Its probably just me who suck, but I never found the second dungeon in Zelda 1.
I am simply hoping that we have an open world close to Zelda 1 on NES.
A real open world that you can explore, and where you find things by yourself. Those are the roots of the series.
I don't want an overly huge world full of nothing/stupid quests (go there, get 10 of this, kill 20 of that). The size must be good enough to keep the feeling of adventure without becoming tedious to navigate.
Having NPCs giving clues, and finding hidden dungeon entrances by myself would bring back some of those great moments I had in my childhood.
Being able to do dungeons in whatever order I want, understand things by myself. Like I got my ass kicked here/I can't reach this place, let's go explore somewhere else.
Or have a hard mode without all those texts, hints, and making the game more difficult.
I think there's a lot left to do new with the vague concept of "open world" tbh. That is where Zelda U still has the chance to impress people, even in a post-Witcher 3 world. When people complain about open world games, it's often the lack of meaningful quests and the padding in form of empty space you have to run/ride through to get from A to B. Even in a highly regarded game like Witcher 3, the world itself was pretty much non-interactive. You have your map and see some symbols on it, you go there, and it is always a bunch of red dots popping up, marking enemies that you have to defeat. Despite the vastness of the world, there's almost no sense of awe and wonder (maybe the one big exception: the swamp village, the witches and "that tree"; loved everything that happened there).
This is where Zelda U could re-define the concept of "open world". Now, this is not to be mixed up with what Skyward Sword did, because Skyward Sword is the worst 3D-Zelda-game, completely forsaking its overworld in favor of turning it into an artificial puzzle environment (and it is the Zelda that broke the "Zelda cycle", because I know many people, myself included, that ever since the initial playthrough have never touched it again). What I mean is a world that is filled with mysteries, not traditional puzzles.
For example, I loved how in Ocarina of Time there was a hint on some stone at Lake Hylia that would lead you to shooting an arrow into the morning sun, giving you access to fire arrows. That was a magical, whimsy moment. Same for when you were exploring the Lost Woods and, without being told to, find some skull kids that lead you to a sidequest with a heart piece for a reward. Another favorite moment of mine is when you, in TWW, reach Ichtusk island and you find out that it has been attack, you're too late, everything is destroyed. Despite nothing "happening", it gave me the shivers, imagining what gruesome stuff Ganondorf did here without anybody intervening.
All of those examples could me multiplied by the factor of 10 or more, to fill a vast world with meaningful secrets. And a new kind of puzzles, while we're at that. I have no interest anymore in the sort of puzzles that SS threw at you. Collecting five golden key pieces, collecting tad notes, etc. - I'm tired of those abstract, (again) artificial, "gamey" elements that take you out of the experience and remind you in such stark contrast with the beautiful environments, that you're playing but a video game. In a post-Portal era, I'd like to see the Zelda-series adopt more believable, natural puzzles (i.e. instead of pushing boulders or collecting "stuff", maybe there's a lava river and you can use ice arrows to freeze it. But you can also use your power gloves to push a giant rock into the river to stop its flow. Or you can use that gliding cloth from what we already saw to fly above the stream of lava. The point is: Have the player experiment. Not force "that one, and only ONE!" solution on us. Having only one way to solve a puzzle often leads to frustration and dead ends, punishing the player for exploring the world), as well as incorporating ingame-lore and hearsay to take as hints for more mystical puzzles (think of the fire arrows puzzle, except more elaborate, lengthier).
When I think of what kinda atmosphere I'd like to have in Zelda-games, I always think of the animated movie "The Last Unicorn". That's the kind of mix of whimsy, magical, but also dark and dangerous, brooding. So, I think there's still a lot to do with "open worlds" that has not been done, yet.
(Hi, btw., my first posting on GAF after waiting many months for activation. Kinda nervous, hope my first post didn't offend anybody :>)
Skyward Sword is the worst 3D-Zelda-game
Don't know about you but I've never played 3D Zelda for the combat. Enemies have always been too easy in every game for it to be a highlight. Only the Iron Knuckle and its variants ever really posed a fun challenge. Puzzles and exploration were always the #1 focus for me in 3D Zelda.
2D Zelda is different, I actually enjoy and look forward to the combat, just because the games are (IMO) generally harder.
