Zelda has become such a slow, tedious, and mindless franchise that it almost seems beyond saving. We really need more challenge, smaller, more interesting environments (Skyward Sword was actually somewhat a step in the right direction regarding this, but instead divulged into awful repetitive backtracking missions with no incentive to complete them other then, well, you have to in order to progress in the game), better, harder puzzle design, more fun sidequests that have meaningful rewards (not just money), etc. Add an interesting overworld that people actually enjoy being in that isn't just empty and lifeless. Lots of work to be done that probably won't happen.
-
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
Let me explain:
The "tutorial" is the equivalent of what in modern-day Zelda I call the "slog" -- the first hour (or two hours, or three) where you run various errands for characters to learn concepts like Z-targeting, context-sensitive buttons, what rupees do, etc.
Those are what we call "mechanics." Those mechanics remain the same in this version of Zelda. The only difference is that in this world, you're free to go wherever you wish. So, since the mechanics are the same, it stands to reason that if you've played past Zelda games and already know about Z-targeting, etc, you don't need to relearn them here, right? Thus, when the game prompts you, you say "Yes I know this shit" and get straight to the main quest...
Instead of going through the slog.
You didn't read this whole thread, did you? That's OK -- it's a lot to read.
No, it's not like Elder Scrolls. Think of the average Zelda dungeon. The puzzles mostly involve the item unique to that dungeon, and a few other items. Hell, OoT's Forest Temple didn't require much more than the bow. Keep that in mind, it's important for the next part.
So here you have a setup where you start with the sword, shield, bow, bombs, boomerang, hookshot and lantern. Right from the start, every dungeon the designers make can be made with puzzles involving these items. Already the dungeons can be more intricate than OoT's Forest Temple. Now I get you're saying the Forest Temple is shittier than an Elder Scrolls dungeon, but most would say the Forest Temple was actually quite nifty!
Now add to this the special dungeon item in each dungeon. These items can be used in the overworld in an optional capacity, for mini-dungeons and hidden grottos and such, but dungeon-wise, they're only used in their host dungeon.
Remember that, as it's important, because it allows each dungeon to be approached on its own.
So you've taken dungeons that by virtue of you having the core toolset are already at least as complex as the Forest Temple, and to this you add specialized puzzles involving the special item. Not to mention, a well-designed dungeon (and let's face it, Nintendo will always out-design Bethesda) will also have special mechanics like the segmented ice pillar in Snowhead Temple -- in other words, not an item but a part of the dungeon itself.
Read: There's nothing in this formula to preclude that here. You get all of that and more.
What's "more?" A sense of exploration. Mystery. Discovery. Adventure.
It used to be in the series, so let's bring back what Nintendo worked in before, throw more design muscle behind it and fully realize its potential. It's really not as radical as you think. I hope this clears things up. Nothing like Elder Scrolls in execution. These are Zelda dungeons, guaranteed by virtue of the starting toolset alone.
I generally like the ideas in the OP, but I find the scale too big and ultimately this large scope could have a detrimental effect on the experience. I would prefer a much smaller set of dungeons, but with some variety. How about three very big dungeons, three normal-sized dungeons like you'd find in previous games, and three mini-dungeons. Sixteen dungeons is an ungodly large amount and I can already hear the development team and designers cry out in horror. I'm personally also not a fan of towns, NPCs, "side quests" and story in my Zelda games, so I'd like for one town at the most and not a bunch of talkative townsfolk that send you out to save their cat. No, not even any clever or deep quests that you can find in, say, Majora's Mask. I want to adventure and stop impending doom, not do chores for others while the world is on the brink of the apocalypse, no matter how interesting story-wise these questgivers may be. This also means no Ganondorf, only Ganon.
I like my Zelda games to be "simple". No fancy combat, no more than a handful of side-weapons/items, no heaps of side-plots and quests, no big story. Just you versus the world in a grand yet lean adventure. Nintendo ought to be stripping features and mechanics away, not adding them. It is for these reasons that I would prefer the Mario team to try their hand at the franchise.
I like my Zelda games to be "simple". No fancy combat, no more than a handful of side-weapons/items, no heaps of side-plots and quests, no big story. Just you versus the world in a grand yet lean adventure. Nintendo ought to be stripping features and mechanics away, not adding them. It is for these reasons that I would prefer the Mario team to try their hand at the franchise.
