brandonh83
Banned
Are my eyes broke? Am I really seeing this? Someone that actually liked it?
frans 4 life
How important are Zelda puzzles to you?
- Thread starter Karsticles
- Start date
Are my eyes broke? Am I really seeing this? Someone that actually liked it?
frans 4 life
MisterGrey3000
Member
I guess all of those words have a mutually exclusive relationship with puzzle solving???....
Do you realize how obtuse you're being right now?
Every Zelda game is marketed/branded in that way and they all have puzzle elements which make up like 75% of the total experience (except for Zelda 2, which is more of an action-platformer rpg than a traditional action-adventure game)
Same here.
I mean, I understand how big directionless open worlds can be exciting from thematic and game feel perspectives but I generally don't find them anymore interesting than linear/semi-linear worlds.
I often find that linear/semi-linear games are much more polished, varied, and well thought-out experiences.
As you've stated, Skyward Sword eventually opens up but it generally doesn't allow the player to do important task out of order. Which, I'm perfectly fine with.
Especially considering that SS has some of the best puzzle and platform/obstacle design in the series thanks to it's linear structure. It saddens me that the "dungeon-like overworld" elements will probably be regulated to being side-puzzles again in LoZ:U
You seem to be forgetting about the existence of Link's Awakening. Also, even if it wasn't as puzzle heavy as the later games, there were still plenty of puzzles in A Link to the Past.
I think maybe people are getting hung up on the word "puzzle" and thinking only of "solve this to advance". From the beginning of the series, the dungeons were built to be labyrinths. Even if there wasn't a lot going on mechanically in Zelda 1 dungeons besides find the key, find the wall to bomb, or push a block, they were designed to make you think, and not simply wander aimlessly as some seem to suggest. Some bosses were even designed to be beaten by deciphering hints given to you by helpful old men ("Dodongo hates smoke"). There may be more of them in the later games, but it was always present in one form or another.
Also, that video is awful. "It's fucking stupid and gay because I suck." Such reasoned criticism. Why would you even post that?
It's so good, fran!
Mihael Mello Keehl
Banned
The Kool aid is good though not like everything else was lost.. you people crack me up lol
I like them. Some more than others. But at the same time I'd be ok with a Zelda that had less of them and focused on other things, like Zelda 1 or 2. But I guess I'm easily pleased.
That said, I'm not a fan of the heavy dungeon-like nature of skyward swords over world. I like a handful of puzzles integrated into the over world, but not as much as SS did. Actually, I probably wouldn't have a problem with SS's style if the areas were connected, and you could unlock more shortcuts allowing you to get past areas you've already been through faster. There was some of that, but not enough. And some of the over world should be "empty space". As much as people claim they don't like that, it helps make the world feel more natural.
That said, I'm not a fan of the heavy dungeon-like nature of skyward swords over world. I like a handful of puzzles integrated into the over world, but not as much as SS did. Actually, I probably wouldn't have a problem with SS's style if the areas were connected, and you could unlock more shortcuts allowing you to get past areas you've already been through faster. There was some of that, but not enough. And some of the over world should be "empty space". As much as people claim they don't like that, it helps make the world feel more natural.
Fbh
Member
Let's just say that if they remove the puzzles without altering the rest of the gameplay I'd loose my love for the franchise.
Puzzles are one of the reasons I like this franchise so much.
If I want a 3D action game I think stuff like Bayonetta, Ninja Gaiden or even god of war are way better.
If I want a fantasy RPG's there are plenty of games that offer waaaaay more options like a wide variety of weapons, character classes, stats, skill trees, etc.
And If I want a great story I quite honestly think there are several games and franchises set in fantasy/medieval-fantasy worlds with better stories
What makes Zelda unique to me is the type of gameplay it has. Combining platforming, 3D action and puzzles to create a unique and interesting experience.
Puzzles are one of the reasons I like this franchise so much.
If I want a 3D action game I think stuff like Bayonetta, Ninja Gaiden or even god of war are way better.
If I want a fantasy RPG's there are plenty of games that offer waaaaay more options like a wide variety of weapons, character classes, stats, skill trees, etc.