If they make Zelda U more about combat than puzzles they're gonna have to seriously beef up the enemies, because they've never been much of a challenge in past 3D entries.
Evil lies
Considering Zelda Wii U seems to be wearing its Eastern influences on its sleeve (it looks like a Miyazaki film, as opposed to the originals, which were Miyamoto's take on a Western Arthurian/Peter Pan mashup), it's surprising that Aonuma would make the Western comparison.
For example, I loved how in Ocarina of Time there was a hint on some stone at Lake Hylia that would lead you to shooting an arrow into the morning sun, giving you access to fire arrows.
Some smaller enemies are fine, too, but remember traversing Hyrule field in Twilight Princess? So many enemies simply stand around inmidst of nowhere, and it doesn't matter if you fight them or not. And even if you decide to fight them, it's no challenge at all. This is filler design of the worst kind.
Compare to Zelda 1, where you're liable to be killed if you wander the overworld carelessly, or Zelda II, where it actually matters if you fight enemies since doing so makes you stronger. (This is technically also true of Zelda 1, where you need money to buy a lot of the better equipment, and you only get money from enemies.)
There's an actual risk vs. reward mechanism at play when the enemies are actually threats that can and will kill you. This no longer exists in modern Zelda, so the combat feels like pointless filler.
I think there's a lot left to do new with the vague concept of "open world" tbh. That is where Zelda U still has the chance to impress people, even in a post-Witcher 3 world. When people complain about open world games, it's often the lack of meaningful quests and the padding in form of empty space you have to run/ride through to get from A to B. Even in a highly regarded game like Witcher 3, the world itself was pretty much non-interactive. You have your map and see some symbols on it, you go there, and it is always a bunch of red dots popping up, marking enemies that you have to defeat. Despite the vastness of the world, there's almost no sense of awe and wonder (maybe the one big exception: the swamp village, the witches and "that tree"; loved everything that happened there).
This is where Zelda U could re-define the concept of "open world". Now, this is not to be mixed up with what Skyward Sword did, because Skyward Sword is the worst 3D-Zelda-game, completely forsaking its overworld in favor of turning it into an artificial puzzle environment (and it is the Zelda that broke the "Zelda cycle", because I know many people, myself included, that ever since the initial playthrough have never touched it again). What I mean is a world that is filled with mysteries, not traditional puzzles.
For example, I loved how in Ocarina of Time there was a hint on some stone at Lake Hylia that would lead you to shooting an arrow into the morning sun, giving you access to fire arrows. That was a magical, whimsy moment. Same for when you were exploring the Lost Woods and, without being told to, find some skull kids that lead you to a sidequest with a heart piece for a reward. Another favorite moment of mine is when you, in TWW, reach Ichtusk island and you find out that it has been attack, you're too late, everything is destroyed. Despite nothing "happening", it gave me the shivers, imagining what gruesome stuff Ganondorf did here without anybody intervening.
All of those examples could me multiplied by the factor of 10 or more, to fill a vast world with meaningful secrets. And a new kind of puzzles, while we're at that. I have no interest anymore in the sort of puzzles that SS threw at you. Collecting five golden key pieces, collecting tad notes, etc. - I'm tired of those abstract, (again) artificial, "gamey" elements that take you out of the experience and remind you in such stark contrast with the beautiful environments, that you're playing but a video game. In a post-Portal era, I'd like to see the Zelda-series adopt more believable, natural puzzles (i.e. instead of pushing boulders or collecting "stuff", maybe there's a lava river and you can use ice arrows to freeze it. But you can also use your power gloves to push a giant rock into the river to stop its flow. Or you can use that gliding cloth from what we already saw to fly above the stream of lava. The point is: Have the player experiment. Not force "that one, and only ONE!" solution on us. Having only one way to solve a puzzle often leads to frustration and dead ends, punishing the player for exploring the world), as well as incorporating ingame-lore and hearsay to take as hints for more mystical puzzles (think of the fire arrows puzzle, except more elaborate, lengthier).
When I think of what kinda atmosphere I'd like to have in Zelda-games, I always think of the animated movie "The Last Unicorn". That's the kind of mix of whimsy, magical, but also dark and dangerous, brooding. So, I think there's still a lot to do with "open worlds" that has not been done, yet.
