Support NeoGAF

[Mango The Magician]

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.

It's cool. Just sometimes people praise certain games for things they never did which is something that really gets on my nerves, didn't mean to point you out or anything offensive like that. But, for like example, I've heard people insinuate that MM was non-linear or in some cases talk about how non-linearity is the one thing that all Zelda games need, then turn around and call MM the best Zelda game; it's pretty linear. If Zelda Wii U were to borrow anything from MM, I'd prefer it'd borrow its town structure (minus the loading screens) and the NPC schedules but on a bigger scale.

 

[SoraanTribal]

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.

Agreed. I want every main Zelda game to have Link as the main character and wear a tunic. That's one thing I don't think should be given up. Also, needs to use a sword as his main weapon.

 

[StreetsAhead]

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

I'm not exactly sure what point you're trying to make, but I think I agree? Regardless, it reminds me of self-proclaimed "Nintendo" fans' increasing apathy toward titles outside of the Mario franchise (and to a lesser extent, Zelda and Smash) is a growing problem for people who enjoy the wider collection of Nintendo franchises.

 

[vxXJordanXxv]

All I can really say is look at what they did with Majora's Mask. Building upon OoT by adding new mechanics as well as keeping the gameplay and story solid. I agree with finding new things to do but just don't throw away everything. I've said this before but one of the reasons that I hated Skyward Sword is that it felt empty. Like they focused too much on the controls on the Wii MotionPlus and less on the game's atmosphere. One of the things I enjoyed about the Zelda games were it's scenery and the different areas with NPCs you could interact with and I honestly felt that Skyward Sword failed in that department and was primarily focused on the main hub island.

 

[Griss]

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;
(Lots of questions)

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.

I love the idea of killing off some sacred cows, but at the same time if it's not about a guy swinging a sword in some kind of fantasy world anymore then it's not Zelda.

The only thing worse than stagnation in a series is when an old IP is misused on what should clearly be a brand new series. It upsets old fans, splits the fanbase between 'new' and 'old' camps, misleads everyone and reduces the new IP available in the industry. If the Zelda team has amazing ideas that can't really fit anything describing a Zelda game, then let them make something new and sell it as 'from the director/team who make Zelda', like TitanFall did with CoD.

 

[RagnarokX]

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

I wouldn't exactly say ALBW was a step forward in terms of gameplay. It was more of a lateral move. While the pacing was much improved and the non-linearity was nice, the challenge of the dungeons and useage of items took a hit as a result of that non-linearity. I don't think getting to choose dungeon order is worth losing complexity in level and puzzle design. What they need to do is find a middle ground. Somewhat non-linear, somewhat linear.

 

[Ansatz]

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.

Skyward Sword's approach to area design and the new wm+ mechanics are as ground breaking to me now as Ocarina's lock-on system was in the 90s. Laynaru Desert and the timeshift orb concept shits on anything in OoT. There are alot of ideas in Skyward Sword that could have acted as a new overarching theme/mechanic, but like Mario Galaxy, we get short bursts of a variety of concepts instead. For example Mario Sunshine would have merely been a powerup for 2 levels in Galaxy, instead of an entire game. This is how I view the new concepts in Skyward Sword, they have the required depth to act as themes but don't for the sake of variety.

 

[Log4Girlz]

I'm not exactly sure what point you're trying to make, but I think I agree? Regardless, it reminds me of self-proclaimed "Nintendo" fans' increasing apathy toward titles outside of the Mario franchise (and to a lesser extent, Zelda and Smash) is a growing problem for people who enjoy the wider collection of Nintendo franchises.

The point is you can change some major conventions about Zelda and still call it Zelda and use the atmosphere of its world without trouble. For instance, Crossbow training was great. They could make a true Zelda game and just focus on archery honestly. It was sublime in Skyward sword. That's not an issue.

 

[fredrancour]

Not sure where you are getting this from exactly. Twilight Princess is the best selling Zelda game (if you count both GameCube and Wii, and if you just count the Wii version, then it's the second best selling Zelda behind Ocarina of Time which he also worked on). Anyways, I love Aonuma's Zelda games personally with Ocarina of Time and Twilight Princess being my two favorites.

I do not agree with all of these opinions and am simply arranging everything I've ever heard/seen that was critical of modern Zelda.

"Serious Fantasy action-adventure with creative, unique dungeons and an overworld" seems to be what people want out of the series. I say this based on how the first LoZ, Zelda 2, OoT, and TP are the best sellers.


