KillerTravis
Banned
I want a Zelda game made by Nintendo, not a shitty fan dream with no structure. What the OP wants is Skyrim, so play that instead, we don't need another copycat game.
-
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.
I WANT: Open world Zelda; core items from start; challenging, with skippable tutorial
- Thread starter Neiteio
- Start date
Put an e-manual on the game's Pause screen. That way if you forget what a blue rupee does every five seconds, you can pause the game and check yourself, and the rest of us can continue playing uninterrupted! Ditto for core game mechanics. Pepper the landscape with signposts explaining shit you can read if you want, and cover it all in the e-manual on the Pause screen, but don't -force- anyone to read it, because 99 percent of people will figure things out just fine all their own.
KillerTravis, there is a structure: within each dungeon and town. The world's terrain would still be intricately designed as well. You would just be able to explore it freely. Key word on "explore." The concept has been all but killed off in modern Zelda, which is a shame since the series used to be all about discovery and adventure. Nintendo made ALttP as well, believe it or not! And asking for exploration in a Zelda game does not make it a Skyrim clone.
butter_stick
Banned
The OP's description sounds as much like the original Zelda game as it does Skyrim.
So now any nonlinear game with a sword is Skyrim. Get off it.
Team Filler
Member
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
Optional tutorials are fine, as is the existence of reference manuals if you miss something. I'm not defending the ludicrous handholding that appears in 3D zelda games, I'm just saying that games can't be designed the same way that LoZ NES was.
Boss Doggie
all my loli wolf companions are so moe
I know, I was basically saying the same thing as you, just in a different way.
LTTP, OOT and MM were fine. It got worse with WW. Then much worse with TP. Then ungodly bad with SS.
Trickster
Member
What would be bad about it?
Death Dealer
Member
Yeah I don't see how that could work out. At least I don't see how it would be possible to have them all accessible AND have Link capable of completing them, in any order. It would have to be like Morrowind. You might be able to access any dungeon in any order, provided you find them, but if you attempted a dungeon too "advanced" you'd get your ass handed to you. If it were possible to explore and finish any dungeon in any order from the beginning of the game, the dungeons would need scaling or else they'd all just have to be generically easy pieces of trash. I don't mind the classic formula of needing different items for each successive dungeon.
But I wish Nintendo would go in a different direction than where Zelda has been going. I used to be a huge fan of the series. I loved the original 8 bit games, LTTP, and the N64 games, but haven't even considered playing a Zelda game in over a decade. It's like the series has regressed.
One of my own ideas was four dungeons set across two time zones with the effects of past Link influencing the world of future Link. And by future I mean a sort of what Skyward Sword was after in terms of technology.
Past Link would have all of his standard weapons allowing you to complete his dungeons in any order you liked, and each one you did would unlock a more "futuristic" version of that dungeons key weapon for future Link to use and upgrade. The order in which you choose to complete each dungeon alters certain parts of the story. You would only need the future version of each dungeons weapon to complete its respective future dungeon. Each past dungeon you complete makes future dungeons harder, but also makes Link stronger. If you choose to complete the past and future dungeons in the recommended, sequential order then the difficulty will be smoother, but if you choose to do each set at once (all past, then all future) it will become much more difficult allowing you to decide what kind of challenge you prefer.
Maybe this could be logically applied in that by unlocking Links powers in each past dungeon you are also releasing its respective evils, thus as Link gets stronger as do the enemies he faces, but he has to do so in order to defeat the ultimate evil.
Something like that anyway. It was only an idea.
Past Link would have all of his standard weapons allowing you to complete his dungeons in any order you liked, and each one you did would unlock a more "futuristic" version of that dungeons key weapon for future Link to use and upgrade. The order in which you choose to complete each dungeon alters certain parts of the story. You would only need the future version of each dungeons weapon to complete its respective future dungeon. Each past dungeon you complete makes future dungeons harder, but also makes Link stronger. If you choose to complete the past and future dungeons in the recommended, sequential order then the difficulty will be smoother, but if you choose to do each set at once (all past, then all future) it will become much more difficult allowing you to decide what kind of challenge you prefer.