Yeah, the "16 dungeons" bit was just a random arbitrary number. Your idea on the number of dungons is agreeable to me.
RoboGeorgeForeman
Banned
There's no need for talkative or side-quest giving NPCs, but NPCs that drop hints as to where the location of some dungeon, trinket, or even enemy weaknesses could be cool.
Yeah, there should be at least NPC hints on dungeon locations, since ideally the dungeon entrances would be at least semi-hidden and you would uncover them by questing about the land.
Although I do dearly love MM's Clock Town, so if that could exist in isolated fashion at the center of the world, that would be lovely. Side quests are a great way to break up the dungeon crawls.
walking fiend
Member
I understand that you don't want to be forced to review mechanics that you already know [though I don't know for example in Skyward Sword how you 'knew' to fly or use various equipments controls, but let's say you knew somehow; or how in Phantom Hourglass you 'knew' all the mechanics of the temple];
The problem is that in order to make these tutorials not boring for the first time players, or those who want a refresher for whatever reason, they are integrated into the essential progress of the game; that is, even if you could skip the first few hours of Zelda games, then you would end up losing the introduction to the game as well.
So they have these replacement options:
1. Put tutorials in the form of text: new players aren't interested in reading pamphlets
2. Put tutorials as a separate feature of the game: it hearts the pacing and immersion of the adventure
I don't get why you complain this much anyway; the time spent on trying features you already know how to use probably doesn't take even an hour overall; how long is a Zelda game on average?!
---
So I don't know what kind of magic modern design you are talking about; AC2 has exactly these boring tutorials implemented into the game until you progress noticeable into the game and only then you are free.
TES games [and fallout, and a lot of other games] begin with very lengthy introduction putting you into a confined place instead of the open world; you can't skip them either.
---
Not that I don't rather to have tutorials just being fully removed from the game and be put into manuals; however, that is something which obviously is considered an archaic design by current gamers
Also bring back the grappling hook from Wind Waker. Could be awesome to have some big bossfights where you need to climb on them with the grappling hook. The hookshot just isn't the same and lacks that adventure flair.
The poster above me mentioned AC2, and that made me think on how that game handled the map: Viewpoints! How about you have one map, one compass, and you can "reveal" more about the territory on your map and your compass may point you towards interesting locations once you have climbed up to a high point (say a tower or a hilltop). You could potentially even make the treks to these high viewpoints some sort of mini-dungeon. You can still explore at your own leisure and find dungeons and items, but you could also just look around, see what the highest climb or building is in the area, get up there, fighting some enemies/doing some puzzles as you go, and then this would reveal the location of the "real" big dungeons and useful items.
I like the no order idea.
Theres no particular reason that nintendo does it except to have a linear story progression. For example you might go to a fairy god to get a hookshot to go to the forest temple, after you'll go to a water spirit so you can swim to the water temple. No reason you cant have both these quests available at the same time.
And having no item order would make the dungeons so much more varied. Items in zelda tend to get forgotten as you progress since dungeons will always have an item to focus on. I mean how often did nintendo have you use that silly whip?
One more thing, more bow gameplay. Lots of shooting in OoT and MM. Cant remember it being a focus in TP or SS.
Theres no particular reason that nintendo does it except to have a linear story progression. For example you might go to a fairy god to get a hookshot to go to the forest temple, after you'll go to a water spirit so you can swim to the water temple. No reason you cant have both these quests available at the same time.
And having no item order would make the dungeons so much more varied. Items in zelda tend to get forgotten as you progress since dungeons will always have an item to focus on. I mean how often did nintendo have you use that silly whip?
One more thing, more bow gameplay. Lots of shooting in OoT and MM. Cant remember it being a focus in TP or SS.
I see your concern. Here's my remedy -- it's two-fold, and both would be included:
+ Players who say, "Yes, I need to learn" would play through some sort of prelude sequence inconsequential to the plot -- a dream, perhaps? -- where they follow an NPC who has them practice the various mechanics once or twice. "Z-target me over here! Hit A to follow me through this door!" And at the end of the dream, you wake up and pick up where the veteran player would've jumped to in skipping the tutorial. Maybe it's the middle of Hyrule Field. Maybe it's in a cave with the Old Man.