MM sold less because it was explicitly depicted as a side story- "Zelda Side Story" was literally its Japanese title. The game's fans often cite the unique plot and array of side characters as an awesome thing, but if a person is merely looking for a plot that works as background, then they would have probably been put off by that. Many gamers also seem to have been stressed out by the time limit and the resulting weird game structure. It was also released absurdly late in the system's life.


Wind Waker flopped relative to expectations because the idea of cartoon Zelda clashed with the idea of dangerous, serious fantasy adventure in the minds of a large number of people, and that was how people defined Zelda. Maybe it wasn't an accurate reflection of how the old games existed in the minds of the creators and something was lost in translation via the low-quality graphics, but that serious depiction of the game is still what formed in the minds of most kids that grew up playing OoT. They'd best cater to this fanbase for two reasons: 1, Quite a few known customers already exist, and 2, other games like WW that deviate from those standards had the chance to bring fans to the series and failed.
Between people who hated sailing/the Ocean, the triforce quest, and (the smaller group of) people disappointed in the dungeons, the game also lacked the positive word of mouth to overwhelm the bad first impression.
The "purple lunchbox" negative reputation of the system probably made things worse for the game but this reaction would have happened on any piece of hardware.


The DS games are generally the least popular in the franchise beside the CD-I stuff. Commonly cited complaints are:
They returned to the WW art style, which was a misguided attempt to make up for the ds' hardware power, for the system couldn't even make cel-shading look good.
the touch controls decreasing direct control over Link, making the base combat less satisfying.
The train and boat were poor substitutes for an actual overworld.
The dungeons revolved almost entirely around puzzles, which were also brain-dead easy more often than not (though the boss fights, in my opinion, rocked).


TP happened as a direct response to Wind Waker's reception. "People rejected whimsical Zelda? Let's make a more serious one." The best-selling Zelda ever happened because they looked at a game that Aonuma designed and attempted to do the exact opposite. This in particular makes it easy to think that his ideas have decreased Zelda's popularity.

I am not qualified to talk about SS firsthand. I did not make it very far past the tutorial yet. Things I have heard: Mainly that the motion controls wound up wasted on excessively puzzle-like battles. Some people didn't like whatever was done with the overworld structure. The two non-internet people I know who played it actually really liked the game.

A lot of people speak harshly of the combat vs puzzle balance in the franchise, and say that puzzle content should be dialed back in favor of more battling. When I played LoZ for the first time, I was surprised by how resoundingly familiar it felt to me despite the near-absence of plot and puzzle elements which have had large presences in all the Zeldas actually released during my lifetime. It's made the large majority of Modern Zelda's puzzle elements feel like filler to me by comparison. I do think that they are holding the franchise back from being the industry-defining game franchise it once was. A smaller number of really cool puzzles would make for better games overall.



As for misc criticism, maybe people blame the guy for TP and SS's horrible tutorial segments?


Also, Miyamoto definitely had the majority of creative control on OoT and counting it as one of Aonuma's creations is not accurate.


edit: Dang that turned out longer than I expected.

 

[phanphare]

Old? He's been saying this for like a year and a half now

about the time that the zelda game for wii u was announced to be in early development

Spoiler

hippity hypety E3's on its way

 

[vxXJordanXxv]

Thinking of some of the worst things that could happen. What if they made the combat turn based? My god the shitstorm would be insane.

 

[StreetsAhead]

The point is you can change some major conventions about Zelda and still call it Zelda and use the atmosphere of its world without trouble. For instance, Crossbow training was great. They could make a true Zelda game and just focus on archery honestly. It was sublime in Skyward sword. That's not an issue.

You certainly could, but if you're going to change the primary weapon of the character, at that point I feel like it'd be more creatively freeing to just build a world from the ground up, rather than re-inventing an old series.

 

[Benzychenz]

I wouldn't exactly say ALBW was a step forward in terms of gameplay. It was more of a lateral move. While the pacing was much improved and the non-linearity was nice, the challenge of the dungeons and useage of items took a hit as a result of that non-linearity. I don't think getting to choose dungeon order is worth losing complexity in level and puzzle design. What they need to do is find a middle ground. Somewhat non-linear, somewhat linear.

Completely agreed.

Maybe they could make a big world with a ton of side quests, but the dungeons themselves could be required to be done in a fairly linear order, have them unlock in groups of 2-3 at a time or so.

 

[fredrancour]

You certainly could, but if you're going to change the primary weapon of the character, at that point I feel like it'd be more creatively freeing to just build a world from the ground up, rather than re-inventing an old series.

