Eww another Mario Party?? Even after the awful Mario Party 10 they decide to make another one?? Screw this. That franchise used to be great but now is deader than a tamagotchi. We will continue getting this kind of filler games until NX comes out isn'it? Well I will calm down because what if it turns out to be fake?
There's a world of difference between what Zelda actually is and what some fans want it to be. This is a good indication of you wanting it to be something it's never been.
The Witcher is by its nature a heavily story and quest based game. Has there ever been a Zelda with a comparable focus on story? Zelda has always been much more gamey- whether that is solving puzzles as in recent Zeldas or combat in the older Zeldas. But Zelda has never been story based, not even close.
Dark souls is a much more appropriate comparison as far as genre is concerned, but there are still a huge amount of differences. For starters, Zelda isn't really an RPG, discounting Zelda 2. Items play a very different role, combat (recently) hasn't been as much of a focus as traversing obstacles and solving puzzles, Zeldas typically have a much lighter tone (yes, even TP).
So I really don't get how you can compare those games, unless we're strictly talking about atmosphere or visuals.
Your gamer discernment is fooling you. Street Fighter, Mortal Kombat, Killer Instinct, Marvel vs Capcom, Tekken, and Soul Calibur are all very different but are all still recognized collectively as fighters that are generally in competition with each other. Games where you run around whacking stuff with a sword and an occasional boss fight will be put together as well.
Zelda is not such a special snowflake that memories of grand open adventure in a game like Witcher 3 won't transfer over to a person's impression of Zelda. Just like entirely different sorts of games had to compete with Mario 64 and other games had to compete with GTA3, Zelda is going to have to compete with where the industry has gone. They are clearly trying with this large world expansion. It's not a coincidence.
There's a world of difference between what Zelda actually is and what some fans want it to be. This is a good indication of you wanting it to be something it's never been.
The Witcher is by its nature a heavily story and quest based game. Has there ever been a Zelda with a comparable focus on story? Zelda has always been much more gamey- whether that is solving puzzles as in recent Zeldas or combat in the older Zeldas. But Zelda has never been story based, not even close.
Dark souls is a much more appropriate comparison as far as genre is concerned, but there are still a huge amount of differences. For starters, Zelda isn't really an RPG, discounting Zelda 2. Items play a very different role, combat (recently) hasn't been as much of a focus as traversing obstacles and solving puzzles, Zeldas typically have a much lighter tone (yes, even TP).
So I really don't get how you can compare those games, unless we're strictly talking about atmosphere or visuals.
I really do think you can compare those games.
The Witcher 3 uses specific items for unlocking caves and whatnot. Even the fight system is somewhat similar. Sure, dungeons puzzles are a central part of zelda and there are none of those in TW3, yet, I don't think it's false to say that TW3 feels like an evolution of Zelda. And i'm not talking about specific gameplay things, but about the sheer sense of adventure.
The formula doesn't have to be set in stone. We've been playing the same fucking game since 1991.
Here: go gather those 3 things, then gather those 5 things, then go kick the final boss's butt. Repeat X5.
ure the overworld has changed between episodes, but from what I gathered here, this isn't really what's important in Zelda. You know what recent games make interesting overworld?
I understand that fans (and I include myself here) want to experience the elements that made them love the serie but it's about time for zelda to change, and hopefully take lessons for what has been made in the adventure genre since 1991. And yes, that does inclue dark Souls, and the witcher, and skyrim, and fallout, ect...
That's also why I do think zelda is gonna be a letdown dor me. They won't change the formula that much.
Your gamer discernment is fooling you. Street Fighter, Mortal Kombat, Killer Instinct, Marvel vs Capcom, Tekken, and Soul Calibur are all very different but are all still recognized collectively as fighters that are generally in competition with each other. Games where you run around whacking stuff with a sword and an occasional boss fight will be put together as well.
Zelda is not such a special snowflake that memories of grand open adventure in a game like Witcher 3 won't transfer over to a person's impression of Zelda. Just like entirely different sorts of games had to compete with Mario 64 and other games had to compete with GTA3, Zelda is going to have to compete with where the industry has gone. They are clearly trying with this large world expansion. It's not a coincidence.
You people love making up dramatic scenarios. Zelda UNX will simply be a new Zelda. The idea that is competing with other games cant be helped but its still jank.
Also yall letting the "Open World" stuff get to yall head. Its how you approach the game, not the design of the game.
Your gamer discernment is fooling you. Street Fighter, Mortal Kombat, Killer Instinct, Marvel vs Capcom, Tekken, and Soul Calibur are all very different but are all still recognized collectively as fighters that are generally in competition with each other. Games where you run around whacking stuff with a sword and an occasional boss fight will be put together as well.
Zelda is not such a special snowflake that memories of grand open adventure in a game like Witcher 3 won't transfer over to a person's impression of Zelda. Just like entirely different sorts of games had to compete with Mario 64 and other games had to compete with GTA3, Zelda is going to have to compete with where the industry has gone. They are clearly trying with this large world expansion. It's not a coincidence.
