-
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.
Aonuma on Zelda Wii U: "I think well be able to make something new like OoT was."
- Thread starter BY2K
- Start date
I like SS a lot. Sort of like the MP 2 analogue in the Zelda side. Zelda meets Metroid on Zelda side versus Metroid meets Zelda on Metroid side.
Also, I agree about aLbW. Everyone was heralding it as best Zelda in years and I was left out in the cold a bit. The non-linearity hurt the quality of the dungeons.
OrbitalBeard
Member
Skyward Sword is a good example of why you're never going to make everyone happy with a Zelda game.
If exploration and discovery is the main reason you play this series, SS was probably a disappointment to you.
If you're into Zelda for the dungeons and puzzles, you likely really enjoyed the game. The overworld was basically three big dungeons.
I personally like SS quite a bit as a one-off, but I'd hate it to become the template for the franchise, which fortunately doesn't appear to be happening.
LegendofLex
Member
Most non-linear games, including the Zelda game ALBW was based on, actually still have a difficulty curve and don't dumb down their dungeons to make them more approachable regardless of where you're at in the game.
I enjoy Zelda for the tight gunplay.
I think it's more of a call to get rid of the boring "classic" puzzles that make us just go through the motions instead of forcing us to really think of our items and the environment to figure them out.
You know, the "shoot the eye button" or "stop the flames by hitting this switch" kind of stuff that is just blegh at this point.
Puzzles are freaking awesome and are part of the allure of Zelda games. Just please give us the same "puzzles" that present zero challenge and have been around since OoT.
I would be more than fine if the shifted away from the standard block puzzles and switches to something more abstract. As long as the game has a solid amount of interactive problem solving of any kind I'll be happy. Though I wouldn't be upset if they still had the same kinds of puzzles either, just if they are too easy and fail to try anything new.
TwEE-N-Toast
Banned
I don't want hotdogs, I want raw fish!
Personal antidote but I don't know anybody who plays Zelda games or gets excited for them anymore. Other then me, and even I'm losing interest. The children I know won't touch them, and neither will the adults. Zelda really needs to be reinvented. They're so stale now.
I like what Retro did with Metroid Prime. Sort of reinvented it for the modern age, but kept it's soul intact.
I don't really trust Aonuma to be able to pull off something similar with Zelda at all.
Personal antidote but I don't know anybody who plays Zelda games or gets excited for them anymore. Other then me, and even I'm losing interest. The children I know won't touch them, and neither will the adults. Zelda really needs to be reinvented. They're so stale now.
I like what Retro did with Metroid Prime. Sort of reinvented it for the modern age, but kept it's soul intact.
I don't really trust Aonuma to be able to pull off something similar with Zelda at all.
It's not just the difficulty curve. It's that the dungeon crafter doesn't know all the items you have going into the dungeon so they cannot plan clever puzzles around most of them. Choice, both in an RPG inventory sense and in a non-linearity sense, limits what the game designer can do on the puzzle and gadget front.
Now, do Zeldas tend to have dungeons that use every item intelligently? No. So there is some room for choice gameplay. That said, at best they do build off each other in some way so choice gameplay should be contained.
Well Tri Force Heroes had an even balance between combat and puzzle solving, so there's that. It also has probably the most fleshed out combat system of all Zelda games (I'm not refering to boss fights)
AdventureRacing
Member
I like Zelda for the music, atmosphere, art design, exploration and generally just how the games control. I like all the different items you can collect and use. I like the lack of dialogue and how I can use my imagination to help build the world I'm playing in. I also like the dungeons and bosses.
I don't hate puzzles but I do think they're mostly simplistic and don't make much of any difference to me enjoying the game. Some I enjoy, others are just more of an obstacle that just take up time.
They are hardly what make a Zelda game for me. Having said that I don't assume to be a true fan (whatever the fuck that means) and post condescending posts like the one you just have.
Neff
Member
I like what they did with it too, love it even, but at no point did any of the Prime games elevate the Metroid IP above Zelda in terms of popularity or iconography.
Ocarina of Time was undoubtedly the peak of the series in terms of raw popularity, innovation and influence (if not outright sales, Twilight Princess takes that award), but there's never been a significant decline in interest in Zelda, at least not proportionate to its host hardware at any given time. It's always sold well and continues to do so.
