Never got the whole empty field complaint. Have some of you ever been to a field? Most are pretty sparse on things to do. It's more about the scenery and immersion. If they litter it with a bunch of crap (mini games, puzzels, salesmen, whatever) it completely loses the feel of being a real place. Sure some caves to explore and secrets to uncover is completely welcome, but put too much of that kinda stuff in and you break the immersion IMO. I kinda like the fields just being nice looking scenery with a few places to explore and secrets to uncover and nothing more. Leave the puzzels and stuff in the dungeons. One of the reasons I disliked Skyward Swords "overworld" was because it threw a bunch of puzzels and obstacles at you and it felt too much like a game world instead of being a real place.
Eiji Aonuma teases surprise twist on open-world in Zelda U, talks about fan feedback
- Thread starter DownGrader
- Start date
I'm the opposite. Having stuff to do in the world made the place feel more alive to me. I'm actually interacting with the world instead of just looking at scenery. LaNayru actually having all those time-warping stones really drove home the feeling of being in an ancient technologically advanced civilization.
I think you're (at least partially) right, but the truth is we have no idea on how they're planning to fill the open world. Just because a video of a very, very early build of the game (that they had to show offscreen) looked somewhat empty doesn't mean that the actual, final game will be empty as well. We don't even know how they intend to build the open world mechanics after these statements by Aonuma.
It's a balancing act. I think some of skyward swords areas felt pretty "real" in the way they were laid out, and I'd like to see some of that level design make its way into Zelda U. Faron Woods is a good example. It's pretty maze-like. You couldn't just get from point A to point B by walking straight to it. And for a heavily wooded area with varying heights of terrain that makes sense. When you go out hiking, and you go off the manmade trail, there's a lot of obstacles to consider. Certain cliff faces that you can't climb up on one side, but if you find your way around to the other side you can make it up. Certain segments of thick foliage that you shouldn't go through because you'll end up all scratched up. Building level design around the idea of natural obstacles shouldn't be breaking people's immersion because the real world does work that way often enough. That said, I do also enjoy having some space to breath and move how and where I want. Having some towns and paths and fields to balance out the dense areas is fine. But, with that in mind, that doesn't mean those sections should be as empty as they have been in past games. There's nothing wrong with having people out in the fields doing stuff. I completely disagree with the idea that it makes it not feel like a real place. Having npcs moving between towns to trade goods feels more real than having nothing. Having an npc set up camp feels more real than nothing. Things being in the "empty" areas shouldn't break immersion either.
about the open world part, he made a discussion before that it should be more like the old zelda's.
>===>>
Zelda 1, zelda gameboy, and a link to the past. In those game you get a more feeling to be free of what you do, but still possible to find you way in the game (same for dungeons). I didn't had this feeling in the other games.
One other thing, i don't like to much story telling games. I prefer always that the story will be created while you are playing the game, instead of using allot of cutscenes.
I think it will also have something special like the wall thing on the 3ds version, but something related with the open world game.....that is what he means (I think
).
Also, it wouldn't be a realistic game, but we already knows that.
I hope also it will be ganon again, the best endboss with zelda was from OOT.
http://38.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mdmbs8Xc8L1rkey39o1_r3_500.gif
Some screens i like and how i think a zelda game could be:
And i hope not something like this: http://tpucdn.com/npu/img/2015/04-28/20616-a0aa24d7_945_556.jpg
it breaks the fantasy
>===>>
Zelda 1, zelda gameboy, and a link to the past. In those game you get a more feeling to be free of what you do, but still possible to find you way in the game (same for dungeons). I didn't had this feeling in the other games.
One other thing, i don't like to much story telling games. I prefer always that the story will be created while you are playing the game, instead of using allot of cutscenes.
I think it will also have something special like the wall thing on the 3ds version, but something related with the open world game.....that is what he means (I think
).Also, it wouldn't be a realistic game, but we already knows that.
I hope also it will be ganon again, the best endboss with zelda was from OOT.
http://38.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mdmbs8Xc8L1rkey39o1_r3_500.gif
Some screens i like and how i think a zelda game could be:
And i hope not something like this: http://tpucdn.com/npu/img/2015/04-28/20616-a0aa24d7_945_556.jpg
it breaks the fantasy
LegendofLex
Member
Easy fix to this problem: populate the world with more enemies, and in particular make sure there are encounters that involve several highly-aggressive enemies so that there's some degree of challenge and the encounter isn't over in about 10 seconds if you target the enemy and mash B to victory.