Could still take inspiration from it for future games. Maybe just make the game generally combat-oriented, maybe start with the bow and keep it a viable weapon at all times....

Not gonna lie, though this would appall half of GAF, the idea of a cover system in zelda would actually thrill me. Ducking behind cover to avoid flaming arrows from moblins, then popping back out to shoot or to charge the lines while they reload....

 

[Ranger X]

Aonuma realising that one of the basics of game design is "show don't talk" and that discovery leads to fun! After directing how many Zelda game he is finally realising he failed to repeat the greatness that was Link To The Past and Ocarina of Time.

I supposed we should say "better late than never"?

 

[Log4Girlz]

You certainly could, but if you're going to change the primary weapon of the character, at that point I feel like it'd be more creatively freeing to just build a world from the ground up, rather than re-inventing an old series.

Using a classic IP can bring in more interest than something totally new if done right. Its very difficult and tricky to get a new franchise up and running. Just look at those Wonderful 101 sales.

 

[Majukun]

it's ok for me,as long as the dungeon are up to zelda standards.

ALBW was good in the exploration part,but the dungeons were disappointing,and i suspect it's because they didn't knew at any given time what item the player would have had

 

[StreetsAhead]

Using a classic IP can bring in more interest than something totally new if done right. Its very difficult and tricky to get a new franchise up and running. Just look at those Wonderful 101 sales.

Yes, but only if done right. There's still the risk of it backfiring, just like a new IP may fail to gain traction.

 

[Anth0ny]

Zelda needs to be more like something something

 

[TaiKH92]

I like the idea of more freedom but hopefully the world is not that empty especially if it's really big.

 

[Disaster Nebraska]

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.

Sales certainly does == quality, in the consumer's eyes.

Sales are the only factual, undeniable metric as to how the public feels about a game.

We can go on about attach rates, how hardcore gamers love it or hated it, how the casuals artificially bolstered sales, etc.

At the end of the day, Aonuma Zelda has been selling less and less. TP was the most non-Puzzelda Zelda since OoT (at least, based on the trailers and previews prior to launch) since OoT, which is no surprise then that it is the second-best-selling (after OoT).

Skyward Sword is one of the highest-budget (if not THE highest) yet lowest-selling Zelda games in the series. It will likely be outsold by ALBW (the most un-Aonuma Zelda we've gotten since TP)

 

[Daschysta]

Wait. What about this is "traditional"? If anything, Aonuma's brand of Zelda goes against the grain for how the series has been since Ocarina back to the NES days.

It seems like a lot of people (and the sales show it) do not like Aonuma's idea of what Zelda should be. Kind of a farce that he considers his Zelda games to be "traditional" whilst the "getting lost, wondering what to do, where to go" is about as "traditional" you can get for the Zelda franchise.

Twilight Princess and Ocarina are the two best selling entries in the series by a fair margon at that, so sales honestly don't reflect that. Having said that I personally approve of what Aonuma has been saying and doing with the zelda series post skyward.

 

[cloudsymph]

This makes me happy. I also especially don't want it to be like SS.

 

[RagnarokX]

As for misc criticism, maybe people blame the guy for TP and SS's horrible tutorial segments?

A big issue I have with Skyward Sword's criticism is that it did not have the horrible tutorial segments that people accuse it of having. It does have tutorials and almost all of them are skipable. People label the intro as a "tutorial" because it takes an hour but it spends that time introducing the plot, world, and characters which are important to this particular game. In a replay you can skip all of that and get out of Skyloft in 15 minutes. I don't know what it is about Zelda in particular that makes people hate the story so much, especially considering people love Majora's Mask so much and the most that game has going for it are the characters and world. Zelda is a franchise where a large amount of people have made themselves believe despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary that the games are retellings of the same story and not sequels/prequels.

Twilight Princess had terrible unskipable tutorials; Skyward Sword did not. Skyward Sword's chief problem was that Fi would pop up too often to tell you something unimportant. She didn't make the game easier or anything like that. All she did was slow it down. That is a problem, but not the problem people think it is nor as big a deal.

 

[Amazeballs]

The best way to pull off none-linearity successfully that I can think of is to make puzzles less reliant on context-sensitive items. Dark souls manages to do that and be mostly engaging all the way through because the challenge comes from tightly incorporating of enemy and environmental design with open, but effective, item progression. Minus the item progression, this is already present to a good degree in LoZ.

I'd imagine the Zelda team can pull off something along the lines of using items to create shortcuts or open secrets passages while allowing players to progress without specific items.

