There should just be a menu option for which hand you use. But no, I guess that's too hard.
General Zelda thread
-
-
I didn't know that which hand Link uses for attacking and what not was a big deal.
-
Yeah, does it really matter?
Could've easily been a "well we just felt like designing him to be right-handed for once"
-
There's a 99% that's not what it is though. Link was always left-handed, and it was only changed for Twilight Princess on Wii (compared to Gamecube) because most people are right-handed and swinging a Wiimote pretending it's a sword feels more natural if Link swings with the same arm. Though they were still so massively lazy that instead of actually coding the switch, they just mirrored the entire fucking game to solve the problem. But that's why maxter surmises that the NX version will involve motion controls of some sort.
Overall there isn't a real problem, but Link being left-handed is kind of an iconic thing because it's pretty unusual. In fact it's one of the examples of where Zelda actually breaks the norm instead of going with the "safe" choice. So it's a small blow but it still kind of stings.
-
Oh, I get it - they could've JUST swapped the hand, and not flip the game to achieve the effect. I definitely remember Link being the first video game character I learned was left handed.
-
I don't know how easy would be to mirror a model, but the hitbox and stuff might be problematic. Some textures inverted or redrawn. I'm guessing that the hitboxes were the main issue. But flipping the whole world without incidents, I don't see how that one was the easy solution.
-
Well, this Link has a ponytail and does not wear a green tunic.
-
I don't know how easy would be to mirror a model, but the hitbox and stuff might be problematic. Some textures inverted or redrawn. I'm guessing that the hitboxes were the main issue. But flipping the whole world without incidents, I don't see how that one was the easy solution.
Yeah, I'm not saying it's a trivial amount of work. But there are so many games with multiple playable characters that you can't tell me it's a huge feat either to adjust some hitboxes and camera angles perhaps.
-
In those cases the work is planed and obvious from the beginning, hell the same has to be said about Zelda and the enemies.
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
Another possible reason for this link being rigth handed:
! this is skyward sword link in stasis and woken up. It also would lock down his gender.
-
Another possible reason for this link being rigth handed:
! this is skyward sword link in stasis and woken up. It also would lock down his gender.
! Highly unlikely so far, the "Ganon" mentioned seems to be referred as "Calamity Ganon", which would mean something way beyond Ganondorf, which has to first appear in Ocarina to be born as such (and that would imply that SS Link died in order to reincarnate as Oot Link). Also the Koroks are in this game, so it seems to be either a follow up to Wind Waker, or prior to it. Calamity Ganon could be the essence of Demise and Ganondorf spawned by his stone corpse, or could be just a super manifestation of him taking over while Ocarina Link wasn't around, and BotW Link either won't succeed in stopping him, or who knows what may happen.
! This Link is said to have slept for 100 years, which would be very few between SS and anything related to WW. I also believe that this new Link will die at the end of the game, to be reborn at the Shrine of Resurrection for the NG+. -
!
Interesting….
-
Maybe it's because they explicitly chose not to reveal anything about the story but right now to me, it seems like they focused too much on the open world aspect and neglected the "Legend" part of the title. I don't want this to be a game where you have to actively look for the story and being able to go directly to the final boss seems to indicate this to be true. I hope they will at least build in some sort of warning or sign that you're about to enter the dungeon that's supposed to be the last, imagine stumbling upon it randomly while exploring, it would take away all the build-up and anticipation that made the final dungeons in OoT and WW awesome to me. Maybe it will be like in MM where they'll say "nope, can't come in yet, go back and collect some things".
But again, they said that they're focusing on gameplay only right now, just stating my concerns.
-
A Zelda game… with no handholding linear artificial event blocking bullshit? Okay this sounds like the first Zelda game a lil bit, just with a more exapanded way of finding the lore yourself.
I like this, but again this an approach and no one knows how it's gonna play out in practice. The idea in itself makes me a lil more exited for the game.
-
I get the feeling that maybe the way it works is that you can fight the final boss, it'll just be very tough (weak weapons + only three hearts)….but still doable. Speedrunners cry out in joy that they don't have to glitch.
-
Maybe it's because they explicitly chose not to reveal anything about the story but right now to me, it seems like they focused too much on the open world aspect and neglected the "Legend" part of the title. I don't want this to be a game where you have to actively look for the story and being able to go directly to the final boss seems to indicate this to be true. I hope they will at least build in some sort of warning or sign that you're about to enter the dungeon that's supposed to be the last, imagine stumbling upon it randomly while exploring, it would take away all the build-up and anticipation that made the final dungeons in OoT and WW awesome to me. Maybe it will be like in MM where they'll say "nope, can't come in yet, go back and collect some things".
But again, they said that they're focusing on gameplay only right now, just stating my concerns.
well we only see the plateua area which they said is less than 2% and they also removed like all villages towns and npcs to not spoil any story.
-
well we only see the plateua area which they said is less than 2% and they also removed like all villages towns and npcs to not spoil any story.