And If I want a great story I quite honestly think there are several games and franchises set in fantasy/medieval-fantasy worlds with better stories
What makes Zelda unique to me is the type of gameplay it has. Combining platforming, 3D action and puzzles to create a unique and interesting experience.
LurkerPrime
Member
Puzzle-solving (or problem-solving in general) is one of the defining aspects of the Zelda series and I would dearly miss it if it were removed. The way I see it, Zelda games would just be another action-adventure series if it didn't have a myriad of items to acquire, and thus a wealth of unique gameplay experiences to go adventure through. Just imagine Ocarina of Time without any of the items as a straight-up hack and slash game - it would be an entirely lesser experience.
A combat-focused Zelda is simply Darksiders, which I've always felt is a weaker "me-too" of the Zelda formula. The combat focus weakens the game's overall design, because it is an inherently less varied formula. Instead of introducing increasingly new and interesting gameplay mechanics, it adds different variations of enemies to fight and more weapons to fight them with - simply because combat is the focus, instead of adventure. This combat focus (in Darksider's case, at least) binds it to a more linear progression, which heavily restricts (and opposes) the adventurous open world design that the Zelda series is known for.
So, puzzles are good and highly necessary for the Zelda formula that I enjoy.
One thing to note: I haven't played any of the handheld Zelda titles so I'm probably rather biased towards the 3D Zeldas.
Edit: That silly Gangnam Style video linked above has rekindled my desire to play Skyward Sword some day.
I can't resist Ghirahim's allure.
A combat-focused Zelda is simply Darksiders, which I've always felt is a weaker "me-too" of the Zelda formula. The combat focus weakens the game's overall design, because it is an inherently less varied formula. Instead of introducing increasingly new and interesting gameplay mechanics, it adds different variations of enemies to fight and more weapons to fight them with - simply because combat is the focus, instead of adventure. This combat focus (in Darksider's case, at least) binds it to a more linear progression, which heavily restricts (and opposes) the adventurous open world design that the Zelda series is known for.
So, puzzles are good and highly necessary for the Zelda formula that I enjoy.
One thing to note: I haven't played any of the handheld Zelda titles so I'm probably rather biased towards the 3D Zeldas.
Edit: That silly Gangnam Style video linked above has rekindled my desire to play Skyward Sword some day.
I can't resist Ghirahim's allure.
MisterGrey3000
Member
That really is a terribly produced and incredibly childish video; I'm kind of surprised that anyone on GAF would use it as a way to validate an opinion that they hold about the current state of the franchise.
It just goes to show you how crazy some people in this fan base can be at times.
:/
This is what I feel, as well.
To me, Zelda was at its most fun when the "puzzles" were more tied to exploring the world and figuring out where the clues you gathered along the way fit into the bigger picture. Modern games focusing increasingly more on their brand of "puzzles" has been one of the things that has increasingly turned me off the series.
I'm hoping the best for Zelda U, too, but yeah...seeing will be believing.
Talk about hyperbole lol
Is there really a sense of adventure without some puzzle solving? or am I that old? Adventure meant usually having to figure out stuff to go trough, think Indiana Jones or Dungeons and Dragons. I guess kids this days see adventures as hacking and slashing your way through with little thinking involved.
MisterGrey3000
Member
I don't know about that.
There is a reason why Ravio's shop was a central mechanic in ALBW, and there is a reason why the dungeon designs are so simple (Like, even more simple than WW's dungeon design)
It's hard to make complex puzzles and obstacles that make use of multiple items/player mechanics when you don't want to hinder the players progress.
It would be kind of dumb to design an open world/sandbox-style LoZ game that worked like any of the post-OoT non-ALBW games; the player would be constantly tasked with backtracking to earlier dungeons in order to pick up items (and skills) that they need in order to play the one that they personally picked.
It just goes against the very idea of having a free-roaming structure.