+ For BOTH players who do the training and those that don't, they will always have a simple, streamlined e-manual available on the Pause menu. Forgot what this shiny red rock does? Hit Start, select Manual. Scroll to items. "Oh, look, here it is -- according to this e-manual, this shiny red rock is a red rupee -- that's like $20!" Unpause, back to the game.
In Zelda's case, these mechanics have been here since the N64. There's a sizable number of veterans out there who would appreciate the ability to bypass basic explanations.
It feels like an eternity. It doesn't need to. Zelda games could get to the good stuff much quicker. Majora's Mask did. ALttP did.
RoboGeorgeForeman
Banned
Which is why modders have created mods to skip the tutorial sections of those games, or at the very least there are usually saves you can download to skip all the bullshit.
Honestly I would be willing to skip the tutorial even if it meant missing bits of the story.
bafflewaffle
Member
I don't care whether Zelda lives or dies. I want to see her dance and I want to see her smile.
walking fiend
Member
The problem with this, is that it will feel like a tutorial to a new player; the reason that a lot of games are integrating the tutorials into the essentials of the game progress, is that the player don't feel like playing a tutorial, but to learn the mechanics through the actual game.
Unfortunately, you fundamentally cannot solve this: Make this non-essential, and new players won't like it; make it essential or even just interesting, and old players will miss essential parts of the game, or at least interesting parts of it even if not essential.
It is a good idea [aka MP scans] to be used as a reference; but this will not solve the requirement for a tutorial.
It's like trying to teach introductory English to someone by just giving them a dictionary, in contrast to a planned course. Dictionary is required, but just so is the tutorial course.
Some part of them, not all of them. Depending on the game, for example in Skyward Sword, there can be a a lot of new mechanics or at least control methods; in phantom hourglass, the controls and the temple mechanics, etc.
I suspect if they were to release a sequel, they would cut a lot of introduction, but recently there have been noticeable variation between Zelda titles, both in mechanics and more so in control.
---
As I said, are there other games that has solved this problem? I know of none.
Is there room to make these introductory parts more interesting, without changing the fundamentals? Sure.
Canis lupus
Member
I just want open world Zelda like Windwaker.
You can solve it -- it's just hard in theoreticals since it's all in the execution.
For example: The "dream sequence" tutorial would still be a quicker way of teaching basic mechanics since it's not padded with story bloat like TP and SS did. It'd be over in all of two minutes. So yeah, maybe it feels like a tutorial -- but no more so than, say, the intro to Demon's Souls, which was hardly a hassle, consisting as it did of a couple corridors and a courtyard. So the newbies don't mind, and again, the veterans can safely skip altogether. The end result: Greatly reduced but equally effective training period for newbies, and straight to the main course for vets.
Hey, you know a great game where you can skip a "tutorial" involving rescuing a cat off a roof? Skyward Sword! Just don't save the cat! Hell, they don't even force you to practice with the sword before leaving the dojo.
The amount of handholding in Zelda games is often downright insulting. Why do they think they have to explain an item from a chest every single time you pick it up?
Just yesterday I completed Wind Waker. In the final dungeon there's a hall with two symmetric rooms to the left and to the right. In one room, there are four switches on the wall. In the other one, there are candle sockets at the same locations on the wall, holding two, four, one and three candles respectively. So it's pretty obvious what to do.
Upon entering the room, the camera slowly moves from the socket with one candle up to the one with four. Also, your sidekick tells you there's something about the candles and switches. And if you return to the switch room then, the camera again slowly moves from one switch to the next, in the order you have to activate them. Couldn't believe it.
Just yesterday I completed Wind Waker. In the final dungeon there's a hall with two symmetric rooms to the left and to the right. In one room, there are four switches on the wall. In the other one, there are candle sockets at the same locations on the wall, holding two, four, one and three candles respectively. So it's pretty obvious what to do.
Upon entering the room, the camera slowly moves from the socket with one candle up to the one with four. Also, your sidekick tells you there's something about the candles and switches. And if you return to the switch room then, the camera again slowly moves from one switch to the next, in the order you have to activate them. Couldn't believe it.