OrbitalBeard
Member
So they're not fans if puzzles aren't the main reason they play the games?
I fell in love with Zelda back in 1987. The puzzles then were different than they are now. Am I not a fan because I preferred that game?
Mind you, I still enjoy the newer games. I'm just ready for something fresh.
I would like actual puzzles in my Zelda too.
SS was borderline brain dead most of the time.
Is that because I play Layton games?
Puzzles aren't really bad per se, they're mean toward an end.
they better not rob us of an overworld like they did the last 5 times.
The last enjoyable overworld was in Majora!
Since the n64, the best Zelda imo is TP.
If they can get the epic feeling right while having a difficulty that's closer to SS it would be great.
I don't think we need to be worried about dungeons, they were shite in WW and the DS games but they were awesome in TP and pretty cool in SS.
More sidequests and an actual optional dungeon would be fantastic.
And I don't mean just the usual enemy gauntlet, I mean a real dungeon with a real boss at the end.
All hard as nail because it's optional content, you can go Champion road crazy on it too!
SS was borderline brain dead most of the time.
Is that because I play Layton games?
Puzzles aren't really bad per se, they're mean toward an end.
they better not rob us of an overworld like they did the last 5 times.
The last enjoyable overworld was in Majora!
Since the n64, the best Zelda imo is TP.
If they can get the epic feeling right while having a difficulty that's closer to SS it would be great.
I don't think we need to be worried about dungeons, they were shite in WW and the DS games but they were awesome in TP and pretty cool in SS.
More sidequests and an actual optional dungeon would be fantastic.
And I don't mean just the usual enemy gauntlet, I mean a real dungeon with a real boss at the end.
All hard as nail because it's optional content, you can go Champion road crazy on it too!
Nocturnowl
Member
The higher amount of sales* for Link's Crossbow Training over Skyward Sword backs you up.
* citation needed
NinjamicWZ
Banned
What do you like using the items to do?
Don't you go shitting on LCT!
It was a great unnecessary spinoff!
Look at Zelda 1, 2, 3 and LA.
Nearly all the items have a battle application!
The lantern in Zelda 1 was pretty fun to use.
in LA you could even combine bomb + arrow in an organic way that feels like an easter egg.
In SS, they should have gone farther.
The beetle was fun to use but barely useful in battle (thanks to the stupid puzzle design).
Heck the whip should have done damage instead of being used to stuns enemies to provide a novel way of dispatching big foes.
LegendofLex
Member
They elevated the Metroid IP above the popularity it previously had.
Only one Zelda game since Twilight Princess has sold even half of Twilight Princess's LTD.
I never felt the ability to do dungeons out of order limited how ridiculously devious dungeons could be in other non-linear Zelda games, nor did it actually limit the possibilities for using outside items to manipulate clever exploits in certain parts of the dungeon design. This is strictly an ALBW problem - a problem with the mentality the creators used when designing those dungeons.
AdventureRacing
Member
Explore, kill things it really depends what the item is. I realise most items are used in some sort of basic puzzle that you need to go further in the game but they can be used for more than that. I guess it depends what you think of as a puzzle.
Again I'm not averse to having any sort of puzzles in Zelda and I enjoy some of them. It's just that when I think of Zelda that's way down often list of things that make me enjoy the franchise.
AdventureRacing
Member
Yes and no. I mean metroid was basically a dead franchise at that point so in that sense the prime games definitely made it more popular. As far as I know though none of the prime games came close to selling as much as the older 2D games.
Take the rod of dominion in TP.
It's useless when even with just the name you could think it would allow you to control foes to cause infighting between enemies when there's a bunch.
That kind of interaction is something only Zelda games should allow you to do and they drop the ball every time
What?
Metroid Prime is the best selling Metroid game!.
It's useless when even with just the name you could think it would allow you to control foes to cause infighting between enemies when there's a bunch.
That kind of interaction is something only Zelda games should allow you to do and they drop the ball every time
What?
Metroid Prime is the best selling Metroid game!.