A big issue I have with Skyward Sword's criticism is that it did not have the horrible tutorial segments that people accuse it of happening. It does have tutorials and almost all of them are skipable. People label the intro as a "tutorial" because it takes an hour but it spends that time introducing the plot, world, and characters which are important to this particular game. In a replay you can skip all of that and get out of Skyloft in 15 minutes. I don't know what it is about Zelda in particular that makes people hate the story so much, especially considering people love Majora's Mask so much and the most that game has going for it are the characters and world. Zelda is a franchise where a large amount of people have made themselves believe despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary that the games are retellings of the same story and not sequels/prequels.

Twilight Princess had terrible unskipable tutorials; Skyward Sword did not. Skyward Sword's chief problem was that Fi would pop up too often to tell you something unimportant. She didn't make the game easier or anything like that. All she did was slow it down. That is a problem, but not the problem people think it is nor as big a deal.

The tutorials in SS were mandatory the first time through in that players would have a difficult time figuring out what to do if they skipped them. They were totally optional, but from a design and narrative standpoint they were not elegantly implemented like they were in games like OoT. TP tutorials were worse though.

As for the story, I totally agree. Zelda the games follow a similar storytelling structure but each of the games differentiates themselves in certain ways. Like the rest of the games, OoT is a typical a monomyth but it's well executed that regard because of it's subtle but succinct characterization of its Link and how it uses time travel to raise the stakes. MM is a more spiritual journey, with an emphasis on themes like faith. WW has a more sympathetic Link and Ganondorf. TP emphasizes on cinematics and character drama. To criticize the stories of these games for being the same is like saying all movies of a single genre are the same.

 

[Currygan]

do whatever you like, Aonuma. You earned my eternal respect after MM and SS

 

[Version 3.0]

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.

It didnt come with a full map. The manual shows how to get to Level 1, and the additional map shows how to get to Level 2...almost. I spent days drawing my own world and level maps.

Zelda 1 was very much a "figure it out on your own" game.

 

[Daschysta]

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.

There really isn't any reason to make a game that isn't a Zelda game and call it one anyway. That's a new IP, noone anywhere does that with established IP, and Zelda games are still critical and fan darlings, there isn't a reason to completely scrap everything that fans enjoy about the games, tropes included.

Suggesting a zelda game without items, dungeons and dungeon bosses is like suggesting GTA 6 consist of riding and stealing horses and gardening. Or a SMT without Demons. Many of these "tropes" are the reason people enjoy these series.

 

[Hero]

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.

While I appreciate and respect your opinion, I feel following too many questions you pose will lead to complete abandonment of the fanbase with Final Fantasy being a prime example.

Modern Final Fantasy has such little in common with traditional/older Final Fantasy titles that all they share is the title and monsters/summons.

 

[Daschysta]

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.

If WW gets points for "something new" for tye method of getting from point A to point B then skyward sword is even more Innovative in introducing true motion combat and the Bird traversal method, and the first true crafting and upgradein the series. Ditto to LBW with rental system and rupees that are actually useful.

 

[EmCeeGramr]

Wait, so why is Twilight Princess not "Puzzelda" (uggggggh) and why doesn't it count as an Aonuma game when it is and why are extenuating circumstances around its sales not relevant?

 

[Majukun]

ehi aounuma,here's a big idea..just give me majora's mask 2

with 7 days

with real time clock like animal crossing,with the game that still evolves when i'm not playing

that seems untraditional enough for you?

 

[Benzychenz]

ehi aounuma,here's a big idea..just give me majora's mask 2

with 7 days

with real time clock like animal crossing,with the game that still evolves when i'm not playing

that seems untraditional enough for you?

Lol that sounds terrible. Imagine the conclusion to a sidequest being at like 2am on a weeknight.

 

[Juice]

A big issue I have with Skyward Sword's criticism is that it did not have the horrible tutorial segments that people accuse it of having. It does have tutorials and almost all of them are skipable. People label the intro as a "tutorial" because it takes an hour but it spends that time introducing the plot, world, and characters which are important to this particular game. In a replay you can skip all of that and get out of Skyloft in 15 minutes. I don't know what it is about Zelda in particular that makes people hate the story so much, especially considering people love Majora's Mask so much and the most that game has going for it are the characters and world. Zelda is a franchise where a large amount of people have made themselves believe despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary that the games are retellings of the same story and not sequels/prequels.