I always assumed it was to make it easier for the youngsters. Back when I was a kid, none of us had a clue how to play "that weird Zelda game." Today's games need to be fairly accessible to even the youngest and all that. Difficulty modes wouldn't be a bad thing at this point.
Karsticles
Member
Every kid I knew played Zelda and knew what was up. Kids are smarter than people give them credit for.
No, its best design.
We didn't. There was one guy who claimed his brother knew what to do, but he'd never tell us. Instead he would just mumble something about wasting his bombs. That guy was a dick. But it has nothing to do with being smart. The original game just didn't explain all that much, and none us had anything to draw on beyond the arcades and a bit of Atari.
Indeed. I love games like that.
@OP
Nice idea, I want it too, but it will not happen. Games these days are dumbed down so everyone can play them.
My solution:
When you start a game you choose between 'Grandma mode' and 'Gamer mode'. Gamer mode is what you describe in the OP. Grandma mode is what games are currently like.
Please!
Zelda appeals to many people who have next to no puzzle solving skills and need the handholding. It should be optional though. A simple, "you can disable tips by going to the start menu" option would alleviate a lot.
"You can tackle the dungeons in any order, at any time. This is possible because you start the game with a half-dozen items that form the basic puzzle-solving "vocabulary" of every dungeon. So right from the start you have your sword, shield, bow, bombs, boomerang, hookshot and lantern. But each dungeon also has its own special item to collect. Since you should be able to tackle the dungeons in any order you wish, the special item in each dungeon should NOT be required for the puzzles in any of the other dungeons... but it would still get use beyond its host dungeon in the form of the overworld, where certain nooks and crannies can only be accessed by using that item. The final dungeon, accessible once you've completed all of the others, could also make use of every item, since you'd have them all by that point.
So with that it's possible to do any of the dungeons, in any order. The dungeons can still have their own compelling mechanics, they're own compelling plots, uncovered once you arrive there and meet the locals. But now there's a true sense of exploration and adventure..."
(I'm assuming you mean that these individual stories would make up the entire dungeon and design.)
Self contained dungeon stories goes against some of the key incentive-system designs in games -- when people get invested in a story, they don't want to change to a new story.
A main story that runs throughout the entire game may fade into the background for a bit, while a substory/subquest plays out, but it should be one of the main incentives for progressing.
Without that, short, self contained stories or plots in dungeons would quickly become a drag I think, and would basically prevent the game itself from evolving naturally -- after finishing a dungeon, you would probably feel like going to the next dungeon if the story continues there, but not so much if the dungeon contained a unique story.
If you finished a dungeon and its unique story, the "main" story of the game would fade into the background and you probably wouldn't feel like going to the next dungeon, since it's another unique story that might be better or worse. (Or atleast the incentive wouldn't be as powerful as continuing the story.)
It reverts the reward system, making you feel more like putting the game down after one dungeon instead of rushing to the next to continue the story (And, consequently, feeling like you aren't progressing, since dungeons are self contained stories.)
There could be dungeons with sub quest stories like the standard system (Fallout 3, Oblivion, Skyrim, etc. Most RPG's.), but they should be alternatives to the main dungeons with the main story line.
Or the dungeons could feature the main quest, with sub quests in the "background".
Or, the game could feature zones/regions, with a main story, but you need to travel to several dungeons to get something/do something (Introduced by townfolk -- a small town near each dungeon would be ideal, or the dungeons could be close to a large town.)
The "necessary" items to progress should be available from the start in most cases; I agree. Most, if not all games that spreads them throughout the game have locations, or items that are very obviously locked off until you get a new tool -- it's all very artificial and fake.
If a game wants to spread tools/mechanics throughout the game, it needs to be designed with that in mind; making you feel surprised when you get something new, or certainly not expecting it -- ie, the starting area would have to be designed specifically for whatever tools you start out with; and not making you feel like you are missing some mechanic or tool.
Darksiders is a good example of this, in my opinion. Every new mechanic/tool was a surprise, and felt unique and empowering, constantly reinforcing the incentive to progress. Well, except for the portal like tool I guess.
I'm not trying to "diss" you or anything; I'm interested in the reward/incentive systems for games, and I'm just discussing the idea with my own opinion, cause I would like to hear what you have to say.