Maybe this could be logically applied in that by unlocking Links powers in each past dungeon you are also releasing its respective evils, thus as Link gets stronger as do the enemies he faces, but he has to do so in order to defeat the ultimate evil.
Something like that anyway. It was only an idea.
He can't imagine it, ergo it must be bad.
Doctor Decimate
Member
at a certain point you stop making changing to a series and start just throwing a familiar coat of paint over what's basically a new IP.
you've reached that point.
you've reached that point.
theMrCravens
Member
It would work like Zelda 1, going through trial and error to find out which dungeon you gotta run first.
Unfortunately, gamers today would get annoyed fast.
Yeah, by that logic LoZ was a new IP from OoT, OoT from MM, MM from SS, etc. On paper they have some fundamental differences. But at the core they're still Zelda... as is the idea in the OP.
See, the way Link controls, the way he interacts with other characters and the world, the items at his disposal, the puzzles, the enemies, the bosses, etc -- all still there. The main difference is you are now trusted to figure things out yourself, and you are encouraged to explore and discover things on your own: namely, distinctly Zelda dungeons with distinctly Zelda items and distinctly Zelda bosses, in a distinctly Zelda world with distinctly Zelda mechanics. It's all distinctly Zelda, probably moreso than the bubble-wrapped linear fetch quests that constituted the vast bulk the last few games!
Zelda U should be all about exploration. Wii U controller is ideal for maps and keeping track of time. We should make a Zelda U suggestion thread so people can share their ideas for Zelda in one thread. I had a Zelda HD thread but I don't want to bump it. I would make a Zelda game set in a prehistoric era. Just a few kids (Link and friends) trying to struggle out there in the wild. Near the end they realize the land they are exploring was once the civilzation of Hyrule that was destroyed a long time ago.
Sentenza
Member
No, I can easily imagine it. AND it would be bad.
Schweinehund
Member
I just want a zelda with a compelling story like majora's mask. Mind you I haven't played skyward sword but I don't hear people talking about its story that much.
Trickster
Member
What would be bad about it ?
Zelder Scrolls!
Nah, it's pretty seamless in Wind Waker. OOT is much worse than WW in that regard with its shit-shit rupee hunt and boulder maze.
Sentenza
Member
I'm not even saying you shouldn't be able to enter them, but to able to handle them in any order, having all the necessary tools from the start? Sounds bad, it takes away much of what is the charm of these "metroidvania" action adventures: becoming more strong (almost a side effect) *and* versatile (the key point) while progressing through the game.
I could eventually appreciate a tier subdivision, like "you don't unlock singular dungeons in linear progression, but a bunch of them at the same time".
Having all them completely explorable from the start, on the other hand, would be a mess in terms of balance, plot, character progression.
EDIT: Wow, you really like to repeat your questions.
Yeah, I'm not sure why OoT's tutorial is always spared from criticism, when it was unbearably tedious.
Jawmuncher
Member
All I know is I like OP's idea.
Sounds better than the majority or Zelda games as of late.
I really like the Dungeon idea of being able to do them in any order especially.
Sounds better than the majority or Zelda games as of late.
I really like the Dungeon idea of being able to do them in any order especially.
You fail yet again to say -why-, but that's OK, I'll just tell you why you're wrong.
There's a definite thrill to games that let you explore freely and stumble into dangerous territory, and that are open enough for you to explore elsewhere -- and make progress elsewhere -- when you realize you've in over your head. Blending such elements into the Zelda formula would bring back the sense of skill-based adventuring inherent in the older Zelda games.