I know, I mentioned it twice myself that I'm aware of the fact that they're not showing anything regarding the story. That is not my point/concern. Imagine starting OoT in Kokiri Village and being able to walk directly into Ganon's castle. Or waking up in Clock Town, climbing the Clock Tower and confronting Skull Kid without ever having to see the rest of the game, not knowing anything about the Giants or the other races etc. Or starting on Outset Island, immediately getting the boat, sail and Wind Waker, sailing directly to Hyrule Castle, past the Pupeteer boss and straight to Ganondorf himself. Good for speedrunners, yes, but not necessarily exciting if possible by accident.
Wind Waker is a good analogy I think. If it were possible to start on Outset Island with all items that are necessary to traverse the world already available and only given the hint "Maybe you should head to the Forsaken Fortress", then inadvertently collecting the Triforce pieces and Orbs while exploring the world, it would be a much worse game.
-
-
For those who might want to see the tree house stuff from yesterday, here is a link with three videos in it.
Edit
So after I watched one of the videos I'm intrigued yet cautious at the same time. Compared to the open world games I know, this one really feels like an exploration type game. There is climbing and really looking closely over ledges to find secrets, and climbing up random things to find treasures. I can't really think of open world games that have done anything like that, where you have to look at all the dimensions. It's also nice because there seems to be different ways to approach an area and fight, and the combat is a bit fast paced. I could see myself just exploring an area for a bit, just messing around and finding stuff.
That said the whole open world aspect and size has me concerned. When I first played Oblivion it was fun just to run around for a while, but after a certain point you understand just how empty the world really is. Most games start out making you feel it's a big world, but in the end it's usually empty and the pacing becomes brutal because of that. In the Zelda games that had somewhat of an open world, it could feel relatively big for what it was. Wind Waker did it best with a large sea with islands spread out. In the end there wasn't that much, but to me it still felt like the world was vast with each area having something to offer. Twilight Princess had a much bigger world, and in some ways felt a bit emptier in some respects. It almost got too big where you ran one direction for a while and there were very few things to see, with the desert being the biggest problem in that regard. While the area shown seems to have things around each corner, that can't be assumed for the full map. Also, if the map is as big as we are being led to believe, it will become problematic trying to get to areas you want to get to.
-
I just want to play this….now!
-
I'm kinda hoping there's more interesting shine designs. Maybe ones that are more dangerous and longer, because the two showcased were boring, even for a first dungeon. I DO the part where you encounter some gaurdians, and choose whether or not to fight them, use thier attacks to make you a shortcut your destination, or sneak around them. If this design is used all over, then damn.
-
It is like going to the moon on the first day if you could, nothing is preventing you from doing it, but you are missing the bulk of the game.
Like going in to an amusement park and complaining about it because you went straigth to the exit.
-
I'm kinda hoping there's more interesting shine designs. Maybe ones that are more dangerous and longer, because the two showcased were boring, even for a first dungeon. I DO the part where you encounter some gaurdians, and choose whether or not to fight them, use thier attacks to make you a shortcut your destination, or sneak around them. If this design is used all over, then damn.
IIRC they said, that the designs of the shrines wont differ much and will always look this kind of futuristic. But they also said, that the shrines wont be the equivalent to the former dungeon concept and there will be unique dungeons with keys, bosses etc as we know them.
At this time i take the shrines as some kind of mini-challenge with different kind of smaller puzzles, while i hope, that the "real" dungeons are fully integrated in the enviroment and will have different settings.But i also guess there wont be any "special items" like before and everything will be handled through the new Sheikah tablet thingy.
-
Ah. So they are like bigger grottos. That's fine I guess.
Not sure how I feel about the lack of special items, because the rune thing looks kinda boring.
-
I know, I mentioned it twice myself that I'm aware of the fact that they're not showing anything regarding the story. That is not my point/concern. Imagine starting OoT in Kokiri Village and being able to walk directly into Ganon's castle. Or waking up in Clock Town, climbing the Clock Tower and confronting Skull Kid without ever having to see the rest of the game, not knowing anything about the Giants or the other races etc. Or starting on Outset Island, immediately getting the boat, sail and Wind Waker, sailing directly to Hyrule Castle, past the Pupeteer boss and straight to Ganondorf himself. Good for speedrunners, yes, but not necessarily exciting if possible by accident.
Wind Waker is a good analogy I think. If it were possible to start on Outset Island with all items that are necessary to traverse the world already available and only given the hint "Maybe you should head to the Forsaken Fortress", then inadvertently collecting the Triforce pieces and Orbs while exploring the world, it would be a much worse game.
I would guess that even if you can do that, that something prevents you from completely doing it.
Like some Barrior at Hyrule Castle that needs to be removed first, or only the Master Sword able to damage Ganon.Something like that. I mean heck we see that Hyrule Castle has some huge weird pink flowing stuff all around it. I'm guessing its like Twilight Princess/Ocarina of Time and that you can't enter until you fulfill some objectives.