So with that it's possible to do any of the dungeons, in any order. The dungeons can still have their own compelling mechanics, they're own compelling plots, uncovered once you arrive there and meet the locals. But now there's a true sense of exploration and adventure..."
(I'm assuming you mean that these individual stories would make up the entire dungeon and design.)
Self contained dungeon stories goes against some of the key incentive-system designs in games -- when people get invested in a story, they don't want to change to a new story.
A main story that runs throughout the entire game may fade into the background for a bit, while a substory/subquest plays out, but it should be one of the main incentives for progressing.
Without that, short, self contained stories or plots in dungeons would quickly become a drag I think, and would basically prevent the game itself from evolving naturally -- after finishing a dungeon, you would probably feel like going to the next dungeon if the story continues there, but not so much if the dungeon contained a unique story.
If you finished a dungeon and its unique story, the "main" story of the game would fade into the background and you probably wouldn't feel like going to the next dungeon, since it's another unique story that might be better or worse. (Or atleast the incentive wouldn't be as powerful as continuing the story.)
It reverts the reward system, making you feel more like putting the game down after one dungeon instead of rushing to the next to continue the story (And, consequently, feeling like you aren't progressing, since dungeons are self contained stories.)
There could be dungeons with sub quest stories like the standard system (Fallout 3, Oblivion, Skyrim, etc. Most RPG's.), but they should be alternatives to the main dungeons with the main story line.
Or the dungeons could feature the main quest, with sub quests in the "background".
Or, the game could feature zones/regions, with a main story, but you need to travel to several dungeons to get something/do something (Introduced by townfolk -- a small town near each dungeon would be ideal, or the dungeons could be close to a large town.)
The "necessary" items to progress should be available from the start in most cases; I agree. Most, if not all games that spreads them throughout the game have locations, or items that are very obviously locked off until you get a new tool -- it's all very artificial and fake.
If a game wants to spread tools/mechanics throughout the game, it needs to be designed with that in mind; making you feel surprised when you get something new, or certainly not expecting it -- ie, the starting area would have to be designed specifically for whatever tools you start out with; and not making you feel like you are missing some mechanic or tool.
Darksiders is a good example of this, in my opinion. Every new mechanic/tool was a surprise, and felt unique and empowering, constantly reinforcing the incentive to progress. Well, except for the portal like tool I guess.
I'm not trying to "diss" you or anything; I'm interested in the reward/incentive systems for games, and I'm just discussing the idea with my own opinion, cause I would like to hear what you have to say.
Jac_Solar: I appreciate your input. I guess when I say the individual dungeons could have self-contained stories, what I'm thinking of is something along the lines of the Deku Princess in Woodfall Temple (MM), or saving the Gorons in the Fire Temple (OoT), and so on. In other words, you get "character" in the form of interacting with the NPCs in the dungeon as you help them resolve their current crisis, and then in the grand scheme of things the good you do there will add up to the end-game conclusion, factoring into how the larger plot resolves itself (along with the plots of the other dungeons).
I think it's interesting to have these discussions because it maybe helps us better understand what created the Zelda series' magic in the first place, and maybe what needs to happen again for more of that to come back for the people who aren't seeing it much these days.
I think it's interesting to have these discussions because it maybe helps us better understand what created the Zelda series' magic in the first place, and maybe what needs to happen again for more of that to come back for the people who aren't seeing it much these days.
Hell no. Motion controls made combat in skyward sword the most fun and challenging it's ever been. Zelda WiiU needs to use WM+.
Nonlinearity is not conducive to complex level design. The more variables, the simpler the puzzles have to be to accommodate every possibility. Zelda has never been truly nonlinear. Even the NES game requires certain orders. People like to romanticize OoT, too, but there are only like 5 variations you can do; you can mess with the fire temple, shadow temple, and spirit temple.
People complain about "handholding" in SS, but the game really doesn't. It tells you about stuff you already know like "Hey, that's a boss door!" but it doesn't ruin solutions. Given the amount of complaints people had that were due to them "doing it wrong" it seams more that SS wasn't holding tight enough.
Doctor Decimate
Member
so you want to change the world, the part that's actually differed from one 3-D installment to the next. and then you want to LEAVE stuff like the dungeon design and boss battles, the elements that have remained the same throughout the series and thus become stale. this is the equivalent of taking a car in desperate need of a new engine, simply giving it a new paint job, and then saying "look everyone i fixed it!"
