71 replies to this topic

[Aiddon]

Yet another wishlist pandering to the more shallow expectations of Zelda players. The Skyrim part especially makes me call BS as if you made a Zelda open-world then the pacing and difficulty curve would be DESTROYED.

[YoshiGamer9]

Actually, it does rather make yours invalid. You expressed outrage that Nintendo "never makes anything besides sequels" but as soon as I provide proof against that, you dismiss it because they're not AAA+ titles.

 

Yeah but those eShop games aren't from nintendo.... when are they gonna make a mario/zelda game or something that isn't a sequal???

"X" isn't a sequel, well, unless it's connected to the Xenoblade games, but there hasn't been any confirmation on that yet.

 

Doesn't count since that it isn't first party...

[TheUltimateWaddleDee]

Doesn't count since that it isn't first party...

Monolith Soft is owned by Nintendo, so they're first party...

[Mewbot]

Doesn't count since that it isn't first party...

 

Monolith Soft is owned by Nintendo, so they're first party...

This^

[3Dude]

Yeah but those eShop games aren't from nintendo.... when are they gonna make a mario/zelda game or something that isn't a sequal???
 
Doesn't count since that it isn't first party...

Monolith soft is a 1st party Nintendo studio.

[YoshiGamer9]

Monolith soft is a 1st party Nintendo studio.

 

 

This^

 

ok

[RETROBLAST]

My dream for the ultimate Zelda game is already coming true... A Link Between Worlds .... one based on A Link To The Past ... my favorite Zelda of all time ... loved the gameplay, the graphics, and overall style of that game ....

[Mitch]

 if you made a Zelda open-world then the pacing and difficulty curve would be DESTROYED.

 

Unless there is an XP or Leveling system implemented, then enemies would level up as you do

[RETROBLAST]

I just hope Zelda does not turn into anything like skyrim, the witcher, dishonored or anything like that ... It would kill the game for me.

Edited by RETROBLAST, 29 July 2013 - 07:24 PM.

[GreenPenInk]

 Skyrim sucked overall as a game.  It's riveting for the first 10 - 15 hours..... and then you realize you're doing the same things over and over again.  So Aonuma's comments on capturing that feeling of Skyrim (hopefully the initial feeling, heh) is very promising.

[MorbidGod]

I actually think, even if this interview never happened, most of this is true. We know Nintendo wants its big guns to sell the Wii U. So the time frame fits. We know they wanted a larger than life Wii U Zelda, similar to Skyrim.

The only thing I don't like is no motion controls. :'(

Skyward Sword was the first Zelda game that became tedious to me rather than becoming more engrossing the more I played. I love the idea of reusing environments but there has to be some sort of effect you've/time has had on the area like in OoT. Dungeons weren't memorable. Music wasn't memorable. There was no satisfaction in finishing off one of those harp melodies correctly. The motion controls weren't terrible... it just wasn't as much fun as it sounds like it should be. For one thing they were used in places they shouldn't be e.g. turning the keys to fit the doors. And for another there should be more bosses like Ghirahim which require you to be an excellent swordsman but along the way there should be mini-bosses which teach you a certain technique that will be effective against them. e.g. I found I hadn't learned anything about effective feinting by the time I got to Ghirahim and had to figure it all out there. The lack of engrossing sidequests. The ability to fly was something I didn't look forward to at all in game. That shouldn't be possible. I blame it largely on there being nothing to do while flying, nowhere to go, was there a sidequest to race people other than the Wing ceremony? Combat would have been difficult to design with the motion control as it was. I could go on, as an overall experience SS wasn't fulfilling like the rest of the Zelda franchise.

I wouldn't mind some motion control in the new Zelda, but I do think it would be stupid and not likely that they don't use the gamepad as the main controller in the first Zelda U game.

Anyways, I feel like most things on this list would be a great move forward if they were done well.

I haven't finished SS, so I can't argue if its good or not. However, I do agree it's likely the GamePad will be used and not motion control. My thought process behind it is Nintendo likes to use the controls they made for the system. Look at both Zelda's on Wii U. They could have used the GCN or Classic Controller, but didn't. Again, yes the Zelda game can use the Wiimote, but since the Wiimote doesn't cone standard for the Wii U I doubt they will use that.

Which brings me to one thing I over looked before. The multiplayer mode ... What controller would it use for local game play? That kind of sounds not true.

[Aiddon]

Unless there is an XP or Leveling system implemented, then enemies would level up as you do

 

Except those never work. In Skyrim for instance you'll just plow through enemies like a hot knife through butter despite the fact that they're the same level as you. And why does this dilemma exist? Because the player earns more than just more Health or Mana, they also learn new abilities, something that the enemies never get. So the difficulty durve in Skyrim not only never goes up, it actually DECREASES.

 

Another reason an open world Zelda wouldn't work is this: level design. Zelda's dungeons and just maps in general are an intricate clockwork of architecture and structure. Thing is, in an open world game the level design actually has to be very similar otherwise the difficulty curve makes no sense. And that is why it could never happen. Levels in Zelda get more and more complex little by little as the game progresses in a very precise manner in order to balance player resources, specifically tools, in order to be challenging but never irritating. If you take away the pacing then the game just becomes a bunch of samey dungeons which is a serious blow to the design.