-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
ONM: Eiji Aonuma questions Zelda's traditions
- Thread starter axisofweevils
- Start date
The fact that his message remains unchanged a year or so later, in fact maybe stronger with the success of ALBW, suggests that he's very serious and it excites me.
Wait does that mean that the Wii U Zelda game might have multiplayer components because I don't want that in my Zelda game, I already had that with Four Sword Adventures and while it was fun it isn't something I want returning.
ALBW was 3 steps forward in gameplay, 2 steps backwards story-wise. I loved the freedom feeling of old Zeldas, but this also means that at times, i meet some sages like 1 time in the game and then i'm supposed to care about them when i enter a dungeon which kills the idea of an engaging story.
I hope they can find a balace there
This is exactly how I felt and for me Link Between World was a game that just came and went, which resulted it being my least favourite Zelda game something it shares with Four Swords.
Benzychenz
Member
It could just be something like the Souls message system using Miiverse.
Mango The Magician
Banned
Just don't fuck with the story, ALBW was terrible in that department.
StreetsAhead
Member
Maybe it's something like the message-in-a-bottle system like in Wind Waker HD? Or leaving messages for other players like in Zombie U or Dark Souls? Wouldn't necessarily have to be multi-player.
Disaster Nebraska
Banned
Twilight Princess also came after a nearly-decade lull of people waiting for an Ocarina of Time successor. Majora's Mask wasn't it. Wind Waker definitely wasn't it. Twilight Princess was pegged as a "return to form" (sound familiar?) for the Zelda franchise.
If you're curious where I'm getting the idea that people don't like Aonuma's idea of Zelda, take a look at Skyward Sword. It was a "true" Wii Zelda game launching at a time when (iirc) the Wii installed base had passed 80 million.
And yet? It sold less than half of what Twilight Princess (a Gamecube port) sold. This can only be due to the fact that people - quite obviously, in a demonstratable way - liked the vision behind Twilight Princess more than they liked Skyward Sword. And Skyward Sword was totally Aonuma's baby.
You mean like how Zelda used to be? We've tried choo-choo trains, boats, paintings, Groundhog's Day, and Furry-Link. Why not try, y'know, going back to the arcade-RPG roots of the franchise?
Chuck Norris
Banned
Opening up the dungeons to be completed in any order could completely fix the problems with item/gadget use in Zelda games. The way items were used to solve dungeons always felt too artificial to me. I'd love to see a more grounded arsenal that you hold on to the majority of the game but you are forced to think about how they are meant to be used in different settings
vxXJordanXxv
Banned
I'm ok with this just please don't continue the Zelda games like Skyward Sword with like only one town and a whole bunch of what seemed to me like an endless dungeon crawl.
KojiKnight
Member
People seem to be forgetting, he was saying this before Skyward Sword was released, that he wanted to try and break some of the old zelda traditions (entire zones being "pre-dungeon" dungeons). While I liked what they did with SS, no one can deny Fi was a PoS... The changes made to ALBW seems to have been generally better accepted, but I do hope some of the better parts of SS do make it in (meaningful crafting system, stamina_
Several times since Zelda U's announcement in january 2013. ALBW was proved it to be true. He is walking the walk.
TheCongressman1
Member
Absolutely. A big part of exploration is risk. Not necessarily a dangerous one, but one of how you are spending your time. If you take the time to go up the mountain, will you find something cool? The answer should be: Maybe. Exploration should be about wandering around enjoying the journey and hoping to find something cool, not solely about getting to a destination.
With ALBW any direction will give you something, and usually it's a path to a dungeon. Then of course, I'd already rented all the items so there was no reason I would have to turn around.
Zelda 1 proved that. It was never really a question. Not saying ALBW wasn't a good game, or didn't demonstrate the same thing. I do think it could have done an even better job though.
keisuke999
Member
ALBW pretty much proves that, if done well, the open world style can work really well in Zelda.
I never played Demon's Souls.
EmCeeGramr
Member
Twilight Princess was the highest rated and most anticipated Wii launch title during the Wii's hottest software selling period.