You see a distant tower on the hilltop. "What's in there," you wonder. You carefully navigate an intricately designed overworld to reach it; you use your sword, shield, bow, bombs, boomerang, hookshot and lantern -- all present from the start -- to make it to the tower entrance. "Here we go," you think. You take a deep breath and step inside. You're quickly overwhelmed, stonewalled by powerful foes and a level of complexity that's just too much for you at that point in the game. You retreat for the time being and wander off to some ruins on the opposite side of a lake instead.
Here you stumble upon some stairs leading deep underground. Down here you find another dungeon... with simpler puzzles, and simpler enemies. You don't realize it, but in conquering this lighter dungeon, your skills have been honed, so that when you later muster up the courage to tackle the tower again, you find yourself figuring out the puzzles and enemies more quickly. And then you have a powerful sense of accomplishment, having finally conquered this place that you discovered, all on your own.
No Fi needed.
EDIT: OK, I see Tuco elaborated while I was responding (and it was your non-explanation before that prompted the other guy to ask twice!). At least you can see the merit of the tier compromise. I believe, though, that with smart design you can make them all workable from the start... but of course some will be harder than others.
I gotta agree with OP, 1987's The Legend of Zelda
sits high atop the pile of Zelda adventures for me. The formula of high fantasy, exploration, mystery, and difficulty won me over for life. For the most part each subsequent iteration felt like a facsimile of the facsimile before it, for every new feature or gimmick added to the facsimile, what I loved about Zelda just faded away.
follwed oh so closely by Zelda II
Karsticles
Member
I want an old fashioned 2D Zelda. Heck yeah!
I also want a Zelda game where you play as Zelda, and instead of getting tools, you accumulate all kinds of badass magic.
It's funny how Zelda basically started the idea of an "open world game", but now...
I also want a Zelda game where you play as Zelda, and instead of getting tools, you accumulate all kinds of badass magic.
It's funny how Zelda basically started the idea of an "open world game", but now...
Sentenza
Member
No, I didn't, read the thread.
You are preaching to the choir. I'm not a Piranha Bytes fan by chances.
But this has NOTHING to do with having immediate access to all dungeons.
Read my edit. You wrote what you did while I responded, then I saw what you wrote and edited accordingly. Judging from the partial quote you didn't even read -my- whole post, lol. Oh Tuco!
Now Zelda has become a series of circle-shaped corridors with backtracking and fetch quests and the occasional optional minigame.
Karsticles
Member
I love minigames, but the modern Zelda games don't have a reason to do them. Okami was awesome at providing reasons to go off and do sidequests. Twilight Princess was like "hey, catch bugs! We'll give you..." - and I don't even remember, because it was so pointless.
Edit: And I disagree with you on one thing. Not skippable tutorials, but no tutorials. They are simply not needed in a well made game.
Zelda really needs to capture that sense of adventure and wading into the unknown once again. Even with Wind Waker, a big part of the appeal is exploring the sea and finding what is out there.
Here Link is probably reflecting on his adventures and dreaming about finding a new continent.
Here Link is probably reflecting on his adventures and dreaming about finding a new continent.
Aquavelvaman
Banned
I want an all-tutorial Zelda with 99 rupee carry limit and item encumbrance. And no fast travel. And WiiU touchscreen-only controls. And time limits on everything.
Let's start over, respectfully. I grew snarky at your original dismissive one-line reply and you grew irked at my snark. It's late, I'm tired, and I apologize.
Now then.
It's not that I don't see your concern -- that such an open design risks losing the element of "graduated skill," if you would, that sort of progressive Metroidvania this-builds-on-that dynamic. I guess I'm just staking more faith in the idea that smart design could overcome that. In essence, the team would prefabricate X number of dungeons, on a scale from light to hard difficulty, this reflecting the complexity of the puzzles and the enemy encounters (I.E. non-shield enemies vs. shield enemies, etc). Each dungeon would be made with a special item in mind, a special item found in that dungeon and used most extensively in that dungeon (I.E. gust jar, or mole mitts, etc). Each dungeon would also be designed knowing the player would -at least- have the sword, shield, bow, bombs boomerang, hookshot and lantern. All told, each dungeon could stand on its own as a mechanically sound Zelda dungeon.