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
I'm kinda hoping there's more interesting shine designs. Maybe ones that are more dangerous and longer, because the two showcased were boring, even for a first dungeon. I DO the part where you encounter some gaurdians, and choose whether or not to fight them, use thier attacks to make you a shortcut your destination, or sneak around them. If this design is used all over, then damn.
Here are two more that are more complex. The first one pretty easy, imo still, but the second one, I can see a lot it not being kid friendly.
-
@The:
That said the whole open world aspect and size has me concerned. When I first played Oblivion it was fun just to run around for a while, but after a certain point you understand just how empty the world really is. Most games start out making you feel it's a big world, but in the end it's usually empty and the pacing becomes brutal because of that. In the Zelda games that had somewhat of an open world, it could feel relatively big for what it was. Wind Waker did it best with a large sea with islands spread out. In the end there wasn't that much, but to me it still felt like the world was vast with each area having something to offer. Twilight Princess had a much bigger world, and in some ways felt a bit emptier in some respects. It almost got too big where you ran one direction for a while and there were very few things to see, with the desert being the biggest problem in that regard. While the area shown seems to have things around each corner, that can't be assumed for the full map. Also, if the map is as big as we are being led to believe, it will become problematic trying to get to areas you want to get to.
Some people were talking about this in the E3 thread, too. It's definitely a valid concern with games of this scale, but I want to bring attention to the one it seems to take the most from: Shadow of the Colossus. That game featured an incredibly too-large-for-its-goals environment that mostly had no soundtrack and was even completely devoid of things to do besides climbing for the occasional lizard, until you found the colossi. Still, though, I would spend hours just riding across the land for fun. It's possible to have a charming open world environment with little to do within it. Granted the SotC was a lot more goal-oriented, directing you to fight the bosses and progress the game, I think the quality of the environment was something different from that. I think it comes down to two factors: mobility and distinction.
in SotC, you are given a horse from the beginning and are able to travel through the land with ease. There is no autowarp, but this sort of forces you to engage with the environment without being all that restricting. Beyond that, there's a lot of small environmental features you can interact with, like climbing save shrines for the aforementioned lizards. Basically, going around the world mostly feels good and logical. The Elder Scrolls series mostly don't give you a lot of true mobility options. You have warps, fast travel and you can ride a horse if you're rich or want to live as an outlaw. The environment, though, is really mostly only suited for walking and running around, which is pretty slow and frustrating, so it's no wonder why the fast travel becomes the primary mode of transport.
As for distinction, SotC had incredibly distinct landmarks and environments. It's hard to mistake the large desert for the colosseum, for example, but beyond that every mountain, cave and plain feels pretty different. It encourages exploration by the shear intrigue of the land. While the Elder Scrolls games have some distinct environments (the giant mountain and isolated academy in Skyrim, for example), the environments largely feels like copy/pasted swathes of forest, mountain, or snowy fields. The environment's hardly seductive and, compounded with mobility issues such as the ones mentioned before, as well as some gating and the sort of glitches that comes with uphill movement (among other things), exploration isn't that interesting, intuitive or worthwhile.
From what we've seen of BotW so far, there is a lot of freedom in mobility, between the universal climb mechanic, the gliding and the snowboarding. There appears to be some minor gating, with environmental concerns like needing warm clothes on the cold mountain, but that's a sort of immersive and intuitive gating that I think is more endearing overall. There are also a lot of distinctive landmarks, both in the close and long range. Just from watching the videos, I kind of want to see how close to Death Mountain I can get with no equipment, or just travel to the skull cave and blow up some bokoblins. In addition to these factors, BotW's environment has a lot more to do and small rewards to claim, which helped act as a driving force in exploring the Elder Scroll's games. While the lack of NPCs and potentially the distinct goals worry me a little, I think what we've seen has been very reassuring so far. I was prepared to just tear into the demos after Nintendo's lackluster showing at E3, but I can away more impressed than anything.
-
Some people were talking about this in the E3 thread, too. It's definitely a valid concern with games of this scale, but I want to bring attention to the one it seems to take the most from: Shadow of the Colossus. That game featured an incredibly too-large-for-its-goals environment that mostly had no soundtrack and was even completely devoid of things to do besides climbing for the occasional lizard, until you found the colossi. Still, though, I would spend hours just riding across the land for fun. It's possible to have a charming open world environment with little to do within it. Granted the SotC was a lot more goal-oriented, directing you to fight the bosses and progress the game, I think the quality of the environment was something different from that. I think it comes down to two factors: mobility and distinction.
in SotC, you are given a horse from the beginning and are able to travel through the land with ease. There is no autowarp, but this sort of forces you to engage with the environment without being all that restricting. Beyond that, there's a lot of small environmental features you can interact with, like climbing save shrines for the aforementioned lizards. Basically, going around the world mostly feels good and logical. The Elder Scrolls series mostly don't give you a lot of true mobility options. You have warps, fast travel and you can ride a horse if you're rich or want to live as an outlaw. The environment, though, is really mostly only suited for walking and running around, which is pretty slow and frustrating, so it's no wonder why the fast travel becomes the primary mode of transport.