That'd break up travel so it's not just watching trees, mountains, and plains go by beneath your horse hooves, while also giving players an opportunity to scope the level of difficulty that you'll find in dungeons/caves/etc. in the area you're heading to. And since the obstacles in that case wouldn't be puzzle-based but skill-based, they wouldn't feel excessively repetitive on future playthroughs; you could tackle the hardest area first if you wanted to, and the game would likely feel very different. Add in difficulty settings, and you're golden.
I actually believe that terrain manipulation will be a large part of the puzzles/exploration in this game. Kind of like how season manipulation in Oracle of Seasons was integral to accessing certain areas.
The way Aonuma talks about overworld navigation as if it's a puzzle in this game and you can enter into each area from 360 degrees makes it sound like there's some way to affect the terrain itself.
about the open world part, he made a discussion before that it should be more like the old zelda's.
>===>>
Zelda 1, zelda gameboy, and a link to the past. In those game you get a more feeling to be free of what you do, but still possible to find you way in the game (same for dungeons). I didn't had this feeling in the other games.
I think it will also have something special like the wall thing on the 3ds version, but something related with the open world game.....that is what he means (I think
That would be amazing, but I think it would prove impossible. The reason things like the wall-merging mechanic work is because of the nature of 2D games. It's far, far easier to balance something like that in a 2D game than in a 3D game.
I mean, that's one of the big reasons why 3D zelda has had such a hard time giving the player "meaningful" content in the larger worlds. The very nature of the 3rd dimension adds so many more things that the developer needs to consider that replicating the types of gameplay found in 2D zeldas is almost impossible.
LegendofLex
Member
Handful of random gimmick-like ideas (gimmicky for Zelda games, anyway) that could work well in an open-world game:
- Receive treasure maps from NPC quests that fill in your main map with icons pointing to secrets (sort of like TWW, but without the constant map-switching)
- Draw on your maps to mark things you want to revisit later (because the enemies are too tough, you lack a specific item you think you need, etc.)
- Dark Souls-esque summons when you're stuck; summoned players could help you with tough battles or help you figure out a dungeon (would allow for tougher combat scenarios and trickier puzzles); keep the Tri Force Heroes-style multiplayer gimmicks out of the main game, but maybe offer them in an "Arena" type mode or something
- More emphasis on equipment, possibly requiring you to switch out equipment by returning to your horse or something (e.g. only the sword or the bow, not both; one melee weapon and one ranged weapon at a time; etc.). Having lots of weapons to discover would motivate players to explore every nook and cranny of the world and experiment in combat, and having to optimize your equipment for certain areas (e.g. a dungeon could have lots of ranged enemies, meaning a bow is more useful than a sword; or a dungeon might have a mix of both armored and ranged enemies, requiring you to choose one approach but adapt it to both) would add another layer of challenge to dungeons. Since this is Zelda, obtaining a new weapon would undoubtedly be handled in a way that's more "special" than "loot" from most open-world games (think the upgrades from Zelda I, LttP, MM, SS, ALBW, etc.) They also don't really have to go nearly as overboard; they can keep it simple (like the sword and/or bow idea)
- Similar to Zelda I and Zelda II, have the enemies you fight in dungeons be very different than the ones you fight in the field (Stalfos and Armos vs. Bokoblins, for example)...but when you clear a dungeon, have some of those enemies intermix with the ones you typically find in the field. Would allow areas to vaguely scale in difficulty so that traversing them doesn't become trivial as you become more powerful, while still retaining the feeling of growth (you've already fought these enemies before, now you'll just fight them more)
This. I want a Zelda game, I don't want a carbon copy of these open world games, that's bullshit. Ill buy Witcher if I want to play Witcher.
If they want to copy everything else that's out, do that shit with a new IP. So far this sounds good, some OW elements but done true to the series and not just copy pasting from other unrelated games.
