I get that your point is Zelda is merely returning to what it once was, does it matter though? How can you call 20 years of Puzzelda a failed experiment, that view just doesn't make sense. Especially when the Puzzelda aspects keep getting worse (from your pov) with each installment: PH, ST and SS are gimmick-heavy, linear games. It even got to the point where the overworld in ST was completely gone in favor of a glorified level select map that connected areas with the train minigame. This is what they want to do, but are no longer allowed due to poor sales. I argue that they are reluctantly giving you what you're asking for.
-
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.
Zelda at E3 to have two demos, Nintendo asking press to free up 90 minutes.
- Thread starter BY2K
- Start date
I get that your point is Zelda is merely returning to what it once was, does it matter though? How can you call 20 years of Puzzelda a failed experiment, that view just doesn't make sense. Especially when the Puzzelda aspects keep getting worse (from your pov) with each installment: PH, ST and SS are gimmick-heavy, linear games. It even got to the point where the overworld in ST was completely gone in favor of a glorified level select map that connected areas with the train minigame. This is what they want to do, but are no longer allowed due to poor sales. I argue that they are reluctantly giving you what you're asking for.
Skittzo0413
Member
I read a theory here which hypothesized that this game might rely on a mechanic similar to the timeshift stones from SS, where essentially you can turn pockets of the world into either past/future versions. One cool way to do something like that is to use the gamepad screen to show you the past/future version of your view in a lens of truth way, and then you can seamlessly warp into the past/future version where actions in the past will change environments in the present/future. Something like this would encourage exploration over the entire overworld because, even if some area looks barren or abandoned, looking at it in another time period might show you something important at that location.
That mechanic above would give you a good way of achieving that- you get areas with high and low levels of interactivity in the main world, but if you choose to explore every nook and cranny with your past/future lens of truth you might find engaging gameplay in those otherwise low interactivity areas.
I don't have much to add to your overall post but I really hate when this is repeated. If I remember correctly the only thing Miyamoto said to the Intelligent Systems team was something along the lines of "Do you think this game needs a big story this time?" The bare bones gameplay was all Intelligent Systems which you apparently appreciated, though clearly the overall reception was rather poor.
LegendofLex
Member
Puzzelda has been on a net declining trend (one that's gotten sharper in recent years), even while the industry as a whole is growing, and in particular even while the genre where Zelda originated has been seeing explosive growth in the last ten years. Even LttP was on a declining trend.
The only major growth for the Zelda series since OoT happened when Nintendo decided that they should try to do what the Western market want and make a game whose appeal rested on being an epic high fantasy adventure. It wasn't actually open world, and there were quite a lot of puzzles, but I for the time I think it probably could have fooled most people into thinking it would be mostly about fighting enemies in a huge world. (I mean, look at the reveal trailer.) Despite the unprecedented success of that game, they never actually followed it up, never tried to explore the approach it took further, instead going back to the path they were taking before TP came out.
This is really freaking unacceptable for what used to be the powerhouse game in that genre. And before you say "times change, though," one of the poster children for the new powerhouses is Skyrim, which is part of the also really old Elder Scrolls franchise. Old franchises can grow in the current market.
The other is Minecraft, a game that's exclusively about all the things Zelda used to do but isn't doing anymore, and that's completely devoid of all the things Zelda games currently prioritize that they didn't before.
Nintendo's approach to Zelda is one of the biggest misreadings of a franchise's success that I've ever seen in the entire history of the industry. And even though it's a misreading they seem to have wanted to make (although I'd disagree, because we got comments from Eiji Aonuma about how they actually believed people wanted to have their hands held), if the Zelda series goes under it's 100% their fault for making very poor decisions about how to manage it.
Of course they're reluctantly doing it.
But I'd argue that as a business whose stated mission is to expand the gaming population, the path they were taking before was indisputably the wrong one, since it was failing to expand the gaming population.
Just because they were doing what they wanted doesn't mean that what they wanted is a match for their customers/the market and their mission, both of which businesses are supposed to be beholden to.
nckillthegrimace
Member
It's not. What's the point of exploring if there's nothing meaningful there? It's a waste of time.