But it's in the game, which means I have to do this chore. Man, how I wish it was optional.
Exactly. People were put off by shit motion control and by the time skyward sword came along it was too late.
I fully agree with the op. This is the direction I want when it comes to 3D Zelda games.
Huge overworld, open-world approach etc.
This was my wishful thinking Wii Zelda:
- Huge, Xenoblade-style, overworld filled with towns, villages, quests, dungeons, mini-dungeons, SoA-style discoveries and a variety in locations and themes. An overworld that gives the player a sense of scale, adventuring, travelling, exploring, discovering and freedom.
- In order to create a dynamic and alive world, the game would have real-time day/night cycles, a random weather generator system and NPCs with their daily routines and tasks. No more static, dead, worlds and 8bit-style NPCs.
- Scattered mini dungeons around the overworld in the form of caves, ruins, towers etc.
- The beginning in a Zelda game needs to be straight and strong. Instead of the village themed tutorial, I'd like to see a linear beginning sequence in the style of A Link to the Past.
Imagine something like this:
The game begins in a dark foggy forest during a stormy night. There is no background music, you hear just the storm, your footsteps and the ambience sounds of the forest. You take Link's control and try to reach a mysterious tall tower that you see in the deeper parts of the woods. Through this linear sequence you get used to the controls and the mechanics of the game. No cut-scenes, no dialogs, no boring missions and slow tutorials.
Once you reach the tower a cut-scene begins to play but it suddenly changes to the scene of an old man waking you up. The whole sequence was a nightmare as well as a flash-forward of a later event in the game. Once you're awake you talk with the old man (uncle or whatever), he tells you a story about Hyrule and then gives you your sword and shield.
You're good to go.
Huge overworld, open-world approach etc.
This was my wishful thinking Wii Zelda:
- Huge, Xenoblade-style, overworld filled with towns, villages, quests, dungeons, mini-dungeons, SoA-style discoveries and a variety in locations and themes. An overworld that gives the player a sense of scale, adventuring, travelling, exploring, discovering and freedom.
- In order to create a dynamic and alive world, the game would have real-time day/night cycles, a random weather generator system and NPCs with their daily routines and tasks. No more static, dead, worlds and 8bit-style NPCs.
- Scattered mini dungeons around the overworld in the form of caves, ruins, towers etc.
- The beginning in a Zelda game needs to be straight and strong. Instead of the village themed tutorial, I'd like to see a linear beginning sequence in the style of A Link to the Past.
Imagine something like this:
The game begins in a dark foggy forest during a stormy night. There is no background music, you hear just the storm, your footsteps and the ambience sounds of the forest. You take Link's control and try to reach a mysterious tall tower that you see in the deeper parts of the woods. Through this linear sequence you get used to the controls and the mechanics of the game. No cut-scenes, no dialogs, no boring missions and slow tutorials.
Once you reach the tower a cut-scene begins to play but it suddenly changes to the scene of an old man waking you up. The whole sequence was a nightmare as well as a flash-forward of a later event in the game. Once you're awake you talk with the old man (uncle or whatever), he tells you a story about Hyrule and then gives you your sword and shield.
You're good to go.
Jawmuncher
Member
Honestly thinking about it, Darksiders got next gen Zelda right while zelda itself didnt.
So good. Shame I'll never happen.
Haunted
Member
he does have a point though
Only if your mechanics are transparent and intuitive+ the game invites and rewards experimenting around.
If there's lots of obtuse and unexplained sub-systems, yet the game punishes you for experimentation and trying things out, it's shit design. You know something's fucked up when a game is better with an online wiki open at your side (hi From Software).
What have been done with skyward sword is a good foundation for a next game.
After Twilight princess, they didn't fall for the huge world you end wanting to teleport no matter what, rather than doing again the travel and that's normal, in the end what stay from the feelings of traveling is the boredom cause virtuality can't translate all the physical sensations going on. That's why developers have not much choice than focus on speed effect and the joy of discovery but that's working just one time. Then Hyrule being designed as a playground and more tight than other open worlds is a good thing. A cohesive overworld taking clues from Skyward sword would be the logical next step.