These are all great ideas, and I hope some of them are implemented in Zelda U, but most of them don't really reach the same level of relevance as the wall merging mechanic in LBW. Wall merging is a primary mechanic that informs the level design of every screen in the game. It's basically of the same relevance as jumping is in Mario. And it's as seamlessly integrated too. I don't think we're going to get something with that level of relevance in a huge, highly detailed, organically structured 3D game (as compared to a smaller, lower detailed, inorganically structured 2D game).
However, this:
could definitely come close to reaching that level of relevance. If done correctly, this idea could really shake up both the zelda formula, and the open world formula. Since it's not a primary mechanic (aka it's not something that the player can activate at any time like walking or jumping), then it would be much easier to design around the idea without breaking the game/level design. If Link's equipment is limited, and epona is used as a mobile storage unit, there's so much they could do with that. Especially if epona is treated as more of a real entity in the game, rather than just a form of transportation that magically transports to you whenever you call her. Imagine taking epona into a dungeon with you, and you have to separate from her at certain points, but the reunite with her at other points. Imagine a day night cycle, where, if you are with epona when the sun goes down you'll have all your equipment and you'll be able to set up camp and light a campfire that keeps enemies away from you and allows you to sleep until morning. However, if you are stuck without epona when the sun goes down you don't have your equipment to build a fire and you have to "survive the night" with harder enemies until you find your way back to her.
There's a ton they could do.
TheCongressman1
Member
Man, these are killer. This is the kind of thing that is going to make this game special if they can provide an experience like that.
The idea of managing your items in such a way really puts emphasis on the large nature of the world, you are out on a quest given a tool set, and you have to decide how you are going to complete that quest. It puts pressure on the player, but nothing extremely frustrating. It's exactly the thing I love about Dark Souls but fit to work in the context of a Zelda game.
LegendofLex
Member
Well, you're right that they aren't singular mechanics that change the way the game is designed/played, but they do contribute greatly to the sense of "player freedom" that Aonuma often talks about. And ultimately "player freedom" in a broad sense is a concept-level vision that informs the design and gameplay.
But, yeah, I'm probably placing too much importance on my fanboy ideas. ;p
Yeah, me neither. I don't think it's an appropriate way to think about game design in a 3D world.
Right. In a sense it'd almost seem like a retreat from the typical assumption that Link just constantly gets more tools that are always at his fingertips, and thus can conquer whatever he's up against with ease if you know what items to use. But it'd enable [modern] Zelda to transcend the boundaries of its genre (for example, becoming more RPG-like) without abandoning its core values (like action-based combat that uses simple, intuitive controls) in favor of "hardcore" game mechanics (i.e. without implementing a heavily numbers-based stats system).
It'd also redefine the way enemy encounters are handled, without completely crushing the controls longtime players are used to. You simply choose the weapon scheme you think is more appropriate for the area you're checking out, or the one that matches your personal playstyle - not unlike Splatoon. Maybe you're up against armored foes, so you bring a sword and shield so you can weather heavy attacks. If you're up against ranged foes, you bring a bow, but you have to leave the shield behind, which leaves you more vulnerable but lets you strike from a distance.
This skews the combat away from the "super powerful main character that has tools on hand that can wreck everything" to thoughtful combat where you have to either choose the equipment that's best against the enemies you're up against so you aren't outmatched, or become skilled enough with whatever you like to use to take them out despite being at a disadvantage.
At the same time, elevating combat and equipment in this way makes them both massive complements to exploration in more than just the "lock and key" fashion we're used to from past games. For example, if you don't always have the bow handy, you might need to improvise to solve certain puzzles, or pay extra attention to hazards and enemies that can attack you from a distance. But if you have the bow, you might need to be more careful to stock potions since you won't be able to deal with crowds of enemies with the same efficiency as you would with your sword.
All of this will also complement the "easy to play, difficult to master" mantra that made Nintendo games really memorable back in the day. If you play through the dungeons in the "proper" order, and use the "proper" equipment, you'll probably not have a very tough time. But with the open-world approach, you can break the order as much as you want, and on top of that choose equipment that's less suited against particular enemies or bosses for an extra challenge.