That would be ideal, yes. That's what SS tried to do, but half-assed it with the sky stuff. It's also what Dark Souls does, despite these crazy assertions that it's an open-world game. Also, I think those games, along with stuff like Metroid Prime, demonstrate that you can have beautiful environments and discovery without shoving out something bloated with nonsense like the typical open-world game.
gamerMan
Member
I totally get what you are saying. Moving and exploring around in WItcher 3 didn't feel fun. It just feels like the level design was built to reflect real life instead of being fun to explore.
Zelda overworlds in 3d haven't been fun to explore as well but that was due more to limited technology than anything else. I think the best overworld in a Zelda game was Wind Waker because it was just fun to go around to explore except on the empty sea.
I think that is what is missing in Witcher. It's just not that fun to go exploring the world. You really don't want to go to the mountain in the background because there isn't going to be anything special there. In Zelda there are hidden secrets to find and there is an almost super natural element to it.
The world of Zelda could never exist in the real world as it is full of fantasy. WItcher's world is a lot like the real world. I don't have to play Witcher to experience the world as I can just walk out the front door and bore myself walking around. The reason we play videogames is we want to explore worlds that can't exist in real life.
I could go on and on about Nintendo's design but just know everything they place in the game is placed there for a reason. I think this "design" that you speak off is reflected in Mario 64 when you first enter the game in front of the castle. It's like a playgorund of the game's mechanics. The way Mario moves just invited exploration like I want to see what is behind that. Everything is placed in the world because it is integral to the gameplay,
I think as Zelda moved to 3d, it got away from its original vision. That is you are child lost is the woods and want to go exploring a world filled with mysticism and wonder. Every rock and every tree is placed in the world because it matters to the gameplay. Behind a bush could be a secret to an underground lair. In a tree, you might find Deku nuts that could be used for your slingshot. It's not just placed there because it looks good and reflects something in real life.
There is a design to it and it's so layered and nuanced that it really is an artform that only Nintendo has in this industry. Their game design is more beautiful than a story. IMO, just one level in one of their games has more "design" than the entire games from other companies.
Yeah, I've actually thought of that before but forgot about it for a while. I don't remember where, but I think someone on here mentioned the idea. I think it would be amazing and a really big revolution in open world game design. Especially if it really did work like the timeshift stones, where you could open up pockets of the past or future and interact with the at the same time as the present. The promotional art of Link we've seen shows him with some sort of stone tablet, so it would be cool if that item was a timeshift tablet. Make it so it's always mapped to a button and one press turns it on and one press turns it off. Easy to use and useable everywhere. Maybe you could even place it in one spot and Link could walk away from it. Or Link could throw it. It would open up both the puzzle solving and exploration in some amazing ways just like the wall-cling from LBW. It could add more uses to your items too. Imagine if you get something similar to the gust bellows and you could place the timeshift item down and then blow it away. Or if you needed to hookshot through fire and timeshift at just the right time to get rid of the fire and make it through. The potential is limitless.
But.... it sounds impossible. Wouldn't the game have to run two version of the world at the same time if the player had instant access to both? Like, if there's an NPC walking around in the past, wouldn't the game have to take that into account even if the player can't see it? I don't know how that would work technically but it sounds impossible. But if it was possible, you could have a real revolutionary game.
Masterspeed
Member
Demo 1: Wii U version
Demo 2: NX version
Demo 2: NX version
Running on a WiiU
No combination of words could be worse. Well, unless you add "procedurally generated".
Zelda SS, Dark Soul and Metroid Prime sharing the same design? That's interesting.
Your ideal can be still met with fast travel while I can still enjoy a nice game world.
LegendofLex
Member
Having just started playing the game, I do think the geometry is probably part of this.
But I also think it's the way the action feels. I don't like how the character moves, and I don't like the interfaces for interacting with things. I don't like the way you interact with the world - the Witcher senses are sucky, and the spells don't feel especially visceral.