Neff
Member
This is a very interesting idea. The concept of an optional, possibly post-game HARDEST FUCKING ZELDA DUNGEON EVER PLEASE GOD GET ME OUT OF HERE is pretty cool. And I'm not talking about a bunch of Bloody Palace-style enemy rush caves, but an elaborate, exclusively asset-rich, unique puzzle laden, deathly difficult dungeon with enemies capable of killing you in two hits (three if you have every heart piece). Could be rad.
Well, the Wii in 2006 and the Wii in 2011 were very, very different things, which represents by far the most erratic Zelda sales activity since Ocarina. If a divisive (and ancient) game like Majora's Mask can sell 2m copies in 2015, I'd say the series is still pretty damn healthy. When Zelda U turns up, I don't expect it to have any problems going over 4m whatsoever, regardless of NX's fate.
I feel like it's baffling as well because what you do in Zelda games since ALttP is pure puzzle solving or other gameplay elements such as combat.
Dungeons are a mix of puzzles and combat, occasionally some lite platforming elements. It should be emphasized that the combat system has very little depth, it's just sort of there for the sake of variety while the main focus is always puzzle solving. The overworld consists of two parts: the metroidvania aspect of find an item to open new path and puzzles associated with collectibles such as piece of hearts. As such, I don't understand how a person who isn't fond of the puzzelda style can still play and enjoy modern Zelda games.
LegendofLex
Member
Metroid Prime outsold the original which means it handily spanked all the other 2D games (double Super Metroid).
No, the combat was there to kill you if you didn't find your way to the boss room before running out of life.
It wasn't until Nintendo started adding recovery hearts literally everywhere you could possibly want them (including boss rooms [!]) and reducing the enemy damage outputs and aggression levels to boring-tier (this happened around TWW) that combat was "just sort of there."
Why reserve this stuff for post-game?
Zelda 1 had Level 6 smack in the middle.
Zelda II had Death Mountain in the first third.
After all Super Guide allowed Nintendo to do balls hard optional levels in Mario games.
Why shouldn't Zelda have the same kind of stuffs?
NSMBW is a harder type of Mario game and the lvl9 is stuffs that makes the rest of the game looks like a walk in the park.
SS is already harder than pretty much any post MM Zelda games (I'd say it's probably it's on par with MM and harder than OoT even), so they're clearly ok with making harder games.
Heck with Hero mode they seem ok with providing a challenge to players, so go all the way and make compelling hard as nails dungeons for the post game.
On top of that designers usually love making really hard stuffs so they would even have fun making it!
Man what a letdown WW was!
you had all the combat animation and flourish you could wish for and no one to use it on but something like 5 darknuts!
In Zelda prior to WW, combat wasn't just there to be fun or whatever, it was there to kill you on your way to the boss.
And the boss at the end wasn't just there waiting to be killed in 3 hits like in TP, they wanted you dead and tried to kill you.
Heck even OoT was getting easier compared to the games before (then again transition to 3D do not make for hard games)
Unlimited Saga proved that putting the hardest level too close to the beginning usually make people give up.
You probably want your player to be safely confident before giving them the keys to the cave of Cthulu....
LegendofLex
Member
TWW still has its moments. There are plenty of places where you'll find large gangs of enemies, and they can be legit tough (much harder than most of OoT and MM) especially on Hero Mode without recovery hearts.
Almost all of these cases are optional, though, whereas you had to run into those fights in the dungeons in older Zelda games.
Well, I think a non-linear game offers interesting possibilities in terms of letting people run into the hardest level whenever they feel like they can take it on, rather than making them wait until the very end whether they want to or not.
Yeah, these parts definitely give me the biggest thrill. I don't see why a lot of the scenarios we find there couldn't be diffused across the dungeons in the main game, as just ordinary enemy encounters. And the feeling of attrition gnawing at your health as you go deeper was also something you'd find in the regular levels in traditional Zelda games.
AdventureRacing
Member
I didn't realise the first prime did so well. Having said that prime and metroid sold a very similar amount. Super metroid whilst a lot lower sold just as well as prime 2 and 3. I hardly see that as being on a whole other level.
LegendofLex
Member
In the heyday of Prime, the series was on a whole other level compared to where it was when Super came out. I'd argue that the sales of Prime 3 were depressed because the game's sales were split across both it and the Trilogy version.