When I thought of using Epona as the "storage" for your items, the place you can go to change out equipment to suit the situation, I was really thinking of two things:
1) Limiting equipment
Traditionally, Zelda games let you carry every single item you get over the course of the game simultaneously. This often results in Link being super overpowered at the end of the game, since you can switch to whatever item works best for a given situation at literally any time. It also leads to some lazy enemy design, where certain items are "keys" that easily defeat the enemy, and the game can safely rely on this kind of design because of course if you're at that point in the game you probably have the right item.
What if you're limited in the number of items you can have equipped at once? This would shake up the role of items, where the ones you choose are more about giving you certain advantages or disadvantages instead of having the "key" you need to solve a certain "puzzle" (including both environmental puzzles and combat ones).
Any enemy can technically be defeated by any [primary] weapon, and you won't need to bring along any particular weapon to solve puzzles - so being locked in to a certain weapon won't prevent you from progressing if you don't have the "right" one. Instead, it'd just be easier or harder to solve certain puzzles depending on which weapon you bring. This would offer tremendous flexibility both in terms of how players approach dungeons and how they approach enemies.
Unfortunately, most RPGs implement these "limiting" elements through annoying mechanics like equip load (which forces you to drop excess items off at a particular location, thus "limiting" the items you can carry), or by locking you into a particular "class" (that can only access certain kinds of equipment). I don't think either of those would be a very "Zelda-like" approach; in fact, it's a real pain in the ass that drags down exploration and discourages me from looking for items.
Hence:
2) Without crippling convenience
Instead of having a hard "equip load" system or a "class" system, what if a Zelda game used Epona as a means of switching out equipment? You can call Epona at any time from anywhere in the field, and she'll be there in a couple seconds. No need to fast-travel somewhere to switch out items, then make the trudge back to where you were. This would enable the team to include a wide array of weapons, enforcing the limits I described above without making it cumbersome to manage all your items.
To keep the "easy access" from interfering with the limitations of the equip system and the overall balance of the dungeons, perhaps Epona can't follow you in dungeons, so if you want to enter a dungeon, you'd better go prepared or hope your sheer skill can overcome the obstacles within. And if you pick up extra items while in dungeons, but don't have access to Epona, you won't become overburdened - you'll just have to keep them in your pouch until you return to your horse.
Another bonus of the "limiting" approach to items: could be a foundation for satisfying co-op, kind of like Nintendo Land's "Battle Quest" but implemented in a full Zelda game.
Agreed. The game should have a variety of features to reinforce these concepts.
They also need to put more emphasis on challenge and combat, something Zelda hasn't really done since Zelda 2. None of these choices will matter if there's no opportunity cost to each choice, and challenging enemies is probably the best way to accomplish this. Skyward Sword actually tried this a little bit. The adventure pouch limited what items you could carry with you into the field. Since you had to keep your bottles, medallions, and even shields in the pouch, in theory it should have lead to interesting choices. But it fell flat because your pouch was too easy to upgrade to carry more stuff, and the enemies were too easy to defeat so it didn't matter much anyway, and that one regenerating shield was simply better than the others so once you get that all interesting decisions disappear. They need to avoid that if they go down that road again.
(Though I will say I don't really agree with the "without crippling convenience" part. If you can call epona from anywhere and switch any time.... then the decisions you make don't matter because being able to switch them at any time is equivalent to having them all with you all the time. Some amount of inconvenience will be necessary to really make decisions matter. We're talking about how to use the openness of the world in a more interesting way. How to make "open world" matter. If all of these choices and limitations are only present in the dungeons, then we're back to square one, where the world being open doesn't matter and it might as well just be the same as every other zelda.)
Black-Wind
Member
Hope he takes to heart his response to fans wanting a female option. Telling people to basically vote with their wallet by buying HW SHOULD have some effect.
I can't see that happening, the latest Zelda games have gone into the complete opposite direction by streamlining the item process. I mean in ALBW they even got rid of ammo and replaced it with a universal stamina bar. Enemies are nothing but glorified puzzles in SS and fodder in ALBW.
LegendofLex
Member
You're right, it'd have to be carefully implemented to avoid Epona being simply a replacement for a pause menu. I guess I'm imagining that:
1) You won't be able to access the item-swapping mechanic when you've aggroed an enemy (you can only switch outside of combat). Very different than what we see with current Zelda games, where you can just swap out items on the fly based on the enemy in the room.