Now, with that said, and to get back to your concern, cutting the player loose and allowing them to discover any of these dungeons if they travel far enough and search hard enough and use their core items cleverly enough, does not break the game or throw off its balance, since a dungeon that's "too difficult" given their current skill level or understanding of the game simply deters them for the moment and sends them questing elsewhere, to another dungeon with another self-contained plot and set of mechanics and special dungeon item. Eventually they'll be savvy enough to handle the tougher dungeon, puzzles and enemies they encountered elsewhere. It's the natural inevitability of playing a game that you become better at it in time. If these dungeons are deliberately designed with different difficulties in mind, so that they're theoretically beatable in any order but not realistically beatabe in any order to the -novice- player, then everything should still work out in the end, and the great benefit is A) you get to actually find them by exploring, B) you proceed with genuine fear and caution knowing "anything goes" when you step foot in a dungeon, and C) you get an immense sense of accomplishment upon improving enough personally to tackle the dungeon.
I really think it would bring excitement back to the series, and without it magically becoming Skyrim, for that matter.
You know what? I'll say it: I'm tired of people glorifying the "Open World" of the first two Zelda games. They were directionless, that's what they were. There was a great sense of discovery, yes, but there was also a lot of frustrating wasted time due to a lack of any idea whatsoever where the hero had to go. If we have to emulate old Zelda games, let us emulate the SNES/GBC titles. A Link to the Past's saga (ALttP/LA/OoA/OoS) gave the player freedom with direction. The Owl popped up only once in awhile and every dungeon ended with a two second tip as to where you needed to go next.
Give me that. Give me a world to play in, but for God's sake, please don't abandon me to it and cost me extra hours of time frustratingly lost because the game gives me no clue whatsoever as to what I need to do next.
Barring that, all I really ask is this: The worldmap be interconnected (If Skyward Sword's worldmap had been contiguous instead of broken up by Skyworld, it would've been amazing), items continue to have a purpose after the dungeon in which they're obtained (some items even in the first and second game are guilty of having precious little use) and give me non-essential items to discover. In Skyward Sword there was no Biggoron Sword, Magic Armor, Fierce Diety Mask or whatever. It was quest items only, and it was sorely missed.
DON'T give me the core items from the start. That's babies. What kind of Zelda game GIVES you items to begin with beyond a sword and a shield? NO.
Give me that. Give me a world to play in, but for God's sake, please don't abandon me to it and cost me extra hours of time frustratingly lost because the game gives me no clue whatsoever as to what I need to do next.
Barring that, all I really ask is this: The worldmap be interconnected (If Skyward Sword's worldmap had been contiguous instead of broken up by Skyworld, it would've been amazing), items continue to have a purpose after the dungeon in which they're obtained (some items even in the first and second game are guilty of having precious little use) and give me non-essential items to discover. In Skyward Sword there was no Biggoron Sword, Magic Armor, Fierce Diety Mask or whatever. It was quest items only, and it was sorely missed.
DON'T give me the core items from the start. That's babies. What kind of Zelda game GIVES you items to begin with beyond a sword and a shield? NO.
Oh and maybe we need less quirky characters. Zelda is getting too strange for the average consumer. I have no problem with the occasional funny or cute character but no need to populate the entire world with weirdos. They need to focus on making an epic without it being "epic" in the modern sense.
the rupee hunt is a brilliant tutorial. forces you to explore the forest, get used to the controls, talk to people, learn new things... all under your own control.
a new player would most likely read all the signs and speak to more NPCs. a veteran player could collect the rupees and pick up the kokiri sword in less than 5 minutes.