With Zelda, you've seen a sustained leakage of popularity in all of the ten years since Twilight Princess - even while games taking alternative approaches to large-world fantasy action-adventure-RPG gameplay have flourished.
Never bet against Nintendo.
TheMagician
Member
I think the NX version will look a bit nicer. I know they didn't touch up Twilight Princess but the jump from GameCube to Wii was tiny, whereas the jump from Wii U to NX will likely be similar as 360 to XBONE.
60fps
1080p
And more visual effects, particles, lighting etc.
60fps
1080p
And more visual effects, particles, lighting etc.
As may be obvious aLttP was both my first game and my first Zelda. I've never broken wholesale into NES gaming. This is to give context and is why I've always spoken of 'Zelda since aLttP.'
I would say that the best dungeons in Zelda are in TP and SS. aLttP generally has weaker dungeons than the 3D games. I also think that this is in part because of what I'm talking about. That is, I don't think this only applies to aLbW although it is more pronounced there.
Also, above you and others have mentioned how low-puzzle/gadget Zelda 1 was. Yet here you want it to be as intricate as modern Zelda to disprove my point about non linearity?! You cannot have it both ways just to be able to say what you want from Zelda is better because it also does what others such as myself want just as well.
Furthermore, choice is a theoretical constraint on dungeon design. Even though Nintendo has never taken complete advantage of lack of choice or there are times it hasn't mattered (often because the non-linearity isn't full non-linearity), that doesn't disprove the point. And it has, in practice, effected Zelda. See, at the least, aLbW. Even if that were an idiosyncratic case, I'm pretty sure the game design choices that led to it are likely to be more operative than those that led to those older games.
I don't think there's anyone who wants everything puzzle-related to disappear.
Or if you meant just having criticism on it in general, what's wrong with wanting more variety in something that's such a big part of a big series?
Rethinking conventions and rethinking how they do puzzles. Aonuma talked about this stuff before and said that changing too much alienates the fans, and changing too little there's less excitement (and imo, also angers the fans).
You're likely still getting those block puzzles every now and again, but we're also going to see something new. We don't know what that new is, or how much is being rethought. There could be something more deeper awaiting us for all we know.
You're likely still getting those block puzzles every now and again, but we're also going to see something new. We don't know what that new is, or how much is being rethought. There could be something more deeper awaiting us for all we know.
Having played the Zelda series since the original on the NES back in the 80s, this is my personal take:
Zelda as a series is so incredibly safe, boring, and stale that I can't really stomach the later games anymore. WW/TP/SS are so incredibly similar that they're pretty much all the same game, with a new coat of paint and their own stickling issues.
You might be OK with the familiarity going from one Zelda to the next, fully knowing what you're getting and being OK with it. Not me. I hate what Zelda is now, and it desperately needs to be shaken up. Like, completely changed.
I don't care about anyone's claims of "stripping the identity away", the identity is so boring after nearly 20 years of the same experience over and over with each new release that they just need to wipe the slate clean.
"But it's not a Zelda game if it doesn't have xyz!"
Not true. It's still a Zelda game, just not a guaranteed bad one like if it did have xyz.
Zelda as a series is so incredibly safe, boring, and stale that I can't really stomach the later games anymore. WW/TP/SS are so incredibly similar that they're pretty much all the same game, with a new coat of paint and their own stickling issues.
You might be OK with the familiarity going from one Zelda to the next, fully knowing what you're getting and being OK with it. Not me. I hate what Zelda is now, and it desperately needs to be shaken up. Like, completely changed.
I don't care about anyone's claims of "stripping the identity away", the identity is so boring after nearly 20 years of the same experience over and over with each new release that they just need to wipe the slate clean.
"But it's not a Zelda game if it doesn't have xyz!"
Not true. It's still a Zelda game, just not a guaranteed bad one like if it did have xyz.
The inspiration for Zelda was Miyamoto's childhood exploration of fields and caves. Exploration and adventuring is what the essence of Zelda is, and dungeons are just one form that can take. When the game just predictably shuffles you from one to the next, it's no longer an adventure but a laundry list of tasks. You can only do "visit village, discover problem, head to dungeon, solve problem, repeat" so many times before the fun wears off. It's like mad libs; just swap out the item and dungeon theme for a new one 7 or 8 times over and you've got a video game.
