share. If you can get people to talk to each other...then that's typically how things grow. That was Miyamoto's original premise with the series. He even went so far as to say looking at guides would be cheating/spoiling the experience.
So I guess Nintendo should think about how much they want to guide the player and how much they should make obvious. A key factor to exploring was not knowing...and having to go through rumors, secrets, tips and tricks in real life or on the internet to find better solutions. The game wasn't so...self contained back then.
Becuase it's a forgettable game. IMO it was worse than Skyward Sword, but, then again, I never hated Skyward Sword like everyone else. I happen to think ALBW was close to being the NSMB of the Zelda franchise because it thrives dominantly on nostalgia-appeal and aside from the wall-stuff and excellent music I found everything else to be mediocre. The dungeon designs are very good but they're all probably twice as short as they should've been and Lorule and just about all the world building felt shallow and superficial.
I think ALBW is one of the better ones on the gameplay-side and music, but story-wise it's by far the worst one after Zelda NES which didn't have a lot of story. I think ALBW's story sucks because it tries to have story but what is there is subpar for Zelda. That, and the terrible use of non-linear dungeon order. There were no fun side-stories to discover to get to the temples, the difficulty was monotonous and in the end ALBW just felt like a relatively succesful experiment to me, but not an impressive one at all.
Perhaps if it hadn't recycled half of ALttP it would've been more memorable.
I get the same vibe. It was almost called "New Legend of Zelda" for a reason. But the game was really tight and everything felt really rewarding and clever. Both TWWHD and ALBW's seemed to show that Nintendo wants to cut the fat off of Zelda. SS was a blubbery pile of fat while ALBW's felt like they accidentally cut most of the meat off with the fat...which didn't leave enough to enjoy.
Like there was hardly any story or meaningful NPC interaction in that game. The dungeons were solid but very to the point and simple. To say the least I'm not exactly sure if Nintendo "gets it" still. So the skepticism is still here for me. I actually like the fat, the cinematics, the talkative NPCs, subplots! ...I just don't want any of that stuff conflicting with gameplay.
Not sure if Nintendo will give me a happy medium.
Me too.
I think they could make better games when they stop trying to think about how much they need to inform the player. The player bought the game...they know what they're doing. If they don't know what they're doing, they'll seek help. Once they go back to "show don't tell," everything will be fine.
I think they could make better games when they stop trying to think about how much they need to inform the player. The player bought the game...they know what they're doing. If they don't know what they're doing, they'll seek help. Once they go back to "show don't tell," everything will be fine.
Oh, I agree with this.
Zelda could definitely learn from Animal Crossing's attempt to create a world that feels dynamic, I just don't think that the "super-relaxed" mood of Animal Crossing suits the Zelda series.
It's baffling to me that a Zelda game released back in 2000 (MM) features a world that feels way more dynamic than a Zelda game released in 2011.
I mean Skyward Sword didn't even have a real-time day/night cycle.
Well except when they don't like ALBW, then it matters! Basically Zelda fans only ever talk about the games they don't like and how thy're proof that "Zelda is RUINED FOREVER!"
LegendofLex
Member
On Minecraft - Zelda 1 was very social. The world was very large, so people shared maps with each other to try to figure out its secrets. Minecraft is very much like this, only without a static world map - instead, people share entire worlds with each other. Of course, modern Zelda is not about sharing, but I'd love to see Miiverse integration where you can share map notes and go questing together.
The fact that it's more rogue-like isn't really material; the fact of the matter is that the core gameplay is largely the same - explore an open world, fight enemies, interact with objects in it (albeit Zelda 1 was much less interactive, but it's also 25 years older!).
On Skyrim - Here's a description of the basic gameplay of Skyrim, taken from Wikipedia:
Here's how I'd describe Zelda 1:
Yeah, these games clearly don't offer a lot of the same appeal. Not at all.
You're conflating mechanical differences - which exist between basically every game in basically every genre - with having completely unlike appeal. A game can be mechanically different from another game and still offer the same kind of appeal - it might just be better (or worse) at satisfying that appeal due to the content, presentation, or mechanics at play.
A feature was recently revealed for Bloodborne that I feel would be great for Zelda: a procedurally generated dungeon exists in each player's game that can be shared with other players. So if you've got a particularly neat dungeon, let your friend explore it.
Although 3D Zelda dungeons aren't exactly similar to a Dark Souls area, so I'm not sure how satisfyingly they could be generated.
Zelda is casual? You could have fooled me.
No, Zelda dungeons are not conductive to being procedurally generated. All it's going to do is create generic dungeons.
I guess it depends on the tools they use for dungeon creation. Four Swords has some passable random dungeons. That's probably much easier in 2D, though.
blu
Wants the largest console games publisher to avoid Nintendo's platforms.
That's a fairly complicated matter, by virtue of being a moving target. When I tried WW back in the day I did not like it. When I tried it a second time around with the WWHD I thought it's as good a zelda as it gets. In 5 years I might change my zelda perceptions once again. Though if I'm to be honest with myself, the trend is more toward me growing patience with age, and thus being able to appreciate things that inherently take patience. That's why I'm super excited about a zelda where I roam a picturesque world on the back of Epona, get distracted with the occasional sidequest, and maybe, just maybe, get to finish the game's main quest line as well.
I personally liked it and found it more satisfying that WW. Also, Zelda fans are not of one opinion of anything. That is because what each Zelda fan likes about Zelda games can be so different between each person.
thisisvlad
Member
What's fun about this perspective is that you are defining the concept of design. Which is core to Nintendo's structure ever since the breakout success Miyamoto's designs.