Edit: My greatest fear with this new game is that it's going to have brainless dungeon design; after playing TP and SS, I'm really not in the mood for sub-Wind Waker-caliber dungeon design.
eyeball_kid
Member
Right, I didn't say the overworld puzzles no longer exist. But in in this hypothetical new Zelda U game, let's say Aonuma has created a larger overworld that lends itself to more free roaming and "exploration" (by exploration I mean stumbling across interesting areas, characters, etc. that may relate to plot, may relate to non-plot secrets and lore, or just be there for something interesting/pretty to experience). So in this new overworld, there would be the typical large plot-focused puzzles to solve, which open up new areas, advance the narrative, etc. But in addition there would be situational or emergent puzzles. For instance (just thinking here), say Link comes across a band of shady-looking travelers wearing cloaks and carrying swords. They ask him to do them a favor -- go into an abandoned temple and take a statue -- in exchange for info Link needs. If Link accepts, he goes off and after some searching/fighting he finds the statue. If he returns the statue to the travelers, they give him the plot hint. If Link keeps the statue, it can open up a secret area later on, but he won't get the hint, and if the travelers see him later on they will attack. Maybe that's not the best example in terms of puzzle, but I think this kind of thing would help the world feel more alive and less like a Disney ride.
Nor am I saying that dungeon puzzles should cease to be, either. But I'd like to see Zelda dungeons change to more situational puzzles. Off the top of my head, something like a metal golem you can't damage attacks you, but it passes over a wooden bridge and if you set it alight, it falls to its doom. So you're given a situation and you have your gameplay mechanics, but it's not switches and architectural obstacles, it's "how do I get myself out of this mess" Indiana Jones kinda thing. Putting more feeling of danger and dread back into the dungeons, the way the early games felt, but still combining puzzle elements to make you think and not just slash and shoot.
TitusGroan
Banned
I... erm... wow. Today I learned there are people who actually don't want puzzles in Zelda games. Seems awfully strange to me. That's like saying you want a Halo game that focuses less on shooting and more on having a sense of adventure in a sci-fi setting. What does 'sense of adventure' even mean if you're not pairing the term with gameplay mechanics? How does one create 'adventure' in a fantasy game solely through gameplay mechanics? Just combat? Riding around on a horse? That would get pretty dang boring with nothing to break it up.
The whole point of having puzzles in a Zelda game is that they add points of focus to the larger worlds of the game. They provide a concentrated dose of challenge to the player that requires they do more than just bash enemies with a sword. And that's really important, because when you're dealing with large fantasy worlds, you need to find ways to focus the player and provide intricate challenges lest the experience turn into a boring slog from point A to point B.
People use games like Skyrim as examples of fantasy games that don't use puzzles as a gameplay mechanic, without realising that it does use puzzles. They're just not very good. Skyrim follows the Zelda formula almost to a tee in presenting player with dungeons to explore, that have puzzles to solve before progress can be made. It's just that in Skyrim, the dungeons are super repetitive, and the puzzles are braindead. It makes for an experience of drudgery, as you go from one dungeon to the next, exploring the same tombs and doing simplistic symbol decoding. Even Bethesda realise that you need something mentally stimulating to break up the exploration and combat, because otherwise the player just ends up going into autopilot mode. It's just that in their case, they fucked up the execution big time. Dungeons are one of the biggest let-downs in Skyrim.
It's all very well and good to talk in abstract terms about 'adventure' and whatnot, but at the end of the day, developers deal in mechanics. You need mechanics to add meat to any game's bones. There is no mechanic for just adding a sense of adventure to a game. You need to find ways to keep the player engaged across multiple hours of running around, and puzzles are one of the best ways to do that. They require thought rather than just reflexes, and can add points of intricate design to game worlds that can otherwise be rather flat and featureless. They're also one of the key identifiers and most beloved elements of the Zelda franchise. No other series has managed to make puzzles so integral to a fantasy experience as Zelda, and it's led to many of the series' most acclaimed moments.
I just cannot fathom why you would want to play a Zelda game without the puzzles. It's like wanting to play Half-Life 2 without the gravity gun. Without them, you'd have nothing left but merely wandering around a featureless field, occasionally bashing in Moblins. Maybe it's because I live near the countryside, and can therefore get all the outdoor walks I want, but I don't find the prospect of a hiking simulator all the appealing. If I'm going to play a Zelda game, I want something that demands a bit more of my attention and concentration. Thankfully the majority of the Zelda game I've played thus far have provided that, and for all it's open-worldness, I hope Zelda U does as well.