2) "The field" really does mean "the field" and there will be certain areas that Epona can't physically reach that aren't necessarily inside dungeons (so on top of not being able to switch in combat you won't be able to just call Epona in-between every single enemy encounter in certain more-closed-off areas). But you'll never be insurmountably far from "the path" (unless you're in a cave or an actual dungeon) and you shouldn't have to warp out of your current zone because you've picked up too much stuff.
In some cases, you'll of course have to retreat and head back to Epona to switch out stuff; she won't be with you at all times. Still a massive convenience improvement over the equip load system, where you're forced to either dump stuff or warp out of and head back into whatever area you're in as a result of the equip limitations, unless you're obsessive about managing your equip load.
And, of course,
3) Epona will never be able to join you in a dungeon. So you'll have to rough it with whatever equipment you have, retreat and requip if you're struggling, and possibly come back later with better stuff if you're really stuck
Saint of Killers
Member
Surprise is the open world is one massive dungeon. Upon finding exit you enter the traditional, linear Zelda world and fin.
I don't see a female option happening, and if it did it would probably be a different character that you can use at times or something.
LegendofLex
Member
They're already moving away from the idea that "Link" is always "the established character Link." In Tri Force Heroes, apparently your player character is Link, but the other two you play with (in multiplayer) aren't. They're just unknown heroes.
This is pretty much exactly the storytelling template for a "Link is you" custom character maker.
My hope, is that the game makes exploration of the overworld a focus of the game. Story wise, if the game takes place a few generations after SS, it could deal with the descendants of Skyloft moving to the land beneath the clouds and the formation of Hyrule. Link is tasked with exploring this vast unknown land from a starter town. Throughout the game new settlements can be built and developed somewhat similar to Xenoblade Chronicles. The overworld could be a hostile place, where Link is struggling to survive. Throughout the game, as the player beats dungeons and claims areas of land, it'll become safer and settlements can be built. I believe I read comments from Aonuma in which he said he wanted the players actions in the game to influence the overworld. This could be a neat way of achieving this.
This could provide an in-game reason for why the overworld is barren and empty, but I think Link could also stumble across remnants of ancient civilizations that existed pre-Skyloft. Also, as SS showed, many creatures lived below the clouds anyway, so there could be many existing towns and things to do in the overworld if the developers wanted to make the more interesting.
This could provide an in-game reason for why the overworld is barren and empty, but I think Link could also stumble across remnants of ancient civilizations that existed pre-Skyloft. Also, as SS showed, many creatures lived below the clouds anyway, so there could be many existing towns and things to do in the overworld if the developers wanted to make the more interesting.
Agent Gibbs
Member
There will be no new open world, just a hub room with paintings (think Mario64) each painting depicts the over world of the previous games and through each painting is the respective game in its respective graphics (think NESremix) you play a few alt dungeons in each world (which using fan feedback has been fixed) and return to the hub room.
After the final boss you enter a room with a new painting showing the demo'd world from ZeldaWiiU and message from Aonuma plays "coming soon to NX the next Zelda"
Its all a meta troll from Aonuma
After the final boss you enter a room with a new painting showing the demo'd world from ZeldaWiiU and message from Aonuma plays "coming soon to NX the next Zelda"
Its all a meta troll from Aonuma
That's not the same thing at all since its just their way of making you're Link the important one. I don't see the series ever letting you making your own character and they will probably pull another Spirit Tracks before making Link female.
Makes sense. Yeah, just a couple of small limitations like that to make sure players actually put the systems to good use and that the game encourages it.
This open-world Zelda game could profit a lot from the enemy placement and general world design from Dark Souls. In fact, it has the potential to take this formula even further. Make it so that you can access most of the world from the beginning. However, make sure that some areas have tougher enemies than others - something that lets the player know where he's supposed to be and where not. Players who like a challenge could then try to prove themselves in the dangerous areas and be rewarded accordingly. Make it so that you can take multiple paths throughout the game. That would grant the game enormous amounts of replay value. And in my opinion, replay value is one of the most important factors nowadays when it comes to a game's reception.
