Support NeoGAF

[bachikarn]

My second playthrough was while I was in bed sick. I lounged through the entire game with minimal effort. The only thing that broke it somewhat was the bomb rolling, which you actually have to work with the Wii remote a bit to do that. But combat, traversal, aiming, and so on... totally fine and easy to do while "lounging." Same for Twilight Princess.

I dunno. I think there could be a fluctuation somehow, for some reason between individual consoles, like lighting/room size/and other variables that might manipulate the experience. I've never had any trouble with the motion controls but other people swear they're broken. I played most Wii games like I did any other game or with any other traditional controller and ran into little issue.

I was definitely having issues last night. I could do forward and side slashes fine, but I needed to sit up with proper posture to get the diagonal slashes to work right.

Bird controls would also get screwy. Sometimes if I tilted to the left too much, it would start going right.

Maybe I'm doing something wrong. Maybe it's cos I'm too far away. Regardless, one of the main philosophical advantages of motion control is that it was supposed to be more intuitive and simple, and I don't find that to be the case with Skyward Sword. I think when it is working right, the sword control does offer new ans interesting possibilities, but one of the reasons IMO Nintendo games are so great is that they are tightly controlled. I don't think that is the case here.

 

[DiracSea]

I
Alternatively, if you really don't have to engage the enemies in the first place, you get a situation where the most expedient thing to do is always just run past the enemies to the chest/the door. Unless, as I said, Zelda starts focusing much more on stealth, which I think would be a really really bad idea.

Yeah, I guess this is where we will disagree Tbh I'm of the opinion that many games would benefit from deeper stealth mechanics. Stealth is good - and I'm not even a fan of pure stealth-games like Splinter Cell or MGS! Stealth mechanics are like a chain effect, causing the entire game to undergo a certain change. Enemy behavior suddenly matters. Observing the environment transcends a mere "oh, it's so beautiful". And it allows for gameplay options, for player agenda.

Let's not forget that Zelda-games always had stealth segments, be it reaching Zelda in castle Hyrule, or the Deku palace in MM, or the (terrible) stealth passage at the beginning of TWW.
Of course, you have to give the player some motivation to fight these enemies nevertheless. But instead of forcing the battle (death pit scenario), make it by adding a reward to every single enemy. Imagine every enemy in a Zelda-game to be a boss from Dark Souls (I'm talking about the unique design, not the difficulty!). Every monster you encounter would be part of a myth, of a legend, there'd be a story to unravel. And often times, completely unraveling that story would demand beating the monster. Other times, it could be more of a practical thing, like, instead of being forced to circle the dangerous spot, you remove the danger once and for all times.

 

[LegendofLex]

Yeah, I guess this is where we will disagree Tbh I'm of the opinion that many games would benefit from deeper stealth mechanics. Stealth is good - and I'm not even a fan of pure stealth-games like Splinter Cell or MGS! Stealth mechanics are like a chain effect, causing the entire game to undergo a certain change. Enemy behavior suddenly matters. Observing the environment transcends a mere "oh, it's so beautiful". And it allows for gameplay options, for player agenda.

Let's not forget that Zelda-games always had stealth segments, be it reaching Zelda in castle Hyrule, or the Deku palace in MM, or the (terrible) stealth passage at the beginning of TWW.

I'm always relieved when these sections are over and I never have to see them for the remainder of the game.

Of course, you have to give the player some motivation to fight these enemies nevertheless. But instead of forcing the battle (death pit scenario), make it by adding a reward to every single enemy. Imagine every enemy in a Zelda-game to be a boss from Dark Souls (I'm talking about the unique design, not the difficulty!). Every monster you encounter would be part of a myth, of a legend, there'd be a story to unravel. And often times, completely unraveling that story would demand beating the monster. Other times, it could be more of a practical thing, like, instead of being forced to circle the dangerous spot, you remove the danger once and for all times.

Dark Souls is kind of a bad example, since bosses in Souls also (and always) take place in death pit arenas where you walk in at the end of a level (sometimes smack in the middle of a level, too) and a fog gate appears that won't let you out.

Of course, lots of bosses in Souls games are also optional and you can navigate between areas in a myriad of ways, sometimes skipping entire areas.

And lots of the bosses in Zelda games have a kind of story to them, it just isn't necessarily one that's explicitly conveyed via text at any point in the game.