Not only that, but - and this is where I feel an open world Zelda game would hugely deviate from other open world games - it also relies way too much on a "quest" structure, which hamstrings any possibility of content that exists outside that structure purely for its own sake. (More recent Zelda games have been worse about this, tbh.)
TeddyShardik
Banned
60 minutes for the tutorial until they get a sword and 30 minutes watching game journalists running around the worldmap not knowing what to do. ;P
Joking aside though I'm excited to see those demos. I really feel like they might have shaken that tired Zelda formula up quite a bit.
Joking aside though I'm excited to see those demos. I really feel like they might have shaken that tired Zelda formula up quite a bit.
Good post, I just want to add to this part that this is what I'm talking about. Zelda for them is a glorified puzzle game, they merely dress it up as a western high fantasy adventure because that's what sells. For them it's no different than slapping the Kirby IP onto a completely different project they're working on, it's simply for increased sales potential. That's why the elements you're looking for in modern Zelda games are superficial, that's because they act a secondary role and aren't a priority. It's the same reason why they replaced charm and personality in PM with generic toads, because in their mind if you're gonna cut corners somewhere, then it's unique character designs that get axed while environmental puzzles become the highlight.
The reason why OoT was successful is because at the time hardware limited what you can do in those games, that's why Zelda was still cutting edge in 1998 the way Skyrim was in 2011. Competitors at the time were on par with Zelda, but now they're light years ahead while Zelda diverged from that evolutionary line and created its own.
Modern Zelda games only receive high scores because gaming sites used to have the designated Nintendo Guy reviewing them, while at the GOTY awards and the like Zelda games had no chance. Literally the only one at IGN in 2010 who considered SMG 2 GOTY was the reviewer Craig Harris, while several others picked ME2, RDR, etc. over it. So that's why Zeldas maintained high scores, even though they declined in sales and overall relevance.
http://www.ign.com/articles/2010/08/05/our-favorite-games-of-2010-so-far?page=1 - This is the article that opened my eyes back then. I just couldn't fathom the idea of SMG2 not being GOTY, I mean it's the best game ever made and so masterfully designed, right? Well...
NeonZ
Member
Xenoblade X only has loading times going in and out of the barracks (which also double as an online hub, so that's probably the reason), otherwise the entire rest of the world seems to be seamless.
LegendofLex
Member
I disagree.
Just because the developers had/have a different vision, doesn't make that vision:
1) aligned with the fans/customers/market who are who the series is really "for"
2) more important than that of the fans/customer/market
3) a correct reading of the franchise's appeal
If their vision fails at being any of these things, that doesn't mean the elements their vision doesn't capture are "superficial."
It just means the franchise and its relationship to those elements are both poorly understood by the creators.
Zelda doesn't need to be 100% non-linear, and it doesn't need to get rid of puzzles completely. That's not what I'm saying.
I'm saying that it needs to prioritize the stuff it used to prioritize, like exploration in a vast world, battles against challenging enemies and bosses, an immersive high fantasy adventure, etc. Twilight Princess still did this rather well, so it was successful (Skyward Sword did not, and wasn't as successful; likewise for Wind Waker, but for different reasons). But it could have gone even further, and it seems like that's what they're trying to do now.
This is another example of what I'm saying. Their priorities are actually a poor match for the priorities of fans; the things they're cutting or changing aren't just superficial. (Even if the developers believe they are!)
These franchises exist in a world beyond the brains of the developers.
I don't think that's the reason.
I think if you're going to tie success to hardware limitations, the reason is more that OoT did a masterful job operating within its limitations.
I also disagree that Zelda created its own evolutionary line. Zelda joined the declining puzzle-focused adventure game genre, just like how it originally joined the open-world action RPG genre.
That's kinda what I'm saying. Nowadays you don't need clever workarounds, you can render and display everything they way devs envision them on the paper.
Those solutions which came out of necessity due to hardware limitations made games better and more fun. While hardware allows devs to literally translate their vision into the game and fill them with more detail, I think modern games are much worse for it.