As for distinction, SotC had incredibly distinct landmarks and environments. It's hard to mistake the large desert for the colosseum, for example, but beyond that every mountain, cave and plain feels pretty different. It encourages exploration by the shear intrigue of the land. While the Elder Scrolls games have some distinct environments (the giant mountain and isolated academy in Skyrim, for example), the environments largely feels like copy/pasted swathes of forest, mountain, or snowy fields. The environment's hardly seductive and, compounded with mobility issues such as the ones mentioned before, as well as some gating and the sort of glitches that comes with uphill movement (among other things), exploration isn't that interesting, intuitive or worthwhile.
From what we've seen of BotW so far, there is a lot of freedom in mobility, between the universal climb mechanic, the gliding and the snowboarding. There appears to be some minor gating, with environmental concerns like needing warm clothes on the cold mountain, but that's a sort of immersive and intuitive gating that I think is more endearing overall. There are also a lot of distinctive landmarks, both in the close and long range. Just from watching the videos, I kind of want to see how close to Death Mountain I can get with no equipment, or just travel to the skull cave and blow up some bokoblins. In addition to these factors, BotW's environment has a lot more to do and small rewards to claim, which helped act as a driving force in exploring the Elder Scroll's games. While the lack of NPCs and potentially the distinct goals worry me a little, I think what we've seen has been very reassuring so far. I was prepared to just tear into the demos after Nintendo's lackluster showing at E3, but I can away more impressed than anything.
Fair points all around. I was overall impressed it's just between how Nintendo has been lately and just big games in general, I'm trying to err on the side of caution. From the little I've seen the potential is there and it looks like it can be great. I forgot that it was mentioned there would not be field music, and I am okay with that. As others in this thread and the E3 thread have mentioned, we've only gotten a glimpse of what this game has to offer, so who knows how much more there is to learn and find out when we finally get the game to play. I am most interested in how the bosses will be done.
The only other thing I thought was Jirard the Completionist is going to have a hell of a time completing this thing, assuming he even will. He's gotten burned out on so many big games, I wouldn't blame him for just wanting to enjoy the game and not try to complete it.
-
! So I guess the final boss is probably Not Ganon…I don't like it.
I guess it's for some extra challenge after completing the game, but it does feel like an useless feature. -
It actually bothers me for people to compare this to Shadow of the Colossus. There are essentially two ways to look at SotC. One is that it's a glorified boss rush with a ton of big open space so that you actually have to find each boss. That's the superficial view "at face value" and if that's what you see in the game, then it is by no measure a benchmark for success. At best it's like "yeah man those were some epic boss fights."
The other is that it's an artsy game that is much less about the gameplay itself than about an emotional connection to the player. You're SUPPOSED to feel completely alone and lost. The utter solitude, lack of any side tasks to do or things to interact with whatsoever, enormous open spaces that you must traverse, all of these things are totally intentional and are about forcing you to contemplate your situation, your surroundings, and this task you have of slaying giant, majestic beasts in an idyllic landscape for selfish purposes. Something you likely question more and more with each one you murder.
Now for me, I think the game was sloppily executed and ahead of its time in terms of hardware, so it largely failed to reach me emotionally. I was too constantly frustrated with bad horseback controls, awful camera while climbing/platforming, really shitty textures and clipping, etc. I had fun but was ultimately unable to really see it as a masterpiece in any regard.
But at any rate, back to Zelda. I don't think Zelda is trying to accomplish any of the same things as SotC. It's about adventure, always having new places to explore and things to do, loot to find, enemies to best, secrets to uncover. SotC was ABOUT the eerie empty world, whereas Zelda is trying to sell itself as being about the opposite of that – in other words, there being actual value in such an expansive world and the player having the freedom to enjoy it however they like. None of the design principles of SotC are even applicable. The world really better feel alive and vibrant. There better be other characters to enrich things. There better be a good narrative for those who want that. Exploration better feel rewarding.
So I completely reject the viewpoint that "hey if SotC can succeed with a big empty world then it's proof that you don't need a lot going on." That was a very unique and ambitious design, which failed for me at that. And if Zelda resembles it in any way, it will be downright bad.
-
@The:
Fair points all around. I was overall impressed it's just between how Nintendo has been lately and just big games in general, I'm trying to err on the side of caution. From the little I've seen the potential is there and it looks like it can be great. I forgot that it was mentioned there would not be field music, and I am okay with that. As others in this thread and the E3 thread have mentioned, we've only gotten a glimpse of what this game has to offer, so who knows how much more there is to learn and find out when we finally get the game to play. I am most interested in how the bosses will be done.
The only other thing I thought was Jirard the Completionist is going to have a hell of a time completing this thing, assuming he even will. He's gotten burned out on so many big games, I wouldn't blame him for just wanting to enjoy the game and not try to complete it.