While Skyward Sword came out at a time when the Wii had a larger install base, it was also a time when software sales had fallen through the floor, it was a game that required an accessory, and most hardcore gamers had run away from the system.
There's quite a few reasons it sold less, with parents and casual gamers at big box stores saying "Hmph!!!! Aonuma and pUzzzzelllda!!" waaaaay down on the list.
KojiKnight
Member
You just described how gambling works. Delayed gratification and having not every "pull of the level" resulting in a jack pot.
superchunk
Member
The idea of a fully open adventure is awesome. That is what Zelda was founded on.
KojiKnight
Member
People quote this a lot about zelda 1... But zelda 1 came with a full map and an instruction booklet that told you how to get started and what the basics and stuff were. You weren't dropped in to figure it out completely on your own, you were expected to use the included materials. Rough for anyone renting the game or buying it used though.
The alternative Skyward Sword sales theory is that lots of people were excited about the return of epic Zelda in the form of Twilight Princess, but then got bored by the endless tutorial and gave up on the series. Don't forget TP rode the Wii launch craze, the core game for the Nintendo fan to play when he wasn't hosting Wii Sports parties.
I am all about going back to the roots. "Everything is a puzzle" Aunoma has proven over and over again he is incapable of doing that.
I wouldn't mind if they bring back ALttP's sense of discovery. But for optional items, because I remember how frustrating it was to find some of the mandatory stuff. Granted, the payoff once you discovered something was immense.
I'm refering to moments like digging up the flute or throwing an object into a stone ring to make the fish emerge from the water pond. I will never forget about these moments, I can see where you're coming from with the idea of risk/reward.
However pointlessly wandering around empty space should be avoided, I prefer a compact and dense world. Not becasue of the risk, but I just don't see any benefits.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
I don't think A Link Between Worlds successfully made the game "non-linear", because non-linearity came at the price of drastically lowering dungeon scope and complexity and making it so that every dungeon could be solved, with ease, with one or two items. In turn, few dungeons had satisfying loot and I don't feel like the game's "size" increased over the length of the game.
In terms of going forward, I'd like to see them throw everything to the wind;
- Does the game need a character called Link?
- Does he have to wear a Tunic?
- Does there have to be a Zelda or Zelda stand-in?
- Do dungeons need to be fundamentally about lock-and-key puzzles?
- Does every dungeon need a boss? Should bosses be pattern-based get-angry-and-power-up-when-near-death / phase based?
- Does Link need hearts or a health meter?
- Does the game need rupees, and if so do they need to be used in the way they've been used before?
- Should the game have more or less of a loot system?
- Does the game need to do without voice acting?
- Should there be richer side quests, the current status quo of "side dungeons", or none at all?
- Is it important that the core combat loop is built around the sword?
- Is it important that the core movement loop consists of walking, running, jumping in context but never free jumping, using items?
- How long should the game be?
- Should the game include a bow and arrow, bombs, a dash item, a boomerang item, some sort of jump or float item, etc series staples?
- If the game has horseback or vehicle systems, should they operate in a particular way?
- Should the game be exclusively single player?
- Should the game use "dungeons" in the traditional sense?
- Should there be more or less character development attributes?
- How big or small should the game be?
- Is there a way to raise difficulty without alienating the audience or causing frustration?
- What's going on in the game design world over the last ten years that might be worth looking at for inspiration? Note: Companies other than Nintendo make games. Note: If you can't answer this because you don't play games, it's probably maybe time to either consider playing games or not being in charge of designing them.
I don't think it serves them any value to take for granted answers to any of these questions because the series is anchored around some of these concepts. I think most Zelda games coming out have been very well received, but it's been a while since one has sort of unquestionably been a "stop and take notice" consensus best-of-breed trendsetter. I think that indicates design stagnation, even if fans enjoy the design.
Personally, I'd much rather see the team not have to make a game in the series at all, and do what they want, but if it has to be packaged as a Zelda game, let's at least encourage contemplation and rethinking of sacred cows.