(Hi, btw., my first posting on GAF after waiting many months for activation. Kinda nervous, hope my first post didn't offend anybody :>)
"...As far as what you can do with such a vast field to explore -- as soon as those boundaries are removed -- it means you can enter any area from any direction so the puzzle solving in this game begins the moment the player starts to think about where they want to go, how they will get there, and what they will do when they arrive. This is a clean break from the conventions of past games in the Zelda series, where you had to follow a set path and play through the scenario in the right order. I believe this departure will create opportunities for new gameplay that have not been experienced in previous Zelda games."
Evil lies
Skyloft and all of its characters were so fantastic.
Exactly. But just to be clear: I wouldn't want a Zelda-game to put its focus on combat. Rather, I want a Zelda-game that focuses on player agenda, giving me choice and options. Make enemies tough, but also give me the option to not fight at all (that's what makes games like Deus Ex or Metal Gear Solid so great).
I think TP is the best Zelda but I would agree that SS got the overworld and challenges between dungeons correct whereas TP sometimes stumbled in giving you meaningful tasks. I enjoyed the light bug hunt when it goes to Lake Hylia and traveling on top of a warthog to reach a prison in the Gerudo Desert. However, for every one of the good ones, you also had a boring one like hunting for statues to reach the City in the Sky or catching a certain type of fish to get a scent to Snowpeak.As a fan of Twilight Princess, after replaying the HD version there is no way it's better than Skyward Sword. While it has its own minor annoyances, the game is just much more visually interesting and fun to play. It has padding but I mostly found said padding to be more fun and engaging than Twilight Princess'. Honestly it's probably the most underrated game I've ever played going by all the negativity I see it get online, despite the reviews being glowing.
The reviews got it right.
I think TP is the best Zelda but I would agree that SS got the overworld and challenges between dungeons correct whereas TP sometimes stumbled in giving you meaningful tasks.
The trailer at E3 is going to flip wigs.
By which you mean you wouldn't want Zelda to just become a series of battle arenas where you only progress by killing all enemies, right?
SS didn't really have those lulls except for the odd case here and there. What it did with the overworld was pretty fantastic too. You hopped on a boat and explored a Sand Sea for christsakes! How often do you do that in games? They created some inventive scenarios.
Give it traditional controls and then we'll talk.
Well, right now the Zelda-series is a combination of battle arenas with forced fighting (aka boss fights) and insignificant battles against minor enemies that are more of an annoying, more than anything else. I´d like both to change, see the rest of my posting you're quoting. No more death pit battles, no more filler battles. Option, option, option - that is the keyword I want to apply to the Zelda-series
For real. This thread motivated me to replay Skyward Sword, and while I think the motion is useful it really doesn't mesh with my play "style." I like to lounge on the couch which makes it hard to play with the motion control which typically needs to have a proper orientation. This is really obvious with the bird control.
SECRET SAUCE CONFIRMED
You can have a open world with different path's which having large views. It doesn't have to be open as wow or xenoblade. I mean, think zelda lttp in 3D
Can't wait! Hopefully we won't have to wait too long to see some gameplay video.
TBH, I'm not sure what you're asking for - options not to engage in battles at all - is totally realistic without some kind of Deus Ex level stealth/non-lethal takedown mechanic, something I don't see the series doing. I could see more options a la Zelda 1 where you could bomb your way through walls to get past a lot of the arena fights or a la Zelda II where you could trick your way through locked doors, though.
I don't see the series sacrificing simplicity (i.e., adding more and more complex rules and mechanics) for the sake of freedom; I see the series using simplicity (i.e., letting players exploit the already simple rules and mechanics) as a pathway to freedom.
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.
It doesn't have to be to the level of Deus Ex (though I wouldn't oppose that!). But simply giving the player the choice how to proceed the adventure. There are certain fixed events that have to be reached and accomplished. Like, say, defeating Ganondorf. When you're face to face with the greatmaster of evil, you don't require dialogue options or the option to poison him beforehand. That is the final showdown and it is good versus evil.