I definitely agree with being cautious, but I also like to give credit when due. We'll see how it plays out in the long run, but I think as it is now, there's a lot of good content and lessons that I think other developers should take. The climbing mechanic is the most impressive to me, since it's the sort of thing I see most developers try to avoid. It has the potential for abuse, since Link can just climb over walls and avoid enemies or go on top of structures the developers never even thought he would, and I find that great. It's another general mobility option that lets players play however they want instead of being confined. The reason why a game like SM64 stands the test of time is because the mobility is so free and abusable that people have still found new ways to use it more than a decade after its release. It's elegant and part of Link's base arsenal.
I don't mean to rant towards you in particular, just sorting my thoughts out loud on these matters, haha. I think completionism won't be too bad, since it will likely focus on the shrines and dungeons more than anything else. Most treasure chests appear to contain pickups and breakable weapons, so they're nice and useful to find but not necessary. I'm sure finding over 100 shrines, though, will still be hugely time consuming.
-
I definitely agree with being cautious, but I also like to give credit when due. We'll see how it plays out in the long run, but I think as it is now, there's a lot of good content and lessons that I think other developers should take. The climbing mechanic is the most impressive to me, since it's the sort of thing I see most developers try to avoid. It has the potential for abuse, since Link can just climb over walls and avoid enemies or go on top of structures the developers never even thought he would, and I find that great. It's another general mobility option that lets players play however they want instead of being confined. The reason why a game like SM64 stands the test of time is because the mobility is so free and abusable that people have still found new ways to use it more than a decade after its release. It's elegant and part of Link's base arsenal.
I don't mean to rant towards you in particular, just sorting my thoughts out loud on these matters, haha. I think completionism won't be too bad, since it will likely focus on the shrines and dungeons more than anything else. Most treasure chests appear to contain pickups and breakable weapons, so they're nice and useful to find but not necessary. I'm sure finding over 100 shrines, though, will still be hugely time consuming.
The stamina bar prevents some of the climbing things they don't want.
-
I definitely agree with being cautious, but I also like to give credit when due. We'll see how it plays out in the long run, but I think as it is now, there's a lot of good content and lessons that I think other developers should take. The climbing mechanic is the most impressive to me, since it's the sort of thing I see most developers try to avoid. It has the potential for abuse, since Link can just climb over walls and avoid enemies or go on top of structures the developers never even thought he would, and I find that great. It's another general mobility option that lets players play however they want instead of being confined. The reason why a game like SM64 stands the test of time is because the mobility is so free and abusable that people have still found new ways to use it more than a decade after its release. It's elegant and part of Link's base arsenal.
I don't mean to rant towards you in particular, just sorting my thoughts out loud on these matters, haha. I think completionism won't be too bad, since it will likely focus on the shrines and dungeons more than anything else. Most treasure chests appear to contain pickups and breakable weapons, so they're nice and useful to find but not necessary. I'm sure finding over 100 shrines, though, will still be hugely time consuming.
No problem, I've also just been trying to sort them out by typing them out a little. Also very interesting to see peoples perspective on it, from your thoughts on it being quite positive to Foolio's thoughts being more on the opposite side in some ways. As for the mobility part that's the part that interests me the most so far. Most other open world games that I know of seem to only have you concerned with the horizon, and never make you think too much on going up or down. Being able to glide, snow board, and climb gives some really interesting potential.
-
I would guess that even if you can do that, that something prevents you from completely doing it.
Like some Barrior at Hyrule Castle that needs to be removed first, or only the Master Sword able to damage Ganon.Something like that. I mean heck we see that Hyrule Castle has some huge weird pink flowing stuff all around it. I'm guessing its like Twilight Princess/Ocarina of Time and that you can't enter until you fulfill some objectives.
"Users are able to go to the very end goal without revealing why Link woke up the way he did and where he did. Whether you want to reveal the storyline and find out why Link woke up, or you want to just go straight to the goal, that's an option totally up to the user." When asked, Aonuma confirmed that a player could go directly to the final boss of the game from its opening moments if they wanted.
Doesn't look like there's some kind of barrier that is preventing you from confronting the final boss in your underwear with no actual clue what the heck is going on in this world.
The amusement park example doesn't really work either because each attraction is its own thing, there is no overarching plot between them. You enter them, enjoy the ride, maybe go at it again and then move on. That is nowhere near similar to this situation. My issue isn't the possibility to skip right to the end. Say, for example, someone gives you a book but each chapter is given to you individually. You're advised to go to chapter 2 if you've finished chapter 1, then chapter 3 and so on. But exploration is supposed to be a huge thing in this installment, enticing you to go out of your way by promising that there's something interesting behind every next corner. What if after finishing chapter 2 I find something interesting that accidently makes me read chapter 57? I doubt that there would be a warning "Hey, you should have read chapter 56 before entering". All the build-up that makes a story compelling would be lost, maybe it spoils things that should have happened inbetween.
It worked fine in Link Between Worlds because only a few dungeons were interchangeable in order, nothing that could go wrong there. But if absolutely everything is open to you from the get-go? It's just begging to screw something up if you're not scrictly following your tablet.I'm most probably overthinking this and they accounted for all the things that could go wrong. At least I hope they do.
