-
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.
New Miyamoto interview (Asturias) - on creations, Zelda by Retro, online, Miiverse...
- Thread starter CaVaYeRo
- Start date
shaowebb
Member
Skyward Sword isn't a bad game, but it doesn't hold up to some of the things in other Zeldas.
- Its dungeons were shorter
- Its game flow was more broken up more than any other Zelda due to redundant tutorial interruptions. Sometimes you get it from Fi, a story character, and then from an NPC if you bothered to talk to someone in the area. It ruined a lot of the discovery element of Zelda for some folks.
- The Sky hub didn't have as much to discover as other Zelda hubs like Hyrule Field from Twilight Princess, or even the Ocean in Wind Waker to a degree.
- Puzzles were a lot easier.
Motion control arguments pop up from some folks, but thats honestly apples and oranges. You can either enjoy that or you wont at all so its not a fault in the game design just a preference issue for some folks. The rest however left folks who always want each new Zelda to be bigger feeling disappointed. The story and characterizations though were pretty top notch in this one IMO.
I was under the impression that that was mostly a speculation piece on Shikamaru Ninja's part. Though, some of the studios under Nintendo are certainly expanding, at least.
civilstrife
Member
The Zelda franchise is in heavy stagnation. I'm going to give them just a little benefit of the doubt because they've essentially been stuck developing on the same hardware for the last decade and a bit. The vision for any given Zelda game can be effectively neutered by weak hardware. The disparity between concept and execution in Skyward Sword serves as proof of that.
Just look at some of the concept art for SS. There's some really ambitious stuff that was just impossible to achieve on the Wii.
Just look at some of the concept art for SS. There's some really ambitious stuff that was just impossible to achieve on the Wii.
I'm finding it amusing that people are so focused on the "We don't think Retro should be handling Zelda" part of Miyamoto's quote, and not the "We think they are qualified to be making games more independently" part. I would think people would want Retro making games where NCL would give them more freedom making, but WHATEVER...
Jason's Ultimatum
Member
If Zelda WiiU is basically the same formula as TP and SS, then I'll probably give up on the franchise until it's reinvented.
Let Retro create their OWN new IP that's like Zelda. Except make it difficult and free to explore, like LoZ.
Let Retro create their OWN new IP that's like Zelda. Except make it difficult and free to explore, like LoZ.
Can you elaborate on whats so "stagnant" about the Zelda formula?
Like what? Look at Xenoblade on the Wii and tell me its behind its HD competitors in scale and ambition.
Blaming the non realization of certain concept ideas on weak tech is just nonsense. They are just that, ideas. And I'm sure Skyloft ended up being more or less what they wanted to make in the end.
Now if you complained about loading between areas, that would be more reasonable.
Zuhzuhzombie!!
Member
So no Retro Zelda because they want to keep it in a Japanese studio, which is the problem with Zelda as it is now?
Have you played them? It's the same game over and over. Nintendo has even said that for the past two games they were going to shake up the series and didn't.
Have you played them? It's the same game over and over. Nintendo has even said that for the past two games they were going to shake up the series and didn't.
Alright. I'm sure that better hardware will allow for even bigger, prettier, and more content-filled worlds. But I very much doubt it's going to change the fundamentals of modern Zelda; it's still going to be pre-dungeon filler-->dungeon-->gain new item-->progress further in the dungeon--> beat boss with new item-->new item works as key for previously inaccessible areas--> rinse and repeat with whatever sidequests and mini-games there are in between until you reach the end of the game.
The problem with Zelda is that it's being created by Japanese devs? Man, oh man...
What?
The bigger question is, have you? Saying Skyward Sword plays the same as any other Zelda is factually incorrect. Oh, but I guess motion-based swordplay that actually affects how every fight and puzzle plays out is too GIMMICKY to be considered a major change...
Eggplant Wizard
Member
Yeah, I don't get why they can't just do a Zelda spin-off. Either do something completely separate from the main series like the Oracles or Minish Cap, or focus on another character in the series (Sheik being the obvious choice).
If it's great, then we can get two fun takes on Zelda in a short amount of time. And if it's bad, then it runs way less chance of hurting the series overall. It's a win-win situation.
Well Miyamoto-san is wrong.
What does this even mean?
Just invest in virtual conference rooms with cameras and direct feed video and such and schedule meetings throughout the day. Technology really eliminates those communication barriers.
Even programs like TeamViewer would let the person in Japan see and control what is going on on computers in America, vice versa, etc., making "let me show you what I mean" very easy to express.
KillerTravis
Banned
They aren't. I think Retro is best when reviving a dead franchise.
Zuhzuhzombie!!
Member
The reason it's stagnant.
Blood Diamonds
Banned
lol fucking Nintendo conspiracy.
I hope they stick to that general formula, if they throw all that away to make completely different stuff where will I get my Zelda fix?
And it's not like there's no space to innovate within that formula, as was shown in SS with that temple with the moving pieces and that part with the timestones
Its the same foundation, not the same game. And that should NEVER change, for obvious reasons.
Have you even played them?
You can argue that TP is too much like OOT, but they openly admitted that they were giving fans what they wanted (oh the irony).