The whole point of having puzzles in a Zelda game is that they add points of focus to the larger worlds of the game. They provide a concentrated dose of challenge to the player that requires they do more than just bash enemies with a sword. And that's really important, because when you're dealing with large fantasy worlds, you need to find ways to focus the player and provide intricate challenges lest the experience turn into a boring slog from point A to point B.
People use games like Skyrim as examples of fantasy games that don't use puzzles as a gameplay mechanic, without realising that it does use puzzles. They're just not very good. Skyrim follows the Zelda formula almost to a tee in presenting player with dungeons to explore, that have puzzles to solve before progress can be made. It's just that in Skyrim, the dungeons are super repetitive, and the puzzles are braindead. It makes for an experience of drudgery, as you go from one dungeon to the next, exploring the same tombs and doing simplistic symbol decoding. Even Bethesda realise that you need something mentally stimulating to break up the exploration and combat, because otherwise the player just ends up going into autopilot mode. It's just that in their case, they fucked up the execution big time. Dungeons are one of the biggest let-downs in Skyrim.
It's all very well and good to talk in abstract terms about 'adventure' and whatnot, but at the end of the day, developers deal in mechanics. You need mechanics to add meat to any game's bones. There is no mechanic for just adding a sense of adventure to a game. You need to find ways to keep the player engaged across multiple hours of running around, and puzzles are one of the best ways to do that. They require thought rather than just reflexes, and can add points of intricate design to game worlds that can otherwise be rather flat and featureless. They're also one of the key identifiers and most beloved elements of the Zelda franchise. No other series has managed to make puzzles so integral to a fantasy experience as Zelda, and it's led to many of the series' most acclaimed moments.
I just cannot fathom why you would want to play a Zelda game without the puzzles. It's like wanting to play Half-Life 2 without the gravity gun. Without them, you'd have nothing left but merely wandering around a featureless field, occasionally bashing in Moblins. Maybe it's because I live near the countryside, and can therefore get all the outdoor walks I want, but I don't find the prospect of a hiking simulator all the appealing. If I'm going to play a Zelda game, I want something that demands a bit more of my attention and concentration. Thankfully the majority of the Zelda game I've played thus far have provided that, and for all it's open-worldness, I hope Zelda U does as well.
Well my first two Zelda games were aLttP and LA and one of the aspects I enjoyed about them was the puzzles all I can say to this post is what?
Laughing Banana
Weeping Pickle
I am even a rarer species in that I think the control scheme in Skyward Sword is brilliant and I can't help but to raise my eyebrows to anyone saying it sucks.
Love Skyward Sword greatly.
People like us exist. People forget that Skyward Sword had a really great critical reception. I hate using the intellectually lazy Zelda cycle nonsense, but Skyward Sword gets very undeserved hate for trying something new. And ironically, it has the deepest combat of any Zelda ever.
Zelda isn't just about puzzles, but they are a fundamental part of the game.
There is the overworld, the discovery. Poking your nose around the map, finding places that are walled off to you, areas of intrigue to return to later. The sense of triumph as you find a secret here there and everywhere.
Then there are the denizens. Your moments of downtime to speak to the inhabitants of the world.
Punctuating this are the dungeons. This is where the puzzle play comes into effect, switching the pace. You have combat moments, places where you come up against dead ends. The key moments are finding the big key, the major treasure and starting to unpick the various corners of the dungeon as you open up the shortcuts to the boss.
Many people draw a comparison between Zelda and the Souls' series and it is this dismantling of the level and taking on the major boss that is that link. Without the structure as it is, you wouldn't get anywhere near the level of accomplishment from the game.
There is the overworld, the discovery. Poking your nose around the map, finding places that are walled off to you, areas of intrigue to return to later. The sense of triumph as you find a secret here there and everywhere.
Then there are the denizens. Your moments of downtime to speak to the inhabitants of the world.
Punctuating this are the dungeons. This is where the puzzle play comes into effect, switching the pace. You have combat moments, places where you come up against dead ends. The key moments are finding the big key, the major treasure and starting to unpick the various corners of the dungeon as you open up the shortcuts to the boss.
Many people draw a comparison between Zelda and the Souls' series and it is this dismantling of the level and taking on the major boss that is that link. Without the structure as it is, you wouldn't get anywhere near the level of accomplishment from the game.