-
But at any rate, back to Zelda. I don't think Zelda is trying to accomplish any of the same things as SotC. It's about adventure, always having new places to explore and things to do, loot to find, enemies to best, secrets to uncover. SotC was ABOUT the eerie empty world, whereas Zelda is trying to sell itself as being about the opposite of that – in other words, there being actual value in such an expansive world and the player having the freedom to enjoy it however they like. None of the design principles of SotC are even applicable. The world really better feel alive and vibrant. There better be other characters to enrich things. There better be a good narrative for those who want that. Exploration better feel rewarding.
So I completely reject the viewpoint that "hey if SotC can succeed with a big empty world then it's proof that you don't need a lot going on." That was a very unique and ambitious design, which failed for me at that. And if Zelda resembles it in any way, it will be downright bad.
I think that's a rather narrow and unforgiving point of view that if it resembles it in any way it will be bad. SotC had some issues, sure, and it was by no means a perfect game. I'll also grant you that it was tonally very different and set out to accomplish different things. The main direct points of comparison are the climbing feature, the presence of a big and distinct open world, and traces of the ambience. I think SotC's world is something that's unambiguously good. It has endeared itself to a lot of players, which doesn't mean that you have to like it, but you can at least recognize the ways in which it succeeds in general. When compared to stuff like Fallout, Elder Scrolls, or almost any Sandbox in a city has a lot of environmental diversity. That is what my mind is connecting to BotW's environment so far.
When applying comparisons, it's right to note that BotW has a different tone, more of an adventuring and roughing it in the wilds sort. Accommodating that, there's a lot more to do in terms of combat, finding treasures, and even exploration with its set of available, often universally applicable tools. At the same time, it is also post-apocalyptic, so it's supposed to be evoking some similar feelings of loneliness and creeping dread that SotC struck on. With that, I think that the lack of things like NPCs and reliance on ambience sound can be justified. Even if you didn't think that SotC used these things very well, and it worries me to some extent here, I think that it's a pretty reasonable design choice that could potentially pay off (though the pickup sound effect does sort of kill it for me).
The viewpoint I'm taking isn't BotW = SotC = Good, but I think it is a useful comparison to sort of some of the more controversial feelings about the game at hand, and that there are some overlapping points, where I think SotC succeeded, and places where BotW seems to differ, potentially to its benefit.
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
@The:
No problem, I've also just been trying to sort them out by typing them out a little. Also very interesting to see peoples perspective on it, from your thoughts on it being quite positive to Foolio's thoughts being more on the opposite side in some ways. As for the mobility part that's the part that interests me the most so far. Most other open world games that I know of seem to only have you concerned with the horizon, and never make you think too much on going up or down. Being able to glide, snow board, and climb gives some really interesting potential.
Yeah, one of my favorite bits in the gameplay demos and trailers was a clip of Link using the glider to get to a ledge off a cliff he couldn't otherwise reach. There was also a tower some player climbed and found a bow on top of it. I think a lot of people avoid the third dimension because it adds a whole lot of complexity to making a complete game, but the way it is being handled here gives me some hope. Even the combat has some vertical motion orientation, with Link's bullet time bow and arrow stuff while jumping. I'm excited to mess with it, as things are.
-
It is an unforgiving view because I think a large world with nothing to do in it is unequivocally boring. It ONLY worked in SotC for the very specific reason that the focus was on your feeling of isolation, and for me personally it still didn't really work. Otherwise (in my opinion) it would be pretty inexcusable and flat-out tedious. I recognize SotC's success in the context I described, which is an extremely particular artistic goal that is non-transferable to a Zelda game. Also, SotC was a short game; a handful of hours. And you really didn't ever need to backtrack to an area after beating the colossus there. That helped prevent the world from getting stale and travel from becoming annoying, because the novelty of the pretty landscapes doesn't totally wear off in that time frame. I should also point out that by modern standards the map isn't even very big. I don't even think it's comparable to what we view as open-world games.
I stand by my assessment that it's a bad comparison, at least in the contexts you were discussing of world size and density. Xenoblade Chronicles X seems like such a more apt comparison to Zelda in every way. The climbing feature isn't even similar. You couldn't free-form climb anything in SotC; it was all ledge-based except for the fur of the colossi themselves, and Zelda has always had texture-based climbing of various objects. In fact I like to compare the climbing aspect of SotC to Prince of Persia: Sands of Time (except inferior). If Zelda atmospherically reminded you of SotC then sure, whatever. But it's distinctly bad to me if it wants to in any way replicate that feeling of isolation. Because that's not something I want out of a massive exploration-puzzle-combat RPG, certainly not out of Zelda. It being post-apocalyptic or whatever is not justification for a game that's not fun. If the world must be barren due to the setting, then the setting is wrong.
-
Guys, I just had this thought, what if when you fight the Giant Smoke Monster Ganon, the whole damn open world will be the arena? That would be mindblowing.