Wind Waker was the beginning of "Here's your sword, now you must complete this boring tutorial to keep it." Now that I think about it, the game isn't too heavy on tutorials, but the first hour or so was very cutscene heavy and the first "dungeon" they plop you in puts you on a slow, tedious stealth mission. Not a great start to an awesome game.
A Zelda that has plenty of other items to find, and gives you the starting toolset to enable you to actually forge a path and access more than one dungeon at a time?
But I do agree with you on the desire to have some semblance of guidance. I didn't mention it in the OP, but in picturing this Zelda there would still be NPCs that would drop random hints about possible dungeon locations, much like the various townsfolk in Castle Town in OoT dropping hints about things all over Hyrule. So in other words, talk to enough people in town, and in short order you'll know of several possible places to explore... and given the "toolset model," you'll probably find a dungeon in each of them, and be able to make some progress as well.
Zelda, Zelda III, Link's Awakening, Ocarina, and Majora's Mask are some of the finest games ever.
However, Nintendo should do the right thing and shitcan the whole series at this point. The games since MM have been embarrassing. Time for all those resources to be put into a new IP.
However, Nintendo should do the right thing and shitcan the whole series at this point. The games since MM have been embarrassing. Time for all those resources to be put into a new IP.
Because then you couldn't make puzzles based off other items to be obtained in other dungeons without inadvertently forcing a liner progression system to obtain said items to be able to complete said dungeon.
The item design, I would argue, is one of the staples to the dungeon/puzzle element in Zelda, and I think it would be bad not to design the dungeons on them, because then you either force a progression, or you make all dungeons void of them. The sense of progression for me would be gone.
Boss Doggie
all my loli wolf companions are so moe
I'm using Okami in viewing this thread btw since I never really played (and enjoyed) Zelda games save for the top-down ones.
I still can't fathom how it works though. Part of progression is gaining new abilities to overcome obstacles in certain dungeons.
I still can't fathom how it works though. Part of progression is gaining new abilities to overcome obstacles in certain dungeons.
Rollo Lawson
Banned
Mm...eh...no.
In most Zelda games, the dungeons only use the dungeon's special item, plus a fraction of the bow/bomb/boomerang/hookshot/lantern toolset I suggested. So in other words, by default these dungeons would have more complexity in terms of potential item usage. Giving the player a lot of basic items from the start, and then keeping each dungeon fresh with heavy usage of its own special item -on top- of those, makes each dungeon mechanically sound on its own merits, regardless of what items you obtain beforehand. The progression then comes down to the player: what they can handle, skill-wise, at any given time, which will be different for each player -- some will leave a tough dungeon for the time being and explore elsewhere, conquering other dungeons and coming back more experienced for a second try; others will keep at it and conquer the harder dungeon when they first encounter it. I think it could work, and it's perhaps the best way to bring back real, meaningful exploration to the series.
Buckethead
Banned
How about no tutorial?
Eyemus Lutt
Member
If the dungeons can be played in any order, then they would have to be too generic like Skyrim. The best thing about Zelda is the dungeons so without that it would be a total mess.
And the Difficulty is fine as long as they have a hard mode for the masochist who like shit like Dark souls.
Also please no open world because it makes games have no direction and causes people to be overwhelmed and lose interest quicker.
And the Difficulty is fine as long as they have a hard mode for the masochist who like shit like Dark souls.
Also please no open world because it makes games have no direction and causes people to be overwhelmed and lose interest quicker.
Again, for the hundredth time, by "tutorial" I mean anything in the game that explains mechanics, I.E. a fetch quest to get a cat off the roof "teaching" you how to climb, etc. Basically, the first three hours of a modern-day Zelda game would be skippable in this situation.
EDIT: The Skyrim comparisons need to stop. Skyrim dungeons weren't each constructed around special items found only in that dungeon that are integrated in puzzles all throughout that dungeon, for starters. And going in with the base toolset would allow for -at least- the complexity of OoT's Forest Temple, and that's before you even factor in the special item and the puzzles involving it.