Here are the major changes they did with Skyward Sword:
-They completely overhauled the combat design
-They changed the world/dungeon dynamic.
-They introduced an optional upgrade system
The smaller fixes and additions list would go on for too long but I dont even need to do it. The above is more than enough to prove the "stagnant" complaints wrong.
Lets look at it this way. What was the last Zelda game you felt was different enough from what you seem to be bored of?
Wind Waker?
Maybe its Majora's Mask? If it goes back as far as that then you're basically labeling the series stagnant because of Wind Waker and Twilight Princess?
What. But two are probably as or more diferent from each other than the 5 console Assassins Creed we got this gen.
Time difference? I still remember that this was a huge problem for Eternal Darkness back in the day. Good old times
Zuhzuhzombie!!
Member
I'm an old guy.
I thought that even OOT was a step down from LTTP in terms of content and playability, saved by it being in 3D.
Which I don't play for this exact reason.
I'm going to go pummel my head with a sledge hammer until this becomes a cogent argument.
Kai Dracon
Writing a dinosaur space opera symphony
People keep saying this.
Then other people keep saying Skyward Sword was disappointing because it didn't have all the stuff a Zelda game should have and changed too much, like the overworld.
Just what, exactly, is "the same over and over"? Is it the fact that there's dungeons and you get an item, generally speaking, from each dungeon? Is it that you either pursue or rescue a girl named Zelda? Could it be that it has the master sword in most games?
The problem I have with "it's the same game over and over", people call Zelda its own sub-genre for a reason. Because there's a lot of things, that if you take out of Zelda, it's... no longer Zelda. It's a different kind of, or more generic, action-RPG or adventure game.
Skyward Sword actually does change a lot of things, but it seems what it changed were not what detractors of Zelda are looking for. It changed the way items are integrated and used in combination with each other, tools are upgraded, refreshed the flow of the game by using tools and play mechanics far more outside of just dungeons. It changed up the basic overworld concept. It changed the degree and level of storytelling - something that many critic reviews of the game actually pointed to and praised it for.
What it did not change, were many of the iconic features that make Zelda, Zelda. That cause it to be part of a genre people call "Zeldalike" beyond just "action RPG".
It could be that some people only see Zelda as a general adventure game, and feel that it's 'always the same' because it doesn't become altered to more resemble whatever is considered the generic adventure game template of this day and year.
It just seems like the recurring controversy whenever a new Zelda game comes out is the result of each game being pulled apart in different directions at once. Lots of people swearing it's the same game and nothing is different, lots of people swearing it's too different and isn't a "proper" Zelda.
Personally, I find it kinda funny considering that these arguments and attitudes seem to swirl around communities of more hardcore gamers, which is also the place where developers tend to be treated as artists, and we say that developers should be "free" to make the game they want to make. So why doesn't Zelda get a pass to be Zelda get a pass to be Zelda? Why isn't Nintendo allowed to evolve and experiment with the series as they see fit?
Edit: nevermind, it's Japanese games are stupid, yet again.
Time difference? I still remember that this was a huge problem for Eternal Darkness back in the day. Good old times
Oh you're right. I didn't think about that. Hmm.
Well you could try try 6am/8pm meetings...still that'd be difficult.
The Mini and Gamepad screens have a pixel density of 163 and 158 ppi, respectively. So they're roughly on par.
So you only like the pre-OOT Zeldas?
Then how is this an issue of the series being stagnant when Zelda, Adventure of Link, A Link to the Past and Ocarina of Time are so VERY different from each other?
Jason's Ultimatum
Member
As I've said in the other thread, I think getting rid of sidequests, tuturials, NPCs (except for a few that prevents you from progression), having ghost towns only, and no sidekicks would do wonders to change it up.
I know that there are different interpretations of a hero going on an adventure, but I see it as LoZ: You embark alone into the wilderness, mountains, ocean, and desert. You find the necessary pieces of objects throughout non-linear dungeons to complete your final objective. You run across a couple of NPCs that are playing mind-games with you. That's it.
I know that there are different interpretations of a hero going on an adventure, but I see it as LoZ: You embark alone into the wilderness, mountains, ocean, and desert. You find the necessary pieces of objects throughout non-linear dungeons to complete your final objective. You run across a couple of NPCs that are playing mind-games with you. That's it.
This is fanfic, right?
Zuhzuhzombie!!
Member
I really hope your avatar is there for irony sake. If not, then I can't even begin to take you seriously.
Nah. I liked OOT, MM, and WW.
Zelda and AoL are vastly different and LTTP was a "generational" leap above LoZ, but with a similar formula. OOT was a good game, but it pretty much took the same formula and simply made it into a 3D game. LA was also similar but had enough quirkyness in it to keep it fresh.
This is why I liked WW to a degree. It had its series roots with enough going for it to make it unique. TP just felt like OOT with the wolf gimmick. SS didn't even feel like it had a gimmick to go with it.
The Retro comment is kind of a BS answer as Nintendo has handed off the franchise to Capcom in the past. His reasoning is that Retro is too far to take direction from EAD? Whatever. Nevermind Retro's own involvement with a Nintendo franchise that has always been developed at Nintendo, Metroid.