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
Link is righthanded because… the sword button is used by your right hand? Aonuma, what's up with the bullshit answers today? Was the translator hired by Sony?
This, plus the fact that there is an option to put the map on the tv screen instead of the gamepad points to the NX being more motion control oriented.
If anything, lack of second screen functionality would hint towards NX having an ordinary ass controller (with gyro, of course… and the item selection may be hinting towards that scroll wheel shoulder button patent) as it's primary input method, or at least having it be standard issue with every console.
Could be wrong, though.
--- Update From New Post Merge ---
My general impressions are very positive. The seeming sense of adventure is impressive and the sheer interactivity and emergent gameplay on display is a real showstopper for me.
Some examples that sold me hard on the latter:
*Link using the wind and a fan to spread the bonfires flames towards the tall grass, fire spreads in the direction of the wind and oblitirates a bunch of mooks nearby.
*During a fight with one of those robots, it's laser sets the grass on fire, Link jumps off the horse and uses his sailcloth to ride the damn updraft emanating from the burning grass, gaining altitude to lob a slow mo bomb arrow into the thing's weakpoint.Oh and I absolutely adore that one item that lets you freeze things in time. Freezing things in time is super awesome by itself, but that you can have the timestopped object store energy by stiking it repeatedly, which is the unleashed at once when the time stop expires... oh boy, that is some Stand stuff right there.
-
That's just marketing speak for "they're not different versions of the game" and says nothing about controls. Hell, the article even updated to clarify that it just means "no significant gameplay differences exist."
-
I would assume that different controls would mark a significant difference in gameplay experience
that's just me though -
That's not what they mean when they say stuff like that. No matter what there will be a different controller experience unless the NX ships with Gamepads. That second screen makes a huge difference. Besides, I think longer draw distances could also significantly impact the gameplay experience but that's something they explicitly said is possible.
-
That's not what they mean when they say stuff like that. No matter what there will be a different controller experience unless the NX ships with Gamepads. That second screen makes a huge difference.
From the looks of it, not in this game.
From what I hear there's next to none second screen functionality. Not even typical inventory management or map display. Gamepad's screen shows the control scheme, while all the information that is typically displayed on it, even in games that have bare minimum use for it, is on the TV screen by default. The most I heard about, is that you have an understated option to display the map on the second screen. Aonuma himself downplayed the second screen going as far as to say that having a map on the TV is better.
That said, there isn’t much of a Wii U identity to this game. The game can be played with the console’s signature GamePad controller but can also be played with the conventional screen-less Pro Controller. Aonuma said that players using the GamePad can use that controller’s screen to move the game’s display to the GamePad screen, but that screen doesn’t seem to do much else.
For the E3 demos, the GamePad screen shows the control mappings. “Previously, when I was playing with Mr. Miyamoto, you might have seen that the map was on the GamePad screen,” Aonuma said, referring to a demo he did of the game two Decembers ago. “But after developing the game and playing the game we realized that having a smaller version of the map on screen is actually better so you know where you are at all times. So we decided to take it that route. Obviously if we find that there’s a great feature we could add to the GamePad, there is a possibility that we could do that.”There is no huge difference. For all intents and purposes, by developer's own design, there is no difference.
-
Even just the map is a huge deal though. Sure a minimap can be useful (although in many games I like to turn that off, because much like subtitles it draws the eyes' attention whether you want to or not), but oh man having access to an area map at all times without pausing to interrupt is a godsend. In Wind Waker HD I would say it was almost as revolutionary as the Swift Sail, in that sailing the ocean became an uninterrupted delight.
And we'll see what else in the final game. Aonuma even leaves possibilities open in the article you posted. Although it puzzles me why they wouldn't just by default allow you to display inventory information or other shortcuts. Almost sounds like they're intentionally trying to sabotage the Wii U version to make people buy an NX. Before even announcing it.
-
Doesn't look like there's some kind of barrier that is preventing you from confronting the final boss in your underwear with no actual clue what the heck is going on in this world.
The amusement park example doesn't really work either because each attraction is its own thing, there is no overarching plot between them. You enter them, enjoy the ride, maybe go at it again and then move on. That is nowhere near similar to this situation. My issue isn't the possibility to skip right to the end. Say, for example, someone gives you a book but each chapter is given to you individually. You're advised to go to chapter 2 if you've finished chapter 1, then chapter 3 and so on. But exploration is supposed to be a huge thing in this installment, enticing you to go out of your way by promising that there's something interesting behind every next corner. What if after finishing chapter 2 I find something interesting that accidently makes me read chapter 57? I doubt that there would be a warning "Hey, you should have read chapter 56 before entering". All the build-up that makes a story compelling would be lost, maybe it spoils things that should have happened inbetween.
It worked fine in Link Between Worlds because only a few dungeons were interchangeable in order, nothing that could go wrong there. But if absolutely everything is open to you from the get-go? It's just begging to screw something up if you're not scrictly following your tablet.I'm most probably overthinking this and they accounted for all the things that could go wrong. At least I hope they do.