 

[brandonh83]

Maybe I'm doing something wrong. Maybe it's cos I'm too far away. Regardless, one of the main philosophical advantages of motion control is that it was supposed to be more intuitive and simple, and I don't find that to be the case with Skyward Sword. I think when it is working right, the sword control does offer new ans interesting possibilities, but one of the reasons IMO Nintendo games are so great is that they are tightly controlled. I don't think that is the case here.

Despite loving the controls it's hard to disagree with what you're saying here.

 

[takriel]

Aonuma:

 

[Maneauleau]

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 :>)

Great post, welcome on GAF!

 

[Nerrel]

Maybe I'm doing something wrong. Maybe it's cos I'm too far away. Regardless, one of the main philosophical advantages of motion control is that it was supposed to be more intuitive and simple, and I don't find that to be the case with Skyward Sword. I think when it is working right, the sword control does offer new ans interesting possibilities, but one of the reasons IMO Nintendo games are so great is that they are tightly controlled. I don't think that is the case here.

It helps a lot if you keep the remote pointed at the sensor bar. It's hard to tell when you are because there's no IR cursor, but if calibration drifts and you aim at the bar you'll notice the sword immediately snap back into place. It still drifts when swinging quickly in succession and there's really nothing you can do about that; the sensor takes a few seconds to settle after fast swings. The bamboo cutting minigame is infuriating because of it; how in the hell are you supposed to chop when the calibration fails so badly that you end up swinging vertically by the end?

The technology wasn't really advanced enough but the idea is great. It worked really well in Red Steel 2 with no calibration issues, and I'm not sure why Skyward Sword ended up so much less consistent. I wish the remote + had a magnetometer to stop the drifting. It's frustrating that the gamepad, which is only used for simple aiming, has more advanced motion than the remote ever did.

That said, once you work out the quirks and learn to point at the sensor bar it works well enough. I'd love to see the controls revisited someday if technology ever makes it possible to play without issues, but I don't think it's likely.

 

[DiracSea]

I'm always relieved when these sections are over and I never have to see them for the remainder of the game.

I don't like these sections, either. Just saying that stealth is not new to the Zelda-series. And including GOOD stealth mechanics wouldn't be bad

Dark Souls is kind of a bad example, since bosses in Souls also (and always) take place in death pit arenas where you walk in at the end of a level (sometimes smack in the middle of a level, too) and a fog gate appears that won't let you out.

Yeah, I only picked them as an example for their unique aesthetics.

Some Zelda-enemies might have a story to them (certainly not the 1000s of meaningless Bokoblins), but then it's too subtle. There's an important balance to be found between hitting the player on the head with it and no player realizing he even missed something.

 

[LegendofLex]

I don't like these sections, either. Just saying that stealth is not new to the Zelda-series. And including GOOD stealth mechanics wouldn't be bad

I'm struggling to imagine how you'd add stealth mechanics that aren't just a copy+paste of those other stealth segments without adding more of that complexity I was talking about earlier. (In particular, without cover-based mechanics and/or non-lethal combat mechanics.)

Some Zelda-enemies might have a story to them (certainly not the 1000s of meaningless Bokoblins), but then it's too subtle. There's an important balance to be found between hitting the player on the head with it and no player realizing he even missed something.

Well, I mean, most Souls enemies just feel like bland enemies to me, even if there's a rich lore beneath most of everything.

 

[Falchion]

If Zelda took a few pages out of the Witcher book that would be a ton of fun.

 

[DiracSea]

I'm struggling to imagine how you'd add stealth mechanics that aren't just a copy+paste of those other stealth segments without adding more of that complexity I was talking about earlier. (In particular, without cover-based mechanics and/or non-lethal combat mechanics.)

Do you know "Mini Ninjas"? In that game you can hide yourself in any patch of high grass. Troops of enemy samurai would walk past you unnoticed. It's not complicated at all, just hold one button. I think adding proper sight notification in Zelda-games for enemies would go a long way. And as I said earlier, making current Zelda more complex wouldn't be a bad thing.

Well, I mean, most Souls enemies just feel like bland enemies to me, even if there's a rich lore beneath most of everything.