Twilight Princess had terrible unskipable tutorials; Skyward Sword did not. Skyward Sword's chief problem was that Fi would pop up too often to tell you something unimportant. She didn't make the game easier or anything like that. All she did was slow it down. That is a problem, but not the problem people think it is nor as big a deal.

Fine, "slow start". In the first two hours of SS nothing interesting happens. Maybe the characters introduced are important later but that is certainly not made clear by the droning opening segments. They could have eliminated the tutorial bits and summarized that whole opening in twenty minutes.

 

[Pyrrhus]

Does he get that people don't like the game being brain dead easy as well? Do you understand the terror and excitement of entering a room filled with blue Dark Nuts and the shutter door locking behind you? Make me work for it a little. Make me feel like I fought to survive instead of feeling like I went to Disney Land. Still, at least he seems to be figuring out basic pacing issues.

 

[Nickle]

Sales certainly does == quality, in the consumer's eyes.

Sales are the only factual, undeniable metric as to how the public feels about a game.

We can go on about attach rates, how hardcore gamers love it or hated it, how the casuals artificially bolstered sales, etc.

At the end of the day, Aonuma Zelda has been selling less and less. TP was the most non-Puzzelda Zelda since OoT (at least, based on the trailers and previews prior to launch) since OoT, which is no surprise then that it is the second-best-selling (after OoT).

Skyward Sword is one of the highest-budget (if not THE highest) yet lowest-selling Zelda games in the series. It will likely be outsold by ALBW (the most un-Aonuma Zelda we've gotten since TP)

What if 6 million people were to buy a game because of good marketing and cool trailers, but most of the people who play it dislike it? Does that make that game a higher quality product then a well received game that sells less than a million? By that same logic, the Hangover 3 was one of the highest quality movies of 2013, and it's quality surpasses movies like 12 Years a Slave, Wolf of Wall Street, or American Hustle.

And I don't think people wanted Twilight Princess because it appeared to have less puzzles then WW or MM. They wanted it because the game itself sounded like every Zelda fanboy's wet dream.

 

[khaaan]

After A Link Between Worlds I'm excited to see how the next Zelda is going to play out. A Link Between Worlds may have faltered in some areas but hot damn was it a fun ride.

Modern Final Fantasy has such little in common with traditional/older Final Fantasy titles that all they share is the title and monsters/summons.

I don't know how far back you define traditional Final Fantasy but they're not THAT far removed from one another

 

[Daschysta]

What if 6 million people were to buy a game because of good marketing and cool trailers, but most of the people who play it dislike it? Does that make that game a higher quality product then a well received game that sells less than a million? By that same logic, the Hangover 3 was one of the highest quality movies of 2013, and it's quality surpasses movies like 12 Years a Slave, Wolf of Wall Street, or American Hustle.

And I don't think people wanted Twilight Princess because it appeared to have less puzzles then WW or MM. They wanted it because the game itself sounded like every Zelda fanboy's wet dream.

In what world did fans dislike the game? Outside of the vocal super minority that pops up every new game. TP was and is well regarded by fans and critics alike.

The game has the best dungeons in the series, the best sidekick in Midna, and the best incarnation of Zelda. It's a great game, whose biggest fault other than a slow opening sequence is occasionally being a bit derivative of another game widely recognized as the best of all time.

 

[xandaca]

Very good news if Zelda U continues in the non-linear direction of Link Between Worlds. The item rental system was a little inelegant though, I'd prefer that items acquired from one dungeon allowed shortcuts or alternate routes/rooms to be found in others. For example, if you completed dungeon A before B and collected a hookshot, you could use it to bypass certain puzzles that you couldn't otherwise. If you completed B before A and collected the Bow, you'd be able to defeat certain enemies quicker for easier progression. Obviously the number of these shortcuts would have to be fairly limited so players with almost every item couldn't just blast through a dungeon in seconds. A solution could be making the dungeons dynamically alter upon entry depending on what the player has available, e.g. shortcuts are programmed in for every item, but only certain ones are made available (secret rooms or whatnot would remain constant) if a player goes in with a large number of items at their disposal. That way, you get a non-linear game AND the satisfaction of earning a new item rather than just paying for it.

 

[Lord_Byron28]

In what world did fans dislike the game? Outside of the vocal super minority that pops up every new game. TP was and is well regarded by fans and critics alike.

The game has the best dungeons in the series, the best sidekick in Midna, and the best incarnation of Zelda. It's a great game, whose biggest fault other than a slow opening sequence is occasionally being a bit derivative of another game widely recognized as the best of all time.

TP Zelda was one of the least likeable of the 3D Zeldas, imo. I agree with most everything else you said.