I'm not a fan of Aonuma's puzzle-centric approach, but I don't think that puzzles should be removed from the series. Puzzle-solving is part of Zelda's essence and it needs to stay. There are two major problems here, though.
The first problem lies in the extremely rigid and mechanical way that the series handles its design. Things would be much better if Zelda aimed for a more fluid, seamless and organic approach in puzzle-solving (and its design in general).
The other problem, for me, is that Aonuma seems to believe that Zelda is all about puzzles. Whether he does that because that's what he envisions Zelda to be, or because he's simply trying to play to his "strengths", the result is one and the same. He and his team ignore so many other things that matter in the action-adventure genre and decide to handle the series primarily as a 3rd person puzzle game.
Zelda has now become subpar in so many important aspects that people care about. From the general presentation, to how it handles the overworld, the pacing, the swordplay, the world-building, the characterization of the NPCs, to how it completely fails at offering an engaging Hyrule that actually feels like a lively, breathing world etc. In fact, the worlds in Zelda are getting more boring, lifeless, static and unmemorable with every new installment. But, of course, none of these things matter in a puzzle game so Aonuma doesn't care about them.
The first problem lies in the extremely rigid and mechanical way that the series handles its design. Things would be much better if Zelda aimed for a more fluid, seamless and organic approach in puzzle-solving (and its design in general).
The other problem, for me, is that Aonuma seems to believe that Zelda is all about puzzles. Whether he does that because that's what he envisions Zelda to be, or because he's simply trying to play to his "strengths", the result is one and the same. He and his team ignore so many other things that matter in the action-adventure genre and decide to handle the series primarily as a 3rd person puzzle game.
Zelda has now become subpar in so many important aspects that people care about. From the general presentation, to how it handles the overworld, the pacing, the swordplay, the world-building, the characterization of the NPCs, to how it completely fails at offering an engaging Hyrule that actually feels like a lively, breathing world etc. In fact, the worlds in Zelda are getting more boring, lifeless, static and unmemorable with every new installment. But, of course, none of these things matter in a puzzle game so Aonuma doesn't care about them.
Grizzlyjin
Supersonic, idiotic, disconnecting, not respecting, who would really ever wanna go and top that
I'm definitely in the Zelda is Puzzles camp. Without the puzzles, I'm not interested. The combat isn't strong enough to stand on its own and I highly doubt we could get better combat by excluding puzzles.
TitusGroan
Banned
I disagree completely. Regarding the aspects you say are important to Zelda:
- Under Aonuma's watch, Zelda's presentation has got more ambitious, not less. We got the cel-shaded Wind Waker style that still looks incredible to this day, the impressionistic visuals of Skyward Sword that were (IMO) probably the best way to handle a Zelda game on Wii hardware, and we've now got that beautiful looking Zelda U trailer. In terms of art style and small touches, modern Zelda games routinely shit on other fantasy games that came out during similar periods, such as Oblivion or Dragon Age Origins.
- The swordplay has been consistently getting stronger, with SS providing the most complete and masterful use of sword combat in a Zelda game yet. I'm not sure where they're going to take the combat in Zelda U, but after all the refinement and development they've done over successive games, I'm not too worried.
- Zelda characterization has always been iffy, going all the way back to the NES and SNES games, but again, Skyward Sword did more than any other game I can think of in the franchise to step up in that regard.
- The overworld structuer gets a lot of criticism from game to game, but then again, I don't think there are any Fantasy games that have managed to pull off a flawless overworld. Skyrim's world is consistently criticized for being a boring huge mass full of repeated dungeons, Dragon Age went from having a compartmentalized Fantasy world in Origins to just having one lone city and repeated dungeons in Dragon Age II. CD Projeckt are talking up big things for the open world of the Witcher III, but W1 and 2 hardly set the world on fire with their world design and layout.
To their credit, EAD3 have consistently tried different approaches when it comes to how to structure a game world, and that's something worth celebrating. Skyward Sword's layout may not have been for everyone, but it tried some genuinely clever things in marrying the overworld with dungeon design, and there are not many other games that have opted for a similar approach. I'd rather EAD3 keep mixing things up and trying new things rather than just constantly re-iterating on one overworld design a la Bethesda.