I have only partly played DS2, I'm not a big fan or know a lot about the franchise. But the boss design is fantastic and I'd love a Zelda-game where every enemy you encounter has a unique design. For example the finale of SS where you literally have to fight yourself through hundreds of Bokoblins is maybe the worst scene in any Zelda-game. It's the opposite of what I wish for

 

[friskykillface]

MMO Zelda for NX
regular zelda for wii u



the killer app for NX is revealed

 

[Jonneh3003]

MMO Zelda for NX
regular zelda for wii u



the killer app for NX is revealed

How would being an MMO even work for Zelda? How would it make it more enjoyable?

 

[georly]

How would being an MMO even work for Zelda? How would it make it more enjoyable?

It wouldn't be a zelda game, that's for sure. Woof.

 

[crooked spin]

How would being an MMO even work for Zelda? How would it make it more enjoyable?

Making your way through OoT's water temple with 100 strangers doesn't sound fun to you?

 

[Ganondorfo]

Do people expect a new revolutionary Zelda like OOT was to A Link to the past? I just want a new adventure with Link with new dungeons/temples and cool bosses and and epic boss fight and memorable music like Lost Woods/Gerudo Valley, nothing more.

Its difficult to blow people minds off after a while, every franchise has to deal with that.

 

[LegendofLex]

How would being an MMO even work for Zelda? How would it make it more enjoyable?

I mean, it'd probably work more or less the same way, just with a much larger palette of items/skills/weapons/armor/whatever, more dungeons and events (and constant updates + expansions), and lots of other players also running around that you can interact with or play with sometimes if you want to.

 

[ZiggyPalffyLA]

Do you know "Mini Ninjas"? In that game you can hide yourself in any patch of high grass. Troops of enemy samurai would walk past you unnoticed. It's not complicated at all, just hold one button. I think adding proper sight notification in Zelda-games for enemies would go a long way. And as I said earlier, making current Zelda more complex wouldn't be a bad thing.

For that to even matter, enemies in Zelda games would need to be more than arrow/sword sponges though. Each enemy would need to pose an actual threat and have its own unique attack pattern. I don't ever see that happening.

 

[TwEE-N-Toast]

I want the game to be filthy with violent enemies but give people away to avoid it if they want. Give us the options to allocate experience points and money.

Toss all your money and EX towards learning new moves and buying weapons, and fight your way across an enemy filled field and gain combat related rewards and quests. Or maybe put that EX/money towards buying a new mount that lets you leap hundreds of feet in the air and or cling to the sides of cliff walls and at the same time discover rewards and quests that you wouldn't be able to by just fighting your way across that same field.


The mechanics for whatever they do should feel fun on their on.

 

[brandonh83]

Zelda doesn't need "exp" it's always did a great job at implementing new combat moves through organic progression.

 

[AntMurda]

Zelda doesn't need "exp" it's always did a great job at implementing new combat moves through organic progression.

But it was really fun on Zelda 2. So was magic.

 

[brandonh83]

But it was really fun on Zelda 2. So was magic.

I actually forgot about Zelda II. I still don't think it's necessary, I like how you just get upgrades through item acquisition and whatnot. I feel that works better, but hey.

 

[TwEE-N-Toast]

Zelda doesn't need "exp" it's always did a great job at implementing new combat moves through organic progression.

Doesn't need it no. Doesn't need puzzles either. Nothing is necessary. It can be a bare bones combat and maze filled arcade like game.

 

[brandonh83]

Doesn't need it no. Doesn't need puzzles either. Nothing is necessary. It can be a bare bones combat and maze filled arcade like game.

I can't get behind this. Puzzles have been a staple since the beginning. A spinoff could be what you described, though.

By this logic no game needs anything in particular. COD doesn't need guns! But that's what they are, and I imagine will continue to be. If a Zelda game were made without some form of puzzle solving, it would largely be considered a negative.

 

[LegendofLex]

I can't get behind this. Puzzles have been a staple since the beginning. A spinoff could be what you described, though.

If by "puzzles" you mean:

- Burn random trees until you find a secret staircase
- Bomb random walls until one of them crumbles
- Use the Raft at one of the two docks in the overworld
- EASTMOST PENNINSULA IS THE SECRET
- DODONGO DISLIKES SMOKE
- WALK INTO THE WATERFALL
- THERE'S A SECRET IN THE TIP OF THE NOSE
- AIM AT THE EYES OF GOHMA
- DIGDOGGER HATES CERTAIN KIND OF SOUND
- THERE ARE SECRETS WHERE FAIRIES DON'T LIVE
- SPECTACLE ROCK IS AN ENTRANCE TO DEATH
and, lest we forget
- GRUMBLE,GRUMBLE..