Majora's Mask found a way to make a Zelda game that was based just as much on the things between dungeons as the dungeons themselves, and it was a stronger game for it; I think most people will probably say that the most interesting parts of the game take place outside of the dungeons. Things like Kafei and Anju and protecting the ranch from aliens are novel ideas that don't stem from a formula. No other Zelda since has tried much to explore the possibilities for gameplay outside of the field-town-dungeon formula the series has relied on, and there's such a huge wealth of potential there that's going to waste. Especially now that there's a seamless, huge world to explore. It would be a big waste of an open overworld if the game is still pretty much focused on a handful of comparatively small, closed dungeons.
Obviously dungeons are the backbone of the series and they give the games structure and challenge, so I'm not saying they should move away from them altogether. Just that they should avoid doing the ultra formulaic TP thing and instead work a little more towards what Majora's Mask did. Skyward Sword came close to this, but somehow even the novel bits of gameplay managed to feel a little formulaic and uninteresting. They didn't often give you something impacting and meaningful to see in the sidequests like MM did, instead just giving you a trinket or medal for doing some busywork.
SS did try to do something in this respect: bringing the dungeon out onto the over world. It was a great idea.
But yes, MM has the best town life in a Zelda. WW and SS both tried to have a clock town like hub and mostly failed at it.
LegendofLex
Member
I agree. I think the nature of the 3D games makes the dungeons as places ultimately more satisfying than the 2D games, and the environmental elements that make up the dungeon layouts - including puzzles that require you to use items to interact with the environment - much more appealing and memorable.
But I think there's something that's present in the 2D games that is missing from the 3D games.
I think I can have it both ways.
I don't actually want 3D Zelda games to ditch the things that 3D Zelda games already do well: that is, having great environments to provide the context for the dungeons you explore and the puzzles you solve.
What I do want 3D Zelda games to do is not lean so heavily on repeating the same patterns of item usage over and over again as the primary source of challenge and the primary barrier to progress through the dungeons. Instead, I want 3D Zelda games to reincorporate the kinds of visceral skill-based combat challenges that were present in the older games (especially the NES games) alongside the environmental puzzles that define today's 3D Zelda games.
Enemies in the older games were tough: they were liable to get in some serious damage if you didn't execute your attacks with a certain level of precision and skill. There was rarely a foolproof strategy; your arrows could very well miss, you had to position yourself just right to hit the enemy without being hit yourself, etc. And because they were tough, they'd likely wear you down over time the longer you spent in a dungeon. You'd die through attrition.
These skill-based challenges are presently mostly absent in today's Zelda games, in favor of not only environmental puzzles, but also "puzzle-battles" - battles where there's a defined strategy for every enemy that, once discovered, can be repeated across every enemy encounter without significant effort. This means that combat is often barely differentiated from the environmental puzzles. (ALBW's bosses were a step in the right direction, I think, but not quite as free-form as the LttP bosses.)
To use a specific example: If you look at the Beamos in Twilight Princess as a kind of arrow-based puzzle ("shoot the eye"), there was really nothing gained by bringing back the same enemy in the Temple of Time (especially when you consider that the Beamos weren't implemented in such a way that they were any harder to beat in that dungeon). Their presence was simply repetitive, not in the "oh man, is there any end to these enemies" sense that led to older dungeons being a struggle against attrition, but in the "haven't I done this before?" sense where there's nothing actually challenging about the presence of that enemy - it's simply there.
Because Zelda games rely mostly on environmental puzzles and combat-puzzles, there's also very little actual discovery to be had when interfacing with the dungeons. The dungeon is designed in such a way that you can only get through it by completing all the puzzles in the way the designers intended for them to be laid out. On a repeat playthrough, you'll already know all the answers and there might only be a handful of small extras to stumble upon that you missed the first time.