- This whole 'living breathing world' stuff I don't get. There isn't a single Fantasy game out there that has a living breathing world, not even WoW with its millions of players. It's a marketing term, not an actual design term. Dark Souls didn't have a living breathing world. Everything in it was dead, or dying. Skyrim didn't have a living breathing world, everyone followed janky ass AI patterns (though less so than Oblivion). What Fantasy games are there actually out there that present the living breathing world that Zelda apparently misses out on by not including?
This is the sort of thing I don't like about modern discussion of Zelda games. Game mechanics and designs get shat on, but are only replaced in the debate by abstract concepts and intangible ideas. This thread has had any number of people talking about the 'feel of adventure', wanting to 'get lost in exploration', wanting to play in a 'living breathing world'... what does any of that mean in real terms? If Aonuma were to look at this thread, how is he supposed to take on board criticism of puzzles when intangible stuff like that is offered as the alternative? How is he supposed to take those abstract ideas and make mechanics from them? How do you make a 'living breathing world' when everything needs to be rendered in modelling software and coded in ones and zeroes?
Quoting a few points all at once to respond to....
1. Aunoma made the first Zelda without any actual overworld. Aunoma has made Zelda into the corridor shooter of action games. This is less, not more, ambition.
2. In past Zelda games, Link was able to attack and destroy enemies with his sword. In Skyward Sword, you play Simon Says with them.
3. Skyward Sword has probably the worst characterization of any Zelda game I have played. In terms of the last three mainline titles, it's been a clear decliine from Windwaker > Twilight Princess > Skyward Sword. SS gave you basically annoying sidekick character + Teen Valley High. The game doesn't even attempt to explain the motivations of the other characters in the game - hell, it tries to avoid doing so by keeping the plot events a secret from the other residents of Skyloft. Oh no, the world's ending, maybe the Skyloft Knights will come help? Haha, just kidding, they're too busy catching people that fall off the island or just flying around for kicks.
4. Maybe try reading a book.
1. Aunoma made the first Zelda without any actual overworld. Aunoma has made Zelda into the corridor shooter of action games. This is less, not more, ambition.
2. In past Zelda games, Link was able to attack and destroy enemies with his sword. In Skyward Sword, you play Simon Says with them.
3. Skyward Sword has probably the worst characterization of any Zelda game I have played. In terms of the last three mainline titles, it's been a clear decliine from Windwaker > Twilight Princess > Skyward Sword. SS gave you basically annoying sidekick character + Teen Valley High. The game doesn't even attempt to explain the motivations of the other characters in the game - hell, it tries to avoid doing so by keeping the plot events a secret from the other residents of Skyloft. Oh no, the world's ending, maybe the Skyloft Knights will come help? Haha, just kidding, they're too busy catching people that fall off the island or just flying around for kicks.
4. Maybe try reading a book.
……forgetit
Member
No puzzles no Zelda.
You what? Without the puzzles I would rather just play Ys. I've never really thought much of Zelda's combat (although Skyward Sword was pretty cool with the motion controls), and I honestly never thought it did exploration that well (more plus points for Skyward Sword making the outside areas dungeony).
What makes Zelda a compelling series to me is the way it creatively uses its gadgets especially in dungeons. Most of the time these boil down to puzzles, although sometimes I guess you could say there are timing sequences where you trigger something and need to take advantage in a set time (aLttp did this a lot). These could be called puzzles too depending on your take of the concept.
It all gives me that Indiana Jones vibe really, without puzzles it would be sorely missing.
It makes me worry really that the next Zelda will be open world. I hope it doesn't sacrifice ingenuity and creativity with its mechanics. It's hard to make an open world game puzzly.
I realise Zelda 1 and 2 were not puzzle heavy but I never played those games, and the series is clearly defined now by the aLttP formula. It would be like 2D Castlevania stripping its metroidvania structure and going back to its more standard platformer roots.
A better question would be, how can Zelda make its puzzles and use of gadgets in general more surprising and satisfying. I think people are probably tired of the type of puzzles commonly found in zelda, and maybe more than anything else, the artificiality of them. How can Nintendo make them less videogamey and more natural, environmental and thematic? Someone mentioned Shadow of the Colossus. I think that's a wonderful example of a game that make its puzzles so natural you don't lose the level of immersion the game painstakingly creates, it doesn't feel too videogamey.