 

[Majukun]

Lol that sounds terrible. Imagine the conclusion to a sidequest being at like 2am on a weeknight.

of course you would have all the time manipulation mechanics you had in majora.
the internal clock is only so that you will have to face a slightly different world every time you play

 

[RagnarokX]

Fine, "slow start". In the first two hours of SS nothing interesting happens. Maybe the characters introduced are important later but that is certainly not made clear by the droning opening segments. They could have eliminated the tutorial bits and summarized that whole opening in twenty minutes.

Skyloft lasts 1 hour in introducing the plot and important characters. Again the tutorial bits are optional and thus do not take up your time unless you choose to do them. If you're not interested in story or characters at all then for you maybe nothing happens, but if you've already experienced the story and don't care to sit through it again you can get through Skyloft in 15 minutes. Yes, that means about 45 minutes of the intro is characters talking about important things and cutscenes, but they are important and well done. As far as setting things up goes Skyward Sword does not beat you over the head and make things feel forced.

 

[nullset2]

Out of what I've seen, if this means following the aLBW model more, I'm all for it.

Go balls-out, Aonuma. Reuse the Zelda 1 formula with modern production values. Go for a Dark Souls kind of progression. But do it, please do it. And whatever you do, do not add more of those fucked-up tear collection parts. I hate them.

 

[atr0cious]

In what world did fans dislike the game? Outside of the vocal super minority that pops up every new game. TP was and is well regarded by fans and critics alike.

The game has the best dungeons in the series, the best sidekick in Midna, and the best incarnation of Zelda. It's a great game, whose biggest fault other than a slow opening sequence is occasionally being a bit derivative of another game widely recognized as the best of all time.

Ugh no please. Every time Link was a wolf, I died a little more inside. By the third time, I was rushing through the game, just trying to get past those parts. TP has the best boss battle in Zelda, but man do they make you earn it.

 

[Amir0x]

"We heard that people don't like overly bearing tutorials, and that they don't like to necessarily be guided every step of the way."

YES. BY ME ALSO. Stopping this is the first step back to glory.

there are approximately 18 other steps you must take to ascend the mountaintop. Ask me what they are and I will tell you, guaranteeing you the best Zelda game of all time.

 

[TaiKH92]

TP Zelda was one of the least likeable of the 3D Zeldas, imo. I agree with most everything else you said.

It's not that she was unlikeable, it's that she did almost nothing, she was just kidnapped XD

 

[Basileus777]

It's good that he wants to shake up the design. Hopefully he'll come up with a solution that works better than the one in ALBW.

 

[Currygan]

Skyloft lasts 1 hour in introducing the plot and important characters. Again the tutorial bits are optional and thus do not take up your time unless you choose to do them. If you're not interested in story or characters at all then for you maybe nothing happens, but if you've already experienced the story and don't care to sit through it again you can get through Skyloft in 15 minutes. Yes, that means about 45 minutes of the intro is characters talking about important things and cutscenes, but they are important and well done. As far as setting things up goes Skyward Sword does not beat you over the head and make things feel forced.

give this man his t...oh. Well done, well done

 

[Anth0ny]

there are approximately 18 other steps you must take to ascend the mountaintop. Ask me what they are and I will tell you, guaranteeing you the best Zelda game of all time.

said every zelda fan ever

all with 18 unique steps they want the zelda team to take

lol

 

[Boomstick (Coffee Crazy)]

In what world did fans dislike the game? Outside of the vocal super minority that pops up every new game. TP was and is well regarded by fans and critics alike.

The game has the best dungeons in the series, the best sidekick in Midna, and the best incarnation of Zelda. It's a great game, whose biggest fault other than a slow opening sequence is occasionally being a bit derivative of another game widely recognized as the best of all time.

I really liked TP because the world felt the most engaging. It felt like the biggest adventure, and even if the world at points felt kind of empty, I never felt like that it was stupid. I mean there are plenty of flaws, like the fact the most of the items were used once and then never again after completing the dungeon, but I thought it was overall a good game.

I found it really hard to enjoy skyward sword. It was way to linear and I couldn't help but feel like I was being railroaded the entire game. The bosses (except koloktos) were pretty terrible too, especially the fucking imprisoned. There were some good things about skyward sword, like the controls and Zelda, but it was just not as good as I was hoping it would be. The fact that I bought the full package with everything for the game and was recovering from major constructive jaw surgery may have influenced my enjoyment of the game a little, but nothing that I thought significantly hurt my overall judgment of the game.