 

[brandonh83]

If by "puzzles" you mean:

Like I said, some type of puzzle-solving. That can take many forms. But Zelda isn't just walk around and look at environments. They're fun because the dungeons and environments are engaging from a gameplay standpoint. Removing stuff like this takes away any thought or engagement between game and player, and you're suddenly not looking at anything that resembles a Legend of Zelda game.

I have zero interest in a Zelda game that takes away virtually every reason why I love the series, especially for the sake of change.

 

[LegendofLex]

Like I said, some type of puzzle-solving. That can take many forms. But Zelda isn't just walk around and look at environments. They're fun because the dungeons and environments are engaging from a gameplay standpoint.

The dungeons and environments in the early Zelda games, up to and including A Link to the Past (and maybe even Link's Awakening), were basically "bare bones combat and maze filled arcade like games."

Maze gameplay, which most people don't even understand today because it's no longer really a thing, does not necessarily exclude the kinds of puzzles I described above. Maze games often require the player to figure out the specific requirement to access a certain part of the maze - i.e. solve puzzles.

Modern Zelda games took out the maze-like design and replaced it with even more of these kinds of requirements ("puzzles"). Now instead of dungeons being about surviving the traps and dangers and enemies and finding the heart of the maze, Zelda is about using the right item(s) to get past a series of linear obstacles.

 

[spekkeh]

Fuck yeah, climb towers to reveal the map

Shuggananas
Banned
Yesterday, 01:55 PM


Based mod.

 

[brandonh83]

Modern Zelda games took out the maze-like design and replaced it with even more of these kinds of requirements ("puzzles").

Right, and it felt like a natural evolution to me. After the first two, Link to the Past was made and began adding puzzles. It spiraled from there. If you're going back to the game design philosophy of a game that came out 30 years ago, then sure. When you go from an archaic, top-down type of layout to a 3D space, the types of puzzles and challenges are going to change naturally to fit that arena of game design.

I'm not so much arguing with what you're saying, rather that I don't want a Zelda game with less thought put into the design and as such, less thought that the player has to put into it. Basically I don't want Zelda to be dumbed down.

 

[Bacon_Boss]

I feel like a standing jump and more prominent roll would radically change this series. Verticality without a hook shot would kind of blow me away in Zelda

 

[Ninjimbo]

The dungeons and environments in the early Zelda games, up to and including A Link to the Past (and maybe even Link's Awakening), were basically "bare bones combat and maze filled arcade like games."

Maze gameplay, which most people don't even understand today because it's no longer really a thing, does not necessarily exclude the kinds of puzzles I described above. Maze games often require the player to figure out the specific requirement to access a certain part of the maze - i.e. solve puzzles.

Modern Zelda games took out the maze-like design and replaced it with even more of these kinds of requirements ("puzzles"). Now instead of dungeons being about surviving the traps and dangers and enemies and finding the heart of the maze, Zelda is about using the right item(s) to get past a series of linear obstacles.

I don't understand. Are you saying the dungeons aren't maze-like anymore? Because SS seemed way more maze like in design than any of the other Zeldas.

 

[brandonh83]

I don't understand. Are you saying the dungeons aren't maze-like anymore? Because SS seemed way more maze like in design than any of the other Zeldas.

Also, this is true. It's still had a maze-like approach. Again it's because the viewpoint has changed and it's easier to "see" a layout when it's a 2D top-down perspective; where you can see it in a "grid-like" way. With 3D games and visuals it's much more exquisite, yet not too different in concept.

 

[TwEE-N-Toast]

I can't get behind this. Puzzles have been a staple since the beginning. A spinoff could be what you described, though.

I'm cool with an all puzzle spin off like Zak and Wiki for those who like that sort of thing.

If a Zelda game were made without some form of puzzle solving, it would largely be considered a negative.

Yeah maybe. But some think slowly removing all other aspects of Zelda and only leaving puzzles is a negative as well.

I have zero interest in a Zelda game that takes away virtually every reason why I love the series, especially for the sake of change.

Yes, now you know how older Zelda fans feel.


We'll compromise. How about an all action, experience point heavy Zelda game, that comes with a free Zelda themed rubiks cube?

 

[brandonh83]

Yeah maybe. But some think slowly removing all other aspects of Zelda and only leaving puzzles is a negative as well.