In terms of going forward, I'd like to see them throw everything to the wind;
- Does the game need a character called Link?
- Does he have to wear a Tunic?
- Does there have to be a Zelda or Zelda stand-in?
- Do dungeons need to be fundamentally about lock-and-key puzzles?
- Does every dungeon need a boss? Should bosses be pattern-based get-angry-and-power-up-when-near-death / phase based?
- Does Link need hearts or a health meter?
- Does the game need rupees, and if so do they need to be used in the way they've been used before?
- Should the game have more or less of a loot system?
- Does the game need to do without voice acting?
- Should there be richer side quests, the current status quo of "side dungeons", or none at all?
- Is it important that the core combat loop is built around the sword?
- Is it important that the core movement loop consists of walking, running, jumping in context but never free jumping, using items?
- How long should the game be?
- Should the game include a bow and arrow, bombs, a dash item, a boomerang item, some sort of jump or float item, etc series staples?
- If the game has horseback or vehicle systems, should they operate in a particular way?
- Should the game be exclusively single player?
- Should the game use "dungeons" in the traditional sense?
- Should there be more or less character development attributes?
- How big or small should the game be?
- Is there a way to raise difficulty without alienating the audience or causing frustration?
- What's going on in the game design world over the last ten years that might be worth looking at for inspiration? Note: Companies other than Nintendo make games. Note: If you can't answer this because you don't play games, it's probably maybe time to either consider playing games or not being in charge of designing them.
I don't think it serves them any value to take for granted answers to any of these questions because the series is anchored around some of these concepts. I think most Zelda games coming out have been very well received, but it's been a while since one has sort of unquestionably been a "stop and take notice" consensus best-of-breed trendsetter. I think that indicates design stagnation, even if fans enjoy the design.
Personally, I'd much rather see the team not have to make a game in the series at all, and do what they want, but if it has to be packaged as a Zelda game, let's at least encourage contemplation and rethinking of sacred cows.
TheCongressman1
Member
Right. And? Is that somehow a bad thing?
What I am saying is, exploration is a wide thing. You can be methodical about it, or you can just wander off in some direction. Some games rely on too much reward and not much risk. I think a good game will give both, with options for the player to help sidestep the risk with more careful planning, but still allow players to go and get lost.
Uncle Rupee
Banned
The thing is, they could be exploring different avenues to a lot of these ideas with different projects not named Zelda. I mean, I'd love to see an EAD-scale game that has elements in common with Zelda but also takes things in a different direction.
They could also make a game starring Zelda where something like sword combat and the usual items are replaced with archery or magic-based attacks or something.
KojiKnight
Member
Ahhh sorry, looking back that does come off as a negative, it was meant to be an interesting observation nothing more
Stump: While there is value in some of those questions, but at some point if you're going to make a ton of changes, you'd be better off simply making it a new series or IP entirely. There is value in change, but there is also value in tradition. There has to be a good mix going forward, or else you'll end up with another game entirely just using the Zelda name to sell you on it.
Everything Aonuma has said about Zelda U has excited me for the potential of the game, but I'm worried that by making the game nonlinear, it will give the game less of a sense of direction and purpose. I never disliked having a linear dungeon order in Zelda games, I just wanted to find the dungeons on my own, in a Metroid Prime kind of way.
Mango The Magician
Banned
You do realize that sales =/ quality. Majora's Mask for example sold around the same as SS, and I'm convinced that most of the fanbase sleep with their copy of that game every night. Also, the idea of going back to the way Zelda use to tell its story is probably the worst idea I've heard on this site, period.
Good point. I think the dungeons worked for me because of the combination of required item + wall Link. This new gimmick spawned new applications of gameplay, for instance place a bomb near a switch crystal and quickly merge with a nearby wall that rotates upon detonation.
They could easily solve this though by giving you access to all the basic items from the start, and creating environmental gimmicks such as water redirection, twilight temple orb and time shift crystals, instead of relying on inventory items for dungeon complexity.
TheCongressman1
Member
Ahhh sorry, looking back that does come off as a negative, it was meant to be an interesting observation nothing more
Oh ok, that makes sense.