Sgt.Pepper
Banned
So much damn hyperbole here.
Flagship, the developer of Oracle of Seasons/Ages, was Japanese so the communication wasn't a problem. Plus most devs from there are now at Nintendo.
Flagship, the developer of Oracle of Seasons/Ages, was Japanese so the communication wasn't a problem. Plus most devs from there are now at Nintendo.
Stagnant because outside of presentational style (or not in the case of Twilight Princess) and Skward Sword's motion controls, the core game has remained almost identical for well over a decade now. Format, progression, toolsets, sidequests, prizes, puzzles. Stagnant (the second meaning for those that believe I think Zelda literally smells).
Although I do feel Zelda titles have an outdated aspect when I compare them to modern adventure games, I can't offer a coherent argument why, and even less of one as to why they suffer in comparison. I won't defend that and accept it was a poor and lazy choice of adjective.
As for those commenting on my use of the word condescending, that is the feeling I get when I play Nintendo games which hold my hand to the point of irritation; not trusting me to make choices or find things out without some major hand-holding. Skyward Sword was an extreme example for me, as it constantly forced its 'guiding hand' in my face without even giving a chance to think independently, implying that only it could possibly know better and therefore that I didn't.
And although I know that some of you get quite excitable when it isn't explicitly stated, it should be quite clear that these are personal opinions (this and my previous post), so no need to get the whetstones out just yet
fuck the what?
Zuhzuhzombie!!
Member
This is how I took it. They don't want them to stray from EAD, and straying from EAD is what many people want.
Blood Diamonds
Banned
I have reached a conclusion that Zelda fans can never be satisfied. Just watch as Zelda U gets trashed with the same argument over and over again.
Zuhzuhzombie!!
Member
If it's just OOT/TP/SS but with the second screen gimmick, then it'll probably get a similar response.
kunonabi
Member
Only one game in the series actually worked this way so arguing that it should constitute the Zelda formula is ridiculous. Just like the SH fans who consider SH2 to be the formula for that series when it Team Silent only made one game in that structure.
Basically people want Zelda to either play like the very first one of just copy Dark souls. Such innovative ideas those are.
Cerebral Assassin
Member
Sounds like change for the sake of change, It would ignore the strengths of the current Zelda team & would end up with an empty world with huge amounts of back-tracking & would likely remove the charm that the Zelda series has, I'm glad you have nothing to do with the franchise.
Or just give them some freedom. That's probably the best thing that could happen to the next Zelda game. With a little bit of freedom they can go from the current Mario Sunshine-quality Zeldas to Galaxy-quality Zeldas.
Blood Diamonds
Banned
Then what do people want it to be? They tried changing things and adding new elements in Skyward Sword, and that didn't work. I think at this point Nintendo doesn't give a fuck anymore and will just make whatever Zelda game they want to make, It must be a pain in the ass to deal with a fanbase like the Zelda fanbase.
Sorry for exploding but seriously .________.
Stagnant because outside of presentational style (or not in the case of Twilight Princess) and Skward Sword's motion controls, the core game has remained almost identical for well over a decade now. Format, progression, toolsets, sidequests, prizes, puzzles. Stagnant (the second meaning for those that believe I think Zelda literally smells).
Although I do feel Zelda titles have an outdated aspect when I compare them to modern adventure games, I can't offer a coherent argument why, and even less of one as to why they suffer in comparison. I won't defend that and accept it was a poor and lazy choice of adjective.
As for those commenting on my use of the word condescending, that is the feeling I get when I play Nintendo games which hold my hand to the point of irritation; not trusting me to make choices or find things out without some major hand-holding. Skyward Sword was an extreme example for me, as it constantly forced its 'guiding hand' in my face without even giving a chance to think independently, implying that only it could possibly know better and therefore that I didn't.
And although I know that some of you get quite excitable when it isn't explicitly stated, it should be quite clear that these are personal opinions (this and my previous post), so no need to get the whetstones out just yet
so Zelda doesn't need to be Zelda anymore to avoid backlash. You people are so cute
SS is anything but refurbished material, perhaps you oh so disappointed people should just stop buyng those games
Sgt.Pepper
Banned
None of these games are the same.
Cerebral Assassin
Member
Odd how every other franchise escapes the same reductive process isn't it?
This is a another new one. How long until someone comes in to say that Ookami is the best TLoZ game?
Sgt.Pepper
Banned
That would be weird. Okami has many of the same 'problems' people complain about Zelda.
Jason's Ultimatum
Member
What the hell constitutes as "charm?" Annoying NPCs that serves no purpose but to have one, long ass, mundane, boring tuturial on how button A is used to attack, and the Z or R shoulder button is to lock onto an enemy? Gee wiz, why do I feel like I've seen all this before? "Hey! What's that light over there! You should check it out!" Hey! What's that hole over there!? I think you should bomb it!"
Nintendo and its Zelda team is no different than CoD or other developers out there. They don't want to alienate and create difficult games.
That's what I expected when I saw iPad mini was no Retina.