Obviously, I still want Zelda to have more complex puzzles than SotC, but I think it can take inspiration from it and from ICO too in how everything makes sense thematically and architecturally.
What makes Zelda a compelling series to me is the way it creatively uses its gadgets especially in dungeons. Most of the time these boil down to puzzles, although sometimes I guess you could say there are timing sequences where you trigger something and need to take advantage in a set time (aLttp did this a lot). These could be called puzzles too depending on your take of the concept.
It all gives me that Indiana Jones vibe really, without puzzles it would be sorely missing.
It makes me worry really that the next Zelda will be open world. I hope it doesn't sacrifice ingenuity and creativity with its mechanics. It's hard to make an open world game puzzly.
I realise Zelda 1 and 2 were not puzzle heavy but I never played those games, and the series is clearly defined now by the aLttP formula. It would be like 2D Castlevania stripping its metroidvania structure and going back to its more standard platformer roots.
A better question would be, how can Zelda make its puzzles and use of gadgets in general more surprising and satisfying. I think people are probably tired of the type of puzzles commonly found in zelda, and maybe more than anything else, the artificiality of them. How can Nintendo make them less videogamey and more natural, environmental and thematic? Someone mentioned Shadow of the Colossus. I think that's a wonderful example of a game that make its puzzles so natural you don't lose the level of immersion the game painstakingly creates, it doesn't feel too videogamey.
Obviously, I still want Zelda to have more complex puzzles than SotC, but I think it can take inspiration from it and from ICO too in how everything makes sense thematically and architecturally.
TitusGroan
Banned
Maybe try reading my points, rather than posting snark. Abstract concepts and marketing terms are not viable alternatives for actual mechanical structures and development ideas. How do you take an abstract concept like 'adventure' or 'living breathing world' and turn it into an actual game without getting down into real world development structures like... puzzles.
I'm even rarer, I absolutely love the controls in SS but the puzzles are all braindead.
The dungeons used to be fun mazes but now they're room with chores to do.
Heck the backtracking forcing you to redo dungeons done before was an awesome idea barely used.
For what it's worth, I don't value puzzles in Zelda games being more important than they were in th FFCC games.
Like I said. If you don't know what goes into making a living breathing world, read some books. Think about what goes into a good book - strong characters, good pacing and plotting, a setting that that helps, or at least does not detract from, the story. Here's an admittedly minor, but I think illustrative, example. In Skyward Sword (late game spoilers ahead!) Skyview Temple has just been hanging out underneath the statue of the goddess since, what, Skyview was lifted from the ground. Generations have passed, at the very least. What the hell are stray bokoblins doing hanging out in sealed off rooms inside that temple? That's very much a "This is a video game and it doesn't make sense moment." It takes away from the story of entering a temple that has been sealed off for ages - the sense of mystery and suspense. What should the game designers do instead? If you're going to make a sealed off temple, watch Indiana Jones. Heck, watch the Goonies - booby traps!
It could have worked with goblins inside if they were emanation of darkness or something....
then again it's the fucking temple of the Goddess where the most important artifact is, why the fuck are there any enemies inside trying to kill the Goddess chosen hero?
Even having bad guys take over the temple could have explained that one or something.
Seriously even aLttP did it better with the castle being 'mostly' friendly till it's taken over by the bad guy.
This is correct. You had a directive but you still had the freedom to leave the area and go back and do a sidequest or explore the area at your leisure. SS gives you as much freedom as Majora's Mask in that regard.
I'm also with you on Skyrim. I stopped playing that game after a dozen hours because the game got too repetitive. I feel like those games should be more complicated than they actually are. The only way I'm interacting with the game is by killing shit and talking to people. It's all you do.
They are almost the most important gamepley element to me. The great thing about Zelda dungeons is trying to figure out how they work, and the more over-arching dungeon design and the corresponding puzzle are, the better (this is why I love MM's dungeons so much, because they are simply a lot more complex than many of their counterparts).
TitusGroan
Banned
I take my avatar name from the title character of one of the densest, most out-there fantasy trilogies in print. I have read books as bizarre as Chronicles Of An Age of Darkness to as everyday and depressing as No-One Writes To The Colonel. I read plenty of books, fantasy, sci-fi and other. My reading credentials are fine. I will once again thank you for not being condescending and full of snark.