I think about the way exploration works in real life and why people have interests in things like spelunking, or diving, or whatever. It's about the experience of doing it, and maybe also hoping to find something amazing. Most often something of great importance isn't found, but the experience is the main take away.
You don't see any benefit in walking around a big forest looking for treasure and then falling into a small hole that leads to a giant cavern? Imagine how surprised you would be and then you would have to figure a way out. That doesn't seem like a cool experience?
Now imagine how the experience would be impacted if that hole was the only direction to go. There would be no surprise as you knew you were about to come up on another story element.
PhoenixDawn
Member
Please, combine Majora's Mask's "open yet small enough to still be packed with life and interactions with NPCs" world design with the more nonlinear item collection and dungeon ordering from ALBW and I'll be a happy man. Or at least get rid of the godforsaken unskippable partner text and cutscenes for getting every single item even if it's already been gathered before..
Mango The Magician
Banned
Wat.
PhoenixDawn
Member
Yeah, I didn't know how to really word it. I guess it's obviously not as "open" as other entries in the series or other actual open world games are, but I like how you could explore around a lot of the area even at the start of the game. I think I might be slightly misremembering considering I've been exposed a lot to glitches that get you everywhere early though, haha.
StreetsAhead
Member
If you change all, or even the majority, of those things, but keep the name, you run the risk of appealing to no one. Fans no longer have the things they enjoy about the series and people who aren't fans are likely to dismiss it as 'just another game in series X'.
For example, does Link's primary combat weapon need to be a sword? I'd argue yes and for the same reason that I'd argue COD's primary weapon should keep being guns. If you're changing the primary method of combat, you're better off starting with a new series.
Change is good, but changing things for the sake of change or to follow temporary market trends (like making Link a bow user, for a crude example), is probably a poor long-term decision. Iteration is not a dirty word.
I think, with ALBW, the variety of puzzle would have been improved if there'd been a combination of 2-3 items required to complete each dungeon. One of my biggest beefs with the Zelda series is the one-dungeon-and-done nature of a lot of the items. Even if it had applied to only 1 or 2 dungeons, it would have improved the game more drastically for me than re-naming ruppees to damar and calling Link and Zelda "Tidalik" and "Princess Molly".
Ahhh sorry, looking back that does come off as a negative, it was meant to be an interesting observation nothing more
Stump: While there is value in some of those questions, but at some point if you're going to make a ton of changes, you'd be better off simply making it a new series or IP entirely. There is value in change, but there is also value in tradition. There has to be a good mix going forward, or else you'll end up with another game entirely just using the Zelda name to sell you on it.
Willingness to embrace entirely new game designs led to Zelda games that defined generations. The second NES release was nothing like the first. The SNES release added layers of gameplay and defined expectations for all future top down Zeldas. OoT said screw it, we're going 3d. Majoras Mask said epic dungeon quests are cool and all, but how about basing an entire game on a side-quest heavy time travel mechanic?
Wind Waker was the last time they really tried something new, with the sailing mechanic and with the Celda visual style, and as much as I loved it, it was treading fairly worn ground in terms of mechanics and gameplay.
Make it quality and there is almost not change of that happening. Btw Link's Crossbow training is one of the best games ever. The Zelda name and art added to the atmosphere, it was a better experience for it. We don't need some dumb looking new IP like Wonderful 101...ok jk with that
vxXJordanXxv
Banned
I agree with everything else you said but this. I personally cannot imagine playing a Zelda game as anybody else but Link and the tunic. I just can't and it's killing me trying to wrap my brain around it.
Jason's Ultimatum
Member
I'm ok with a huge non linear game with no hints and trying to find bosses and dungeons on your own.
Me too. Open world Zelda here we come
KojiKnight
Member
But all of those, while different and exciting, were aware of and fully embraced their tradition on top of these changes. I do think a lot of long standing traditions DO need to be thrown out or updated, but there is also no reason to create a completely new game and slap the zelda title onto it if the same can be done and served better under a new IP. Else we'll have another Star Fox Adventures.