It's called "Choose your own adventure".
-
Superficially gating progress with walls requiring magical macguffins is the easiest option but has great potential to be altogether bad poorly implemented.
The oft-referenced good example of how to gate progress well is the skeletons on the way to the catacombs in Dark Souls 1. If indeed the final BotW boss is "available" from the very start, Nintendo would do well to follow From's example by doing something like that. Enemies that can be circumvented early but are so difficult as to implicitly ward you off. Traditionally that never would've worked in Zelda games because Zelda games aren't difficult, and even child Link with the Kokiri sword can beat an Iron Knuckle without too much trouble. Maybe they'll do something to change that here?
Videogames can and often should be non-linear in a way that books aren't due to the fundamental interactive nature of them, so the chapters analogy really doesn't fit, except with choose-your-own-adventure books. You can have bottlenecks here and there which effectively make you tackle chapters 1-10 before moving on to 11-20, but the order within each set doesn't have to be…set, and when it is, that often kills replayability and leads to obnoxious hand-holding (where explicit indicators need to tell you what to do next because that's the only option- see Skyward Sword). That's a big part of why MM feels so much more dynamic than OoT, for me.
-
@CCC:
That's a big part of why MM feels so much more dynamic than OoT, for me.
That's interesting to consider. MM still has a completely fixed dungeon order, quadrants of the map item-locked based on progress, etc. In a general sense it doesn't actually stray from the formula at all in terms of forced progression. But I guess the fact that the hand holding is minimal really goes a super long way, plus the fact that the world is chock-full of sidequests that you can largely tackle in any order and that can consume your curiosity/exploration altogether for many a cycle.
-
That's interesting to consider. MM still has a completely fixed dungeon order, quadrants of the map item-locked based on progress, etc. In a general sense it doesn't actually stray from the formula at all in terms of forced progression. But I guess the fact that the hand holding is minimal really goes a super long way, plus the fact that the world is chock-full of sidequests that you can largely tackle in any order and that can consume your curiosity/exploration altogether for many a cycle.
Exactly, all that. Just the fact that you can in theory kill the bosses in reverse order (not that it's necessarily efficient to) is really interesting to me. Like, it's interesting that the developers obviously realized that was possible, but didn't put up a wall with Odolwa's face in front of Goht's boss room. Or, less extreme- you could tackle some of the graveyard at the end of your snowhead run, which is something I often (but don't always) choose to do, based on how much time I have left and whether or not I'd rather race ahead to the hookshot instead because the spider houses just happen to sound more appealing, for whatever reason. The implicit choice makes it more fun than having Fi yell at me to go back to Faron and collect music notes or some bullshit.
tldr;
BotW would benefit from being designed more in that way, and hopefully the "open world" points to that being the case, without swinging to complete sandbox syndrome. -
There is some minor gating that we know of. There are environmental things like clothing requirements that are perhaps minor, but require enough exploration for the right equipment to be found. There's gating with the shrines, which are needed to access rune abilities as well as items like the glider. Then, there's the dungeons. There hasn't been anything said about the dungeons besides that they exist, but I imagine they'll need to be completed and are a likely gate before reaching the final boss. The first two don't have any order, really. Clothing can be found anywhere, runes can be found in whatever shrines require them, and items are obtained from doing enough shrines. I wouldn't be surprised if this applied to the dungeons, too. It would be cool if you could hit up the final boss could technically be done from the start, but as of yet I'd say there's no evidence either way. You would almost certainly have to complete a few shrines, either way, to traverse the land, but I don't think that will be a big issue, mostly since you'd probably be compelled to do it just to make exploring the land easier. I don't think they'll give us the ability to fight the big one first, though, since otherwise I'm not sure what distinct purpose dungeons would serve.
-
For the record- I think sparsely used environmental gating can be awesome. There's not much technical difference between a cold area requiring a coat and a purple door requiring the purple key, but the former feels way more immersive and serves to connect the player to the character.
…Also, it could possibly open up the option for wacky stuff like bruteforcing your way through the cold area or running across lava before you're supposed to, whereas the purple door still just won't open. Not that devs are typically aware of major sequence breaks at launch... -
@CCC:
because Zelda games aren't difficult
And just like that, my pride out figuring on Stone Tower by myself has faded. :(
-
Mostly meant re: combat haha. Puzzles are different because while the game could teach you how it wants you to think about puzzles along the way (see games like The Witness), you'll always be working off your own intelligence, as opposed to your character's upgraded weapons and larger health bars. An eye switch is an eye switch, wherever they might hide it in the room ;)
-
Oh, I get it: the 3d perspective makes it a little easier for Link to dodge things (opposed to being cramped in corridors in the NES), plus enemies have telegraphed patterns and specific weapons to knock them down. Plus Z/R targeting.
-
Completely fixed dungeon progression didn't become a thing until what, Wind Waker? Even in OoT nothing was stopping you from completing the dungeons in any order, given that you obtained the dungeon item from the previous dungeon (or other required items).