I like to have world that felt alive, instead if prefab based emptyness. Prefer smaller filled worlds. Its also important that there is a lot of movement in the world, like threes where the leaves moves to make the world more alive. Or like they did with zelda wii u now (the grass)
Kissenkopf
Banned
But Zelda is not a Souls game and what you describe is nothing I wanna see in a Zelda. If there is a spot in the world I can't go a missing Item will tell me and not a random enemy. Enemys were never the focus of the game. Dungeons and puzzles were. I love to travel to a place were I can see something special in the distance and I have no freaking idea how I suppose to get there. Hours later, after obtaining certain items and get a hang on them I remember that one spot, go there and finally reach a mini dungeon or whatever. Thats far more impressive than just a enemy I can't beat. Zelda should create an interesting, with magic and challenge filled world and not just a empty one with huge enemys.
I don't understand what posts like this are supposed to mean.about the open world part, he made a discussion before that it should be more like the old zelda's.
>===>>
Zelda 1, zelda gameboy, and a link to the past. In those game you get a more feeling to be free of what you do, but still possible to find you way in the game (same for dungeons). I didn't had this feeling in the other games.
One other thing, i don't like to much story telling games. I prefer always that the story will be created while you are playing the game, instead of using allot of cutscenes.
I think it will also have something special like the wall thing on the 3ds version, but something related with the open world game.....that is what he means (I think
Also, it wouldn't be a realistic game, but we already knows that.
I hope also it will be ganon again, the best endboss with zelda was from OOT.
http://38.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mdmbs8Xc8L1rkey39o1_r3_500.gif
Some screens i like and how i think a zelda game could be:
And i hope not something like this: http://tpucdn.com/npu/img/2015/04-28/20616-a0aa24d7_945_556.jpg
it breaks the fantasy
Like, i really don't.
Locations? Color scheme? There's nothing here that constitutes a feature of game...
Is it because there's blood lol?
All of these general aesthetics have already been covered at some point in zelda.
For your first pic: (bad quality)
Or if you prefer a knight:
For your second pic:
For the third:
And fourth:
All of these aesthetics and situations have been covered in the series at one point or another.
It's weird when fan art gets posted as if it's something novel...
EDIT: This isn't specifically targeted at you. It just happens in so many Zelda threads.
.
shotgunbob04
Member
Perfect for the NX home and hendheld cross-platform idea
We'll have to agree to disagree then. Enemies have been a pushover in pretty much all of the 3D games. They really need to reevaluate how they can make enemies threatening again. That laser-shooting robot thing is certainly a step in the right direction. But it's not enough to just make enemies look menacing, they have to be difficult to beat, as well. I hope they realize that.
However, I totally agree with you that the world needs to have interesting locations and things to do in it. I also like the idea that you can only take certain paths when you have specific items in your inventory. It helps make the world more diverse and not streamlined.
Wow, a Zelda game with that art direction combined with current gen graphics would be amazing.Some screens i like and how i think a zelda game could be:
@Mory Dunz, those screens look terrible and don't capture what's in that art at all.
Late-game twist: He could have flown all along instead.
Vulcano's assistant
Banned
Now that fantasy M rated RPGs exists in fully 3d worlds (Everything from Witcher, to Souls games, to Dragon's Dogma) I don't think I need a dark Zelda at all (no more darker than Mononoke Hime for instance, absolutely not even in Witcher or Souls levels). I still would love one to look like sleeping beauty backgrounds though.
To be fair, in the real world a field can have some true beauty in it to appreciate. Most of Zelda's empty fields are very, very bland. Everything looks the same, no real animals or even insects just buzzing around. No noises to encompass it. Etc. I think complaints would be a lot less about the fields being empty if they actually felt like something you could immerse in and appreciate. Really, all they have done is make the world "feel bigger", but not necessarily always in a good way. Because there doesn't seem to be a point to the field other than artificially making the game seem bigger. See, in the real world there are points to fields. Vegetation, life, etc. Zelda hasn't presented a world like that.
In many ways, that's what excited me about the initial stuff we saw from Zelda U. It wasn't a lack of enemies or places to explore - they did so much jump cutting in the footage how can we really know? What made me happy was that the world in the teaser felt alive. You can appreciate wide open spaces and fields when you can feel the life in it. Appreciate it and take it all in. Instead, Hyrule Field in TP and OoT, at least, felt more like a desert. Just a wide expanse of nothingness we're calling a field.