I had similar arguments thrown at GTA 4 back in 2008 because believe it or not I used to be a huge fan of that franchise, that's why I'm well prepared for Zelda U. If there's one aspect of games I absolutely detest, it's the sheer size of open world games. Hardware allowed devs to make bigger worlds and as a result games turned into shit. It's possible to give the impression of a world that is vast in scope, without actually being vast. That's a much more mature and sophisticated approach to game design imo, but nobody is pursuing it.
That very much depends on one's personal definition of "meaningful". What I gleaned from some posts in this thread is that puzzles and obvious "gamey" obstacles = meaningful. I disagree. There are other types of interesting content possible in zelda game (or any game). Xenoblade, for example, rewarded the player for discovering scenic vistas.
nckillthegrimace
Member
World design? Absolutely. They're all (not SS's sky but the ground areas) series of densely packed, intertwining corridors. They all resemble the Metroid structure, but in 3D. None of those games are open-world like a GTA or an Assassin's Creed, but there are certainly secrets to find within those twisting paths.
Waddle Dee
Member
It's going to take so long to complete the demo because you'll have an annoying sidekick interrupt you every minute to tell you how to do an incredibly basic action, or to inform you that you lost a heart of health, or collected a different color of rupee.
They'll also have a 10 minute unskippable cutscene that shows off by the numbers cliches that we see time and time again but since it's a Zelda game it's all of a sudden fresh and new.
They'll also have a 10 minute unskippable cutscene that shows off by the numbers cliches that we see time and time again but since it's a Zelda game it's all of a sudden fresh and new.
Don't do this to me, Nintendo
timetokill
Banned
People keep saying this, but Wind Waker came out in 2002 and didn't have loading zones or anything. Hell, the first Legend of Zelda back in '86 was as open-world as they come. What defines "open world" for people?
I'm hoping they only have this for journalist mode. God knows they need the help most of the time.
I agree that I really hope they have a "pro" mode in the game.
LegendofLex
Member
what
Zelda 1 very deliberately put none of the enemies you find in the overworld in dungeons and vice-versa, had completely distinct music in the dungeons, and introduced the map/compass, locked doors, and bosses which were never found in the overworld. Moreover, none of the dungeons intersected with each other; they were literally separate maps from the overworld and from each other, with the overworld being the only zone in between them.
I'll agree, but I think this mostly comes down to developers' "vision" being probably the worst thing you could try to fill a game with.
Fill games with opportunities for the player to have their own vision. You don't need every little thing in a game to be meticulously designed, you just need the underlying engineering of the world to work in the way the player expects (and sometimes in a way the player doesn't expect).
One of the reasons why I like open world design is that it creates a limitation for developers (that is, to do it properly requires developers to discard certain bad design behaviors like creating too many dependencies and taking away freedom from the player), while removing limitations for players. Most developers don't approach it this way, though; they just make a big map and toss a bunch of quests inside.
It also probably used an algorithm to generate most of the non-landmark space in between each zone, rather than loading mostly premade assets.
This is my biggest reason for actually wanting VA in the game as much as that might be a very disruptive element. VA would allow Nintendo have a sidekick and somewhat talkative NPCs as well without having them continually interrupt us every 4 seconds or have cutscenes that technically only transpire over 30 seconds, but go on for us 5 minutes because of the slow and painful dialogue boxes that interrupt everything.
With VA Navi 2.0 could literally tell us stuff like "Hey Listen. Maybe you should check out that switch over here," and they wouldn't need to stop the game and remove control from us to show us a dialogue prompt. Cutscenes could actually do their thing and not feel like forever, drawing out and really highlighting the weak writing and narrative of the game because we have to read everything they say in such a methodical and tedious fashion.
I really like the idea of a sidekick. It works real well most of the time, but when it's not done right it can really suck like Fi. People really like Cortona in Halo and for good reason, but she works really well because she advises and comments on things without actually tearing away control of MC from the player. Most people really loved Midna in TP, if they could give us someone like her that actually talks it would be really great.