In order to remove the "designer" (the perspective which your text can be interpreted as) would force a non-human world aka a procedurally generated world a la Minecraft.
So, question is: is that what you want from Zelda?
I liked it overall, but it did feel kinda "been there, done that" even for Zelda. Kind of like an NSMB of Zelda, if you will.
Still a good game, though.
LegendofLex
Member
But procedurally generated dungeons would have to be about combat and random maze design. They couldn't be about genius scripted puzzles! I'm sure Aonuma wouldn't go for it.
But I'd love to be proven wrong
MemoryHumanity
Member
Why are we concerned about the consistently highest-reviewed video game series in history? Zelda is the fucking bomb. Nothing else comes close. This will blow minds and drop jaws, of that I am certain. Nintendo is killing it recently, so let's just calm down.
LegendofLex
Member
Because it's the most expensive franchise Nintendo makes, and with their profitability troubles they really need to figure out how to make it actually fiscally sustainable (SS was the most expensive game Nintendo's made to date, but it actually lost sales compared to its immediate predecessor - you will never see a Zelda game again if that repeats itself enough times), not just critically acclaimed. And that means they needs to be very conscious of how successful open world games work, since those games have been killing Zelda in the popularity department and absorbing potential sales.
most of the thread is dedicated to tearing apart previous titles and arguing about the meaning of open world
is there a new game coming out?
to answer your question, Zelda fans are some big ol' babies
Astral Dog
Member
Making the overworld truly big and "ambitious" would need more powerful hardware than what was possible on Twilight Princess, Skyward Sword and Wind Waker, wich were usin}g pitiful, archaic hardware compared to now, so the overworld had to suffer in some way.
Zelda U hopefully is an improvment not only on scope, but also on interesting things to do and see.
Zelda U hopefully is an improvment not only on scope, but also on interesting things to do and see.
Nintendo has always kept making Zelda more accessible. Over the past 25 years, games in general have become a lot easier and more linear. I just feel like Zelda went too hard on the "casual" spectrum for the DS and Wii audience. I feel like it ruined an important element of the series. The "adventure" part of the genre died. Adventure games on average cost more to make and sell a lot less than Action...so it makes sense, but it still hurts.
Yes. The problem I have at this very moment is that Nintendo doesn't trust the player enough to let them get lost or do anything for themselves. Most modern games aren't about patience...they're about instant gratification. That's not something I really want all the time, and I think it is counter productive for adventure games. If every games was about getting lost and having patience...there's a good chance I'd be asking for tighter more transparent games...but I'm not right now.
Comparing TWW and SS. TWW feels like it has very little content in comparison to SS...but I feel like TWW is a more enjoyable experience.
I thought it was great, but I devoured that game in a single day. o___e
MrSaturn99
Member
Xenoblade X has no issues with making their world lively. I'm sure the new Zelda won't either.
SS is a compromise toward casual playstyles? Let's plunk grandma down and get her started.
I see the comparison between NSMB and ALBW but the latter has more personality in one house than the former has in however many levels that comprise itself. ALBW trades on nostalgia and looks a little plain but it doesn't achieve the creative bankruptcy of NSMB and its sequels.
I see the comparison between NSMB and ALBW but the latter has more personality in one house than the former has in however many levels that comprise itself. ALBW trades on nostalgia and looks a little plain but it doesn't achieve the creative bankruptcy of NSMB and its sequels.
That's how I feel about it. I called it the "safest" Zelda in another thread and I still think it was easily one of the best games of last year.
What I find irksome is that EAD3 threw Zelda's heritage into the garbage bin and, gradually, transformed the series into a linear, 3rd person puzzle game, with animu aesthetics, meaningless fetch-quests, ridiculous amount of handholding, and boring, super-relaxed, worlds that probably belong in an Animal Crossing game
I doubt they care.
It has become obvious by now that, somewhere within Nintendo's over-managed and overly centralized structure, certain higher-ups, are more concerned about forcing on people what they, personally, think that people "should" enjoy, than giving them something that actually resonates with them.
Please don't throw these hyperboles in this thread like its nothing. If you actually construct your arguments/opinions in a decent way; supporting them with compelling analysis/examples/reasons people might react differently which would contribute this thread in a more meaningful way.
That being said, aside from the hyperbole, I actually agree with some of your points.
EDIT: Since when did I become a full member? On the one hand kinda sad I'll never be a junior again, on the other, I'll take it!
They apparently translated it with English voice acting and then decided not to bring it here anyways. :S
We could've had voice acting! xD
Oh and they gave Sue Belle boobs...
You're not wrong, but some of that game felt like I was doing nothing but breathing air. It was just so instantly familiar to me, someone who has played ALTTP more than thirty times. I was almost more focusing on what wasn't there than what was. Not everyone is in that same boat though.
As I've said, just take ALBW's gameplay and shove it in a new hyrule without relying on the references to ALTTP and you've got a dang good game.
Still, it was a stellar game and one of the best of 2013, by far. Just like how the NSMB games are still great mario games, they just lack a certain level of newness that I actually expect in Nintendo's flagship series.
what if it was Koholint
MrSaturn99
Member
oh boy does this convo mean I start my anti-ss flamebait now oh oh lemme get started
i refuse to believe this in fact I bet wii music cost more to make than skyward sword..............
Did they really? Given the quality of Nintendo's VA in those days (barring Charles Martinet), I doubt we'd have missed out on anything special.
i refuse to believe this in fact I bet wii music cost more to make than skyward sword..............
Did they really? Given the quality of Nintendo's VA in those days (barring Charles Martinet), I doubt we'd have missed out on anything special.
I'd still have liked to see it.
- Status