Reading books has nothing to do with what is, at the end of the day, marketing speak. There has never been a game with a true living, breathing world, Fantasy or otherwise. My query was therefore on the meaning of the statement in regards to Zelda.
So basically lore. Lots and lots of lore. you know what? No thanks. I'm bored to the back teeth of playing fantasy games, and being expected to read reams and reams of backstory and lore just to have any idea what's going on. Zelda presents a classic hero's journey for me to explore, keeps the exposition to a minimum, and allows me to jump right in with a focus on gameplay over boring, stilted dialogue about this House versus that House, or how this ancestor went and fought that ancient demon, or this ancient empire... blah blah blah.
One of Zelda's greatest strengths is that it is unashamedly a videogame. It keeps the focus on gameplay, and keep the story elements to a bare minimum, making sure that lore never trumps playability.
"What's that Goddess? You want us to put the Triforce inside your temple, and then hide your temple underneath your statute? Sure, can do. We'll just build a nice altar, plop it on top. Wait, what's that? Break it into three pieces? And put those in another dimension only accessible from inside the temple? Okay, got it. So we'll build three doors, and then... what's that? Okay, no doors, portals activated by a magic sword, got it. One room, three sword portals - Oh. You want the temple to be a giant maze? Okay, maze, got it, we'll have a bunch of connected rooms, and - Oh. Huh. Yeah, I guess we could have the rooms actually not connected, but have a giant hidden mechanism for rearranging the rooms so that by using various control mechanisms interspersed throughout, the Chosen Hero can slowly make his way through the maze. Right. Right. With enemies and obstacles to his path. Got it. A lot of 'em. Got it. Okay, I'm thinking very futuristic, robotic looking... really? Yeah, we can do rooms themed to different areas of the world, but a demon room? Well, you're the Goddess!"
Exactly, it's like they weren't trying at all!
It's like that in ALBW too! There's no global threats at all and it's supposed to be a sequel to Alttp so really Link (this one or another) had already cleaned and sealed the palaces, right?
Nope, he actually killed no foes and the kingdom being good rulers left the temples where the artifacts to get the amazing sword to crush evil to be overrun by all the devils out there.
Seriously if there's one thing TP did right was establishing that shit was going so bad that the hero was needed.
In SS and Albw, you're there but there's no urgency.
In SS the land beyond the clouds are supposed to be the hellish nightmare overrun by monsters but nope everything else points to everything being mighty fine down there.
World building sucks in Zelda recently.
Heck compare to Xenoblade, the world of Humes is about to end. We're something like one attack away from Mecons actually wiping the place from all non Mecons and you're in a mad dash for survival.
The only other settlements are barely surviving with the exception of 1 or 2 places, say what you will but at least the world need saving there.
Show don't tell.
You can have a fantastic lore without having to make people read 5 tomes of shit no one wants to read.
There's a s reason the temple using the mythos of the Enlightment and hell was so well received.
Well at least don't make dungeons inside the town hall of the major city being filled with huge monsters without some kind of explanation.
Very important. They just need to be way harder and less obvious for Zelda veterans. Spanning several rooms and floors. Zelda dungeons are too linear nowadays. The stuff you need to do in order to unlock the next door are often in the same room or the room before.
The best Zelda puzzles have always been about spatial awareness, not item usage (Except the thinking-outside-the-box ones). They also need to hide more stuff. Where are the bombed walls? (Without cracks)
The best Zelda puzzles have always been about spatial awareness, not item usage (Except the thinking-outside-the-box ones). They also need to hide more stuff. Where are the bombed walls? (Without cracks)
You probably also wanted an explanation on how the ninjas kidnapped the president and how the bad dudes became bad enough dudes. Sometimes the answer is simple: it's a videogame.
TitusGroan
Banned
Personally, I've always wanted to know just why the London property market is beholden to a bunch of dice rolls and a single individual literally holding all the cards and cash.
Action = Triforce of Power
Exploration = Triforce of Courage
Puzzles = Triforce of Wisdom
DUM DUM DUM
I stopped reading the thread after this post. Nothing else needed to be said.
sciencerob
Member
An open world does not inherently imply a great game.