Mihael Mello Keehl
Banned
No it dont, DS literally feel like dungeon after dungeon. There really is no open worldness of darksouls its all connected. You can probably run your ass off to the next boss but you following a strict paths with some shortcuts you wont be able find unless you play the game properly.
The original LOZ you can go, from start, up, left, right, whatever. DS you start and you follow a path.
edit: Ok DS1 a little more open then the other 2. I see the point there but still.
LegendofLex
Member
This isn't true.
There are at least six paths you can take in when you start Dark Souls:
- Head up to the Undead Church and ring the bell there
- Ditch the first bell and head into the forest to fight the Moonlight Butterfly
- Head to the heart of the forest to fight Sif
- Use the Master Key to unlock a way to Blighttown
- Go to the New Londo Ruins
- Take on the noob trap by heading into the graveyard and the catacombs
Neoleo2143
Member
No, this isn't true after you get out of the enterance area, there are a bunch of different paths which then interconnect on each other that you can take. It's largely different in 2 and 3 (and more linear in overarching structure in both), but 1 is much more sprawling.
Mihael Mello Keehl
Banned
Yeah I edit my post to accomodate for DS1. After bloodborne, 2, 3.. I know yall feel what im saying a little bit, no?
My bad ant, when some way say Darksouls I think of all Darksouls. Like how someone says Zelda.
I almost quit the game the first time I played it because I did this and couldn't figure out why nothing stayed dead.
Jack The Nipper
Banned
Just hoping the gyro wii pad isn't forced into throws and arrows...
Neoleo2143
Member
Gyro for Arrows was confirmed since Game Awards 2014, I imagine the implementation is no different from WWHD and Twilight Princess HD.
Jack The Nipper
Banned
Figured so
damn damn damn.Hope someone eventually mods it.
I haven't kept up with the game at all but it's too predictable with Nintendo.
crooked spin
Member
Figured so
Hope someone eventually mods it.
I haven't kept up with the game at all but it's too predictable with Nintendo.
I haven't played Skyward Sword but the gyro aiming in OoT and MM 3DS is intuitive and superior to first-person aiming/shooting with solely an analog stick.
Maybe it can be presented in a way that doesn't stop gsmeplay, but simply not having that stuff be said is horrible game design, even if you'd think "everyone knows"
Figured so
Hope someone eventually mods it.
I haven't kept up with the game at all but it's too predictable with Nintendo.
Have you played Wind Waker HD? The gyro aiming is in addition to the right stick, not a replacement of it. You can use the right stick for all the aiming if you want, just like any other game, but the gyro is there for added precision if you want to use it.
And you should because it makes your aiming more fluid than it would be otherwise.
nckillthegrimace
Member
Figured so
Hope someone eventually mods it.
I haven't kept up with the game at all but it's too predictable with Nintendo.
It's optional in all of those games.
Jack The Nipper
Banned
People told me star fox would have options for typical controls and play styles, gameplay but the design of all of that worries me. I didn't play skyward and the last game I played was tp on wii and I didn't even finish it causes of the controls.
Plan to finish it though as I liked oot, waker a lot. Finished out in five days when it was my first Zelda. Nintendo just makes me a little sad to thier efforts and just feel it will never go back to what I always enjoyed. Just wishing
Interested to see a bit more of it even though I don't want to see too much.
Plan to finish it though as I liked oot, waker a lot. Finished out in five days when it was my first Zelda. Nintendo just makes me a little sad to thier efforts and just feel it will never go back to what I always enjoyed. Just wishing
Interested to see a bit more of it even though I don't want to see too much.
Neoleo2143
Member
Figured so
Hope someone eventually mods it.
I haven't kept up with the game at all but it's too predictable with Nintendo.
Er, the implementation in WWHD is completely optional. However, it's unlikely that they'll design the game without having gyro in mind.
Yep. The bow minigame in OoT's Kakariko Village is completely broken in the 3D remake because it was tuned for the slow and imprecise analog aiming. What I mean is the targets stay up for way too long for it to be a challenge considering how fast you aim with the gyro.