I've never nor would ever suggest that to happen. Zelda isn't just puzzles.

Yes, now you know how older Zelda fans feel.

Being 33, I'm not exactly a new fan and I love the direction it has went in. It's one of the few series that has remained at a mostly consistent quality to me, and they still have everything I personally loved about the series from day one.

 

[LegendofLex]

Right, and it felt like a natural evolution to me. After the first two, Link to the Past was made and began adding puzzles. It spiraled from there. If you're going back to the game design philosophy of a game that came out 30 years ago, then sure. When you go from an archaic, top-down type of layout to a 3D space, the types of puzzles and challenges are going to change naturally to fit that arena of game design.

I'm not so much arguing with what you're saying, rather that I don't want a Zelda game with less thought put into the design and as such, less thought that the player has to put into it. Basically I don't want Zelda to be dumbed down.

I'd argue that puzzle-Zelda is actually lazier design, since you set a linear course for everything the player needs to do in a dungeon and lead them by the hand from puzzle to puzzle, from start to finish.

Maze design is much harder since you have to design the map layout itself in such a way that it will thwart players. Where do you start making players feel like they've been turned around? How do you make the rooms feel distinctive enough that players can recognize rooms they've already visited and paths they've already crossed, but not so distinctive that it's obvious where to go next? Where do you hide the map so the layout isn't given away too soon? You have to pace the enemies in such a way that there's a certain level of skill involved just to not die by the time you get to the end.

With puzzles, all you need to do is set up a cue to signal to the players that they can use their item to proceed. And you can reuse the same cues, over and over and over again.

I don't understand. Are you saying the dungeons aren't maze-like anymore? Because SS seemed way more maze like in design than any of the other Zeldas.

The dungeons in the first game were literally called labyrinths. The map layouts were designed so you could get lost easily, and the traps and enemies were designed to kill you (and send you back to the beginning). Beating the dungeon was an exercise in figuring out the right path through the maze and not getting your ass kicked by enemies on the way.

The dungeons in SS are the most linear the series has ever had. And the map layouts are designed to be as streamlined as possible precisely to avoid players getting lost or having to go through the level again. If you read the Iwata Asks interviews, the development team was very concerned with not making players feel lost.

 

[brandonh83]

With puzzles, all you need to do is set up a cue to signal to the players that they can use their item to proceed. And you can reuse the same cues, over and over and over again.

It's still easy to get lost sometimes and I'd argue there's nothing too much more difficult about the labyrinth design either. Hell the 3D Zelda game dungeons have me in them for much longer than the 2D ones. But that's incredibly anecdotal.

 

[Dimmle]

Yes, now you know how older Zelda fans feel.

We'll compromise. How about an all action, experience point heavy Zelda game, that comes with a free Zelda themed rubiks cube?

I wouldn't construe any fans' reasons for valuing the series as less legitimate than others' but the number of Zelda games with a greater emphasis on combat over puzzles is what, two? And we haven't seen such a game since 1987? So how long have those older fans longing for an action-heavy, puzzle-light Zelda felt left out in the cold?

 

[spekkeh]

33 as well, but zelda has never been about mazes or puzzles to me. That's just gravy to an adventure. It's the adventure that characterizes a Zelda.

 

[Dimmle]

I personally gravitate to Zelda for the surreal tone and Twin Peaks-ish oddball casts that have been an unspoken staple since the SNES.

 

[LegendofLex]

I wouldn't construe any fans' reasons for valuing the series as less legitimate than others' but the number of Zelda games with a greater emphasis on combat over puzzles is what, two? And we haven't seen such a game since 1987? So how long have those older fans longing for an action-heavy, puzzle-light Zelda felt left out in the cold?

tbh, I never played the NES Zeldas until about 2010-11. Nostalgia is a non-factor for me.

After playing them, I can see why nobody plays Zelda anymore and everyone plays Skyrim instead. There's an audience of 30 million people that is just fine with the kinds of stuff Zelda did on NES that's still being done in Skyrim but isn't being done in modern Zelda.

I don't think they'd complain if Skyrim's shit puzzles were replaced with Zelda-style ones and the combat had the more arcade-y action of Zelda games.

And I don't think Nintendo would or should care if everyone that currently plays Zelda stopped if they can get more players by beating Skyrim at copying the stuff people liked about Zelda in the first place. After all, they didn't care that their direction with modern Zelda led to most of the people that previously played Zelda not coming back for new games. (I'm of course exaggerating. They did and do care, or Zelda U wouldn't be open world.)