But I'd like to have more options for most of the remainder of the game. Especially for an open world-Zelda. You're in a forest, no map, nobody tells you where to go. You chose a direction. You encounter a dark nut-like enemy. You fight it, but its too strong, so you circle it and proceed. In another direction, you would have found the aforementioned mountain cave. In yet another direction, you'd reach a lake area where beautiful mermaids welcome you and teach you how to swim. Sometimes you see monsters appear on the horizon or just the dark silhouettes of two little bokoblins patroulling and having a loud, fun chat with each other. Sometimes you fight them when you see the chance, other times you avoid them meeting with you, because it's not your current goal to fight them or because you know there might be a bigger predator around. (you don't happen to know the anime "Hai to Gensou no Grimgar", do you?)
The areas in WW were not optional and I'd say they were more manageable than most scenarios I encountered in OoT or MM.
I mean the heart as a reward to the player is kinda important, it's good to reward the player for beating a foe that could be challenging with a bit more life.
You shouldn't have to rely on your sword (and only your sword) to defeat a specific enemy.
I think we can agree however it makes no sense to give access to this at the very beginning of the game.
The very end is probably pushing it a bit but for the 3/5th of the game it could fit nicely.
I always think of the animated movie "The Last Unicorn". That's the kind of mix of whimsy, magical, but also dark and dangerous, brooding. So, I think there's still a lot to do with "open worlds" that has not been done, yet.
(Hi, btw., my first posting on GAF after waiting many months for activation. Kinda nervous, hope my first post didn't offend anybody :>)
But, truthfully, you're also describing the current structure in Zelda games - you don't have to engage most enemies, if you don't want to. The caveat, of course, is that current Zelda games simply pepper enemies around the world for the sake of having enemies, not because the existence of the enemies makes the overworld challenging.
I think a comparison to Xenoblade Chronicles X might be more appropriate. There are enemies everywhere. Some of them are easy to take on from the beginning, some of them are tougher and should be avoided until you're more powerful/better at exploiting the battle mechanics. You have to be aware of your surroundings even when just fighting smaller enemies, because a larger enemy could pop up if your battles aggro it, or if night falls and it suddenly shows up. You could probably reach most of the map without fighting a single enemy if you really wanted to, but you'll be making things a lot easier on yourself if you fight monsters and get stuff that you can use to buy better gear.
There are some rough non-optional enemy gauntlets in TWW, but they aren't found until the end of the game when you're doing the Triforce hunt. Generally in dungeons, though, you might fight 1-2 tough enemies at a time, tops. Compare to older Zelda games which were full of rooms with various mixes of enemies which couldn't be mowed down as easily.
As for the OoT-TWW comparison: You could be attacked by as many as 10+ enemies at a time in TWW. In OoT, you might have to fight two at once, and the harder ones would ignore you if you weren't targeting them even if you were fighting more than one. That's what I mean when I say TWW has more legit tough moments than OoT.
Yes, but now the heart is something that you find everywhere, even in the grass and jars in the middle of a fight, without actually beating any of the enemies. In OG Zelda, hearts were a reward you could almost never count on finding unless you knew how to exploit the counters, and you could only get it from killing enemies.
This was never the problem with SS. Have you actually tried fighting enemies with items other than a sword? It's both possible and really really fun.
The problem with SS is that enemy aggression was generally poor. Enemies sat there exposing their weak spot before attacking. This is really a repeat of what past 3D Zeldas were generally already doing, but the degree of precision required from MotionPlus made the "they're waiting for you to attack" element that much more prominent since it was implemented in a much more forgiving way.
Why not? I love trying to make it to the far corners of the map in LoZ with three hearts, the green tunic, and the wooden sword. I look forward to trying to beat Level 6 with that setup one day. If that's not possible, what's the point of making the game non-linear in the first place?
One of the first things I did when playing Skyrim was go in the exact opposite direction the game was telling me to go. I promptly got my ass handed to me by vampire warlocks.
Hm, the problem with the current Zelda structure is that you do have to fight most enemies, because only then will, magically, appear a small key, or magically the doors will re-open and badly, game-y designed stuff like that. I'd like to do away with all of that stuff. Find a way to incorporate puzzles that fit in the context. See Portal.
For real. This thread motivated me to replay Skyward Sword, and while I think the motion is useful it really doesn't mesh with my play "style." I like to lounge on the couch which makes it hard to play with the motion control which typically needs to have a proper orientation. This is really obvious with the bird control.
Ironically the split nature of the wiimote and the nunchuck actually facilitates this but the motion does not.
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.