If EAD has some decency in them they will design horseback archery and similar stuff with gyro aiming in mind, so people using analog sticks will have a hard time getting perfect clears in those events. In practice this means less time to hit the target, and a wider area to cover.
Skittzo0413
Member
Gyro aiming in the recent Zelda remakes is absolutely nothing like the motion controls in SS or TP on Wii. Gyro aiming- in addition to right stick aiming- is objectively a more precise and natural method of aiming any sort of projectile weapon in a game.
If you aren't familiar with how it works, the right stick aims like it would in any dual stick FPS game, but the gyro controls allow you to subtly move the gamepad to make precise adjustments that come naturally to you when aiming with the right stick. It's similar in precision to mouse aiming, and miles ahead of dual stick aiming.
If you're put off by the mere mention of motion controls when it comes to gyro aiming you are likely doing yourself a great disservice. It should by all rights be standard on every console FPS from now on, but a lot of gamers and developers are too stubborn and set in their ways.
Mihael Mello Keehl
Banned
Either way Zelda is not like souls neither would turning up difficulty make it as hard as a souls game
kinaesthete
Member
Hope this won't be press only if it's going to be so long and they're asking for appointments. I'm going to my first E3 this year and was really looking forward to trying this thing after like 4 years of waiting.
blu
Wants the largest console games publisher to avoid Nintendo's platforms.
Do we have your word for that?
Mihael Mello Keehl
Banned
It might who knows.. smash and bayonetta were at a couple PAX I believe
Unless it's been stated otherwise (of which I've idiotically missed) why are people assuming 90 minutes means the first 90 minutes of the game? First thought was that it was three 30 minute sections of different parts of the game's early period: 30 minutes at the literal beginning, 30 minutes in the field after getting shield/sword, 30 minutes in the latter parts of the first dungeon and fighting the first boss.
That's my prediction anyway. Here's hoping I'm one of the lucky ones to get an appointment.
That's my prediction anyway. Here's hoping I'm one of the lucky ones to get an appointment.
That's probably what it is. But depending on the person the first 90 minutes of the game might be preferable due to spoilers. Knowing what happens right at the start is better than knowing a bit of the start, a boss further along in the game and maybe another area of the game you don't see till several hours in.
As well I personally would like it be the first 90 because that would show that they've crafted the game to be as player driven as possible without tons of dialogue and cutscene interruptions taking control away from the play. And it would show that the intro segment doesn't go on too long and we get right into the meat of the game rather quickly without having to deal with overly complex and drawn out sequences.
Just give us a brief intro to Hyrule at this moment in time the game is set in. Put us in control of Link in an environment that lets players at their own speed familiarize with the controls, quickly introduce us to the main NPCs and initial conflict to get the plot going and give us free reign, or a modicum of it within the world itself.
Small details can make or break a large open world game. Unless there's little things for you to see and discover, even if they don't do anything or you can interact with them directly, the world can feel very artificial and life less. Having little stuff scattered all around it can help tremendously to make the world feel real and alive and not just a big sterile space for the player alone.
So far from what we've seen there hasn't been a lot of like manmade stuff, we've seen some stone carvings at a few spots, but there has been other things like the wild horses, I think we also saw bugs as well and then birds, rams and flowers in the last really short video. As well as the really nice grass all throughout most of the areas. Plus if the final game is as good or exceeds the initial reveal trailer with NPCs working the fields, bug life all over, lots of flora and other fauna in the world that reacts to events going on that would be amazing.
So far from what we've seen there hasn't been a lot of like manmade stuff, we've seen some stone carvings at a few spots, but there has been other things like the wild horses, I think we also saw bugs as well and then birds, rams and flowers in the last really short video. As well as the really nice grass all throughout most of the areas. Plus if the final game is as good or exceeds the initial reveal trailer with NPCs working the fields, bug life all over, lots of flora and other fauna in the world that reacts to events going on that would be amazing.
IntelliHeath
As in "Heathcliff"
I'm pretty sure that everyone would know what we are going to get tomorrow.