 

[brandonh83]

33 as well, but zelda has never been about mazes or puzzles to me. That's just gravy to an adventure. It's the adventure that characterizes a Zelda.

It's the overall adventure, yeah. I'm just saying that what mostly segregates Zelda from others like it is the attention given between player and environment. When playing Zelda, if I don't care about what's in that treasure chest up on that cliff edge that I can't reach, then it's not Zelda to me. I have to feel a sense of interest in everything around me. If I don't, to me, they've failed to make a Zelda game.

Puzzles, then, give a sense of importance to the environments that comprise a dungeon. They can exist in many forms, but point being, again, if I don't feel an interest or connection to my surroundings from a basic interest and gameplay perspective, I don't feel like it would be a proper Zelda game. Puzzles and exploration 100% play a role in this. The fun thing about is trying to figure out how to reach that treasure chest up on that ledge. That's technically a puzzle, as you're actively trying to figure something out.

This is just personally how I feel and what I need for Zelda to be. It can be changed around and take a variety of shapes as long as it doesn't lose sight of what makes the series unique and separate from others. Otherwise you have something a lot more generic.

 

[jahasaja]

How would being an MMO even work for Zelda? How would it make it more enjoyable?

Easy, everybody is Link but only you are the REAL Link...

 

[TwEE-N-Toast]

I'd argue that puzzle-Zelda is actually lazier design, since you set a linear course for everything the player needs to do in a dungeon and lead them by the hand from puzzle to puzzle, from start to finish.

Yes, it feels like a giant linear Rube Goldberg machine, and instead of being automatic all the way to the end it stops every few seconds and you have to manual tip the cup/ flip the switch/ push the ball to get the machine rolling once more. It never fell very deep to me.

So how long have those older fans longing for an action-heavy, puzzle-light Zelda felt left out in the cold?

Long enough, to grow callous and cruel.

 

[Dimmle]

I don't think Skyrim does 30 million solely because of an open world design that it didn't pioneer. If Zelda intends to ape Bethesda's success, and I don't believe it does, there would have to be wider changes than level design.

 

[LegendofLex]

I don't think Skyrim does 30 million solely because of the open world design that it did not pioneer.

I don't think it does 30 million solely because of that, either.

But I don't think it does 30 million without that.

 

[Dimmle]

For starters, Skyrim has an aesthetic and perspective that appeals to a broader modern audience. I'm not sure Skyrim players would hop on board the Zelda train were Zelda to merely return to its more open-ended roots.

 

[Myriadis]

I like to see the reaction to that new stuff. I remember a thread where people complained about the baseball minigame in ALBW because it's "not Zelda". Give me the meltdowns!

Edit: Ha, there it is,from 2014.

I see Nintendo is desperately trying to make Zelda more appealing in Japan with the baseball minigame.

Personally, the baseball minigame compromises the integrity of the Zelda series. Might as well add a racing car mini game.

 

[BumblebeeCody]

Hope so. Zelda hasn't been that good lately. I have a good feeling this is going to be an awesome Zelda game.

 

[TwEE-N-Toast]

For starters, Skyrim has an aesthetic and perspective that appeals to a broader modern audience. I'm not sure Skyrim players would hop on board the Zelda train were Zelda to merely return to its more open-ended roots.

Thats part of the reason I think Zelda should stick to more traditional Fantasy elements. Less trains, cheerleader outfits and David Bowie villains. More tolkien and folklore.

 

[LegendofLex]

For starters, Skyrim has an aesthetic and perspective that appeals to a broader modern audience. I'm not sure Skyrim players would hop on board the Zelda train were Zelda to merely return to its more open-ended roots.

Sure, but in the 80s Zelda was also styled in the way that had the broadest appeal given the audience of the time. And I'm talking about the gameplay in addition to the graphics and visual style. There's no reason why a Zelda that's faithful to its roots would be beholden to any particular visual style aside from whatever the conventions of fantasy media are at the time.

Zelda's always been morphing visually to match various kinds of styles that the creators think are worth pursuing. Twilight Princess jumped on the Lord of the Rings aesthetic that was popular at the time, and look how that turned out. The new Zelda is overtly Miyazaki-esque; the question is whether that's a style that's going to prove to be appealing for Zelda?