After Twilight princess, they didn't fall for the huge world you end wanting to teleport no matter what, rather than doing again the travel and that's normal, in the end what stay from the feelings of traveling is the boredom cause virtuality can't translate all the physical sensations going on. That's why developers have not much choice than focus on speed effect and the joy of discovery but that's working just one time. Then Hyrule being designed as a playground and more tight than other open worlds is a good thing. A cohesive overworld taking clues from Skyward sword would be the logical next step.
I was sort of wondering when one of theese would pop up.
Anyway, in a general sence I agree with op, I'd too like an open world Zelda in the vein of the original NES game.
And I also agree with the menu based tutorial, that you can call upon if you wish. But I'd allso like to include the "built in FAQ" that SS had. I think it really do is a nice feature to have as long as it's optional. If you don't want handholding and like to figure out things by yourself you're free to do so, and if you're sick and tired with beeing stuck for whatever reason, you're just a few button presses away from progression. Boss dificulties aside, but I suppose Ninty could solve that too by allowing the "FAQ" to grant you some form of temporary god mode if you suck to much. Again; if called for, never pestered into, etc.
Anyway, in a general sence I agree with op, I'd too like an open world Zelda in the vein of the original NES game.
And I also agree with the menu based tutorial, that you can call upon if you wish. But I'd allso like to include the "built in FAQ" that SS had. I think it really do is a nice feature to have as long as it's optional. If you don't want handholding and like to figure out things by yourself you're free to do so, and if you're sick and tired with beeing stuck for whatever reason, you're just a few button presses away from progression. Boss dificulties aside, but I suppose Ninty could solve that too by allowing the "FAQ" to grant you some form of temporary god mode if you suck to much. Again; if called for, never pestered into, etc.
thomasmahler
Member
I fully agree with the op. This is the direction I want when it comes to 3D Zelda games.
Huge overworld, open-world approach etc.
This was my wishful thinking Wii Zelda:
That's all nice and everything... but Skyward Sword already took Nintendo 5+ years to develop. This here with all that stuff looks like a 10 year cycle.
Zelda shouldn't become an amalgamation of tons of other games - it should go back to its roots (A Link to the Past) and streamline their shit.
Haunted
Member
I think "the slog" at the start of modern 3D Zeldas has its place, it's about making you care about the world. The setup is the regular shonen/coming-of-age story where a boy's ordinary world is turned upside down and he has to set out to save someone etc etc. From OoT to SS (with the exception of MM and PH since the're direct continuations), it's been that way and that's fine. That said, there must be ways to make that part more interesting and not bogged down by overly slow and mechanical tutorialising, though.
I think Wind Waker has one of the best starts in the modern era.
I think Wind Waker has one of the best starts in the modern era.
IrishNinja
Member
why do people want expanded platforming in zelda? might as well ask for orlando bloom voicerover while you're at it.
this made me laugh
also, was there ever a zelda you could do the dungeons totally out of order in? even OG Zelda 1 didn't let that happen - though granted, per OP's post, dungeons/overworld gave a lot more freedom to explore & get wrecked.
Darksiders was a great game, but this didn't happen.
this made me laugh
also, was there ever a zelda you could do the dungeons totally out of order in? even OG Zelda 1 didn't let that happen - though granted, per OP's post, dungeons/overworld gave a lot more freedom to explore & get wrecked.
Darksiders was a great game, but this didn't happen.
Buckethead
Banned
Or they could use their profits to reinvest in their own business and expand internally and/or internationally.
I just want more cities and races. Hyrule has to feel like a true kingdom, plus why not introduce more of those kindgoms as well? A true world with three main regions (with subregions) and about 6-7 big cities sprawling with people and life
other than that, I'm content with what they introduced in SS and I hope they continue that way
other than that, I'm content with what they introduced in SS and I hope they continue that way
efyu_lemonardo
May I have a cookie?
This thread made me realize the best thing that could happen to Zelda would be if it had more competition on Nintendo consoles.
Expanding the genre, offering more choices for gamers and keeping Aonuma & Co. on their toes.
But who in their right mind would try something like this?
Expanding the genre, offering more choices for gamers and keeping Aonuma & Co. on their toes.
But who in their right mind would try something like this?
QisTopTier
XisBannedTier
You want an upgraded Darksiders 2 for the next zelda?