In 2D Zelda games, enemies were almost always the focus until very recent times. Sure puzzles were there, exploration, secrets, etc. But what made the journey so fulfilling was that the games pretty much constantly kept you in combat and did so in ways that were challenging. There is a large crowd of Zelda fans that are still waiting for a 3D game to replicate that feeling. Dark Souls is often said to be what the Zelda series would have been if had not taken a drastic turn from it's roots. The base of Dark Souls does indeed line up well with the original entries in the series. But clearly Miyamoto and Nintendo wanted to go in a different direction - that's fine. Really, Miyamoto's era as head of Zelda was nothing but extremely consistent. You had consistent art direction and feel, world building, and overall thematic gameplay.
Eiji Aonuma, meanwhile, has been all over the place - changing the entire feel of a game on a whim. The reason the fan base became so divided really started with him. He caused it. Some prefer how everything he does is unpredictable - you don't know what's going to happen. Skyward Sword was supposed to be open world we've learned, but they totally failed on that and went the other direction - that's not bad - being a linear game is not the same as being bad. But it changes up expectations so much. And that's what he does - game to game you don't know what you're going to get. Miyamoto you simply knew. It's arguably why the franchises popularlity remained steady - there really isn't a poor selling Zelda game when Miyamoto was the main man.
The inconsistent sales and massive divides started with Eiji.
And that's where we get today. Where fans want Zelda to be like Dark Souls because it feels more like the original, or like Skyrim, or like "enter favorite rpg/fantasy/adventure game series here" ... because Eiji Aonuma has basically beat the fan base with a hammer and everyone flew off in their own direction.
Now, the series is really disjointed and most fans in general are just looking for that one game that sets the standard for all future ones and brings a sense of consistency back into the fold. I am loving Tri Force Heroes, but such a game would never have existed under Miyamoto's full control. At least, not as a main part of the series as it has been confirmed to be. Maybe a side dish like Link's crossbow training, and it would then be treated as such. Nintendo treated it like a full Zelda experience.
What is Zelda? What aspects define the series? Pretty much whatever aspects Eiji Aonuma feels like emphasizing with the current game.
Is this bad? Depends who you ask.
This. 75% (from my butt) of the game, you're in a dungeon. It's essentially a dungeon/puzzle game first. At least since 3d.
GregLombardi
Member
I'm still waiting for this Zelda game, maybe they will channel it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8M3L3VIHV_k
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8M3L3VIHV_k
Real life sucks. I want my video games to not be like real life, and to be full of interesting things.
efyu_lemonardo
May I have a cookie?
The initial world is huge and open and each time you complete an area it disappears from the map for good. It's an open world game that gets smaller and smaller as you go along!
GrotesqueBeauty
Banned
The twist is that he's over promising and that it won't be that interesting or original of a solution, unless you're Eiji Aonuma chained to a wall at Nintendo headquarters working in a perpetual vacuum on the same series over and over and over again. Probably it'll be something that negatively impacts some other more thoughtful and worthy traditional Zelda convention, like how the rental system oversimplified puzzle and dungeon design because the inventory didn't stack in the traditional way.
Like Metroid, I wish they would just make a great fucking Zelda game that wasn't trying so hard to prove it was different at the expense of good design choices. That would surprise me more than anything after a decade plus of gimmicks.
Like Metroid, I wish they would just make a great fucking Zelda game that wasn't trying so hard to prove it was different at the expense of good design choices. That would surprise me more than anything after a decade plus of gimmicks.
Some of you are discussing combat too much. It would kind of bum me out if the series went into something like Lex described. That's way too much bs to think about if you ask me. Unless the enemies are cake easy after I find the right load out, I don't want to deal with any faux-RPG elements in Zelda or thinking about armor pieces and items.
I want to explore a sand sea and not spend time thinking about how I can kill 30 moblins in a cave in the most efficient manner.
I want to explore a sand sea and not spend time thinking about how I can kill 30 moblins in a cave in the most efficient manner.
The most repeated post in every Zelda thread bitching about originality. Oh the irony.