In older Zelda games, the creators often didn't care if you did all the puzzles in a dungeon; there'd often be shortcuts that let you bypass certain parts of a dungeon completely. You could even use keys from one dungeon in another dungeon. On a second playthrough of a dungeon, your experience might be totally different because the non-linearity of even the dungeons means you can modify your approach to the dungeon depending on the knowledge and items you've obtained (but weren't required to have to complete the dungeon).
This is something that was never attempted in ALBW, not because ALBW is non-linear, but because ALBW is beholden to the environmental puzzles and combat-puzzle formula and this limits the amount of freedom non-linearity can extend to the dungeons. Moreover, because ALBW doesn't rely on visceral combat challenges, there's no difficulty curve and so playing the dungeons out of order never spiced up the gameplay to begin with. It only really cares about implementing a series of item-based puzzles, and so its design locks the possibilities for dungeon design to the only item you're required to have to enter the dungeon.
People keep bringing up Clock Town as the best example of a hub town, but the town itself was pretty crappy (small, mostly barren). What made it work wasn't the structure itself but the schedules attached to the NPCs within the town that gave it some semblance of life, and that worked because of the three-day time limit.
I think the best way to recreate that feeling would be to "section" the game into 7 day periods, where NPCs cycle through a set schedule for each day of the week. It wouldn't be perfect, but I think it's the easiest and most realistic chance we've got of seeing anything like MM's NPC schedule ever again...
What you seem to be suggesting:
1: Environmental puzzles that have a multitude of solutions that can be achieved through various combinations of items where the developer is sure you'll have at least one combination. This seems both a lot harder to program and limiting. Choice gameplay reduces the number of options a developer has considerably.
And/or
2: Enemy gauntlets that you can use any combination of weapons to kill. This sounds like an action RPG. If that's the meat of the dungeon and the rest is aLbW style puzzles, I will be disappointed.
And/or:
3: Multiple dungeon paths. I don't like this idea. Multiple paths are rarely used well in games and split development. One good path is simply more feasible than 2 or more.
What I'm hoping this talk of revolution means:
1: A couple of tiers of interchangeable dungeons. 2-3 dungeons a tier. We're getting non linearity in some form. I hope it is this limited. Dungeons are SS/TP quality. I wouldn't mind more intense combat insofar as it does not get in the way of temple wide puzzles (think respawning enemies). Puzzles are the center pieces. New ideas but still puzzles.
2: A hub that actually rivals Clocktown and extras that actually make exploring worthwhile. This means: make social quests, heart pieces/ammo upgrades, and extra weapons/techniques more valuable and engaging. Zelda is going open world after some fashion and these things need to happen for that to be worthwhile. Also, I'd prefer less empty fields and more environments like SS had.
FomorViceroy
Neo Member
I'm real encouraged by his recent comments about the franchise. He clearly wants to do new things with it and not have it be the same thing with a fresh coat of paint. When Zelda U was first shown and it was revealed that it was more open-world, I remember people acting like that was a new concept. I always felt the first Zelda and subsequent sequels were nearly as open-world as you can get.
Neff
Member
You're undoubtedly right about MM's appeal being rooted in day-to-day trivia and minutiae. Stronger game though? It's still by far the most divisive, unorthodox game in the series, to the point where it feels more like a glorified graphic adventure/fantasy soap opera than a legit Zelda game. Speaking for myself of course, I consider Zelda one of my all-time favourite series, but every time I embark on a Majora's Mask run I struggle to motivate myself to play it. My most sustained, progressive playthrough began a whole year ago when MM3D released, and I'm still not even halfway through it. I've never beaten it and I may never beat it. Personally I think it's an ok game, but when people say they hate it, I can see where they're coming from. Where traditional Zelda expectations are concerned, Majora's Mask is not only a failure to deliver on that experience, it's a total change in direction.
James Scott
Banned
Zelda has been puzzle driven since LTTP. The original two aren't very good by today's standards.
Puzzles are fun and it's better than some random cave with a few monsters in it.
The Zelda team is still super talented at making them based on the recent games and they add a lot to Zelda.
That's not to say that Zelda shouldn't do anything other that puzzles. Majora's Mask had a focus on side quest and Wind Waker had a focus on naval based exploration and they benefit from this greatly.
Things like block puzzles are basically gone and they're usually more meaningful than just shooting a switch