The games you listed can all be described as fighting games. Zelda, on the other hand has rarely ever been considered an RPG like the Witcher. Okami is a much more comparable type of game to Zelda than the Witcher. Hell, like I said before Dark Souls is MUCH more comparable to Zelda than the Witcher is.
I loved the Witcher 3 (and 2, never played 1). I love pretty much all Zelda games. That doesn't mean I can't plainly see that, as far as how you play the game is concerned, Zelda is almost nothing like the Witcher. No one is claiming that it's a "special snowflake," I'm just saying that this particular comparison doesn't make any sense.
As to your point about it being an open world, I don't think that means they're looking to make it like the Witcher's world. As I said earlier in this (or possibly the other) thread the world of the Witcher isn't terribly interactive. Items of course are, but the world itself isn't. There aren't bridges you need to kick down, no walls to bomb, no cliffs to hookshot to, no vines to climb, etc. That doesn't make it any less of a game, rather it simply makes it a starkly different game world. I have a feeling the world of Zelda U will be more similar to Skyrim than it will be to the Witcher, with many small dungeons/interior locations being explorable, rather than the Witcher where you essentially have caves and Elven ruins.
I would love if people directly comparing Zelda to the Witcher can expand on these differences. Like I said, you can for sure argue that visuals and atmosphere are likely comparable due to the nature of it being a sword-based fantasy style game, but beyond such superficial comparisons the games are not very similar at all.
I really do think you can compare those games.
The Witcher 3 uses specific items for unlocking caves and whatnot. Even the fight system is somewhat similar. Sure, dungeons puzzles are a central part of zelda and there are none of those in TW3, yet, I don't think it's false to say that TW3 feels like an evolution of Zelda. And i'm not talking about specific gameplay things, but about the sheer sense of adventure.
The formula doesn't have to be set in stone. We've been playing the same fucking game since 1991.
Here: go gather those 3 things, then gather those 5 things, then go kick the final boss's butt. Repeat X5.
ure the overworld has changed between episodes, but from what I gathered here, this isn't really what's important in Zelda. You know what recent games make interesting overworld?
I understand that fans (and I include myself here) want to experience the elements that made them love the serie but it's about time for zelda to change, and hopefully take lessons for what has been made in the adventure genre since 1991. And yes, that does inclue dark Souls, and the witcher, and skyrim, and fallout, ect...
That's also why I do think zelda is gonna be a letdown dor me. They won't change the formula that much.
I'm not arguing that this Zelda should be the same as past Zeldas, simply that every Zelda game as a game is a wildly different experience from the Witcher. As I said above, Skyrim and Dark Souls are a bit more apt comparisons, but the Witcher specifically is a terrible example of a game that Zelda should learn from, specifically because Zelda has never had such a focus on story, quests and choices.
I'm not arguing that this Zelda should or shouldn't evolve, I'm just arguing that specifically, these comparisons to the Witcher are very inaccurate.
Zelda is not such a special snowflake that memories of grand open adventure in a game like Witcher 3 won't transfer over to a person's impression of Zelda. Just like entirely different sorts of games had to compete with Mario 64 and other games had to compete with GTA3, Zelda is going to have to compete with where the industry has gone. They are clearly trying with this large world expansion. It's not a coincidence.
I don't think Zelda is going to compete with other open world games. Mario 64 came out almost 20 years ago and nothing really competes with it. Like its hardware, Nintendo's software doesn't really compete with the rest of the industry.
Even if a genre already exists, they create new experiences that haven't existed before. Look at Splatoon. That was a completely different experience from other shooters on the market.
Forget Skyrim, forget GTA, forget Witcher 3. I think Zelda is going to have to compete with the original idea of a Zelda game. You have to go back all the way to the original. What would that concept look like with modern technology? That's really what Nintendo has to do with this game.
I'm not arguing that this Zelda should be the same as past Zeldas, simply that every Zelda game as a game is a wildly different experience from the Witcher. As I said above, Skyrim and Dark Souls are a bit more apt comparisons, but the Witcher specifically is a terrible example of a game that Zelda should learn from, specifically because Zelda has never had such a focus on story, quests and choices.
I'm not arguing that this Zelda should or shouldn't evolve, I'm just arguing that specifically, these comparisons to the Witcher are very inaccurate.
Sure, I get that. But skip the focus on quest, or the story, or RPG elements. Basically, after a 10min intro, your just a guy who has to rescue the Damsel. You can take your horse and go whatever miles in any directions. Maybe you'll find a cave. And maybe in the cave there's a treasure.
Isn't that, at the core, the same thing?
The Witcher 3 is focused on the quest and the story because, well, ther're really fucking good. (or at least well written) Skip the quest, you'll still have a very good adventure game with breathtaking panoramas, and scary caves, and forests, and all that.
Eww another Mario Party?? Even after the awful Mario Party 10 they decide to make another one?? Screw this. That franchise used to be great but now is deader than a tamagotchi. We will continue getting this kind of filler games until NX comes out isn'it? Well I will calm down because what if it turns out to be fake?
So we should know in a few hours if the leak is real? Or perhaps Nintendo will drop it tomorrow morning without previous announcement since this is a mini-Direct. They have done that before.
Trev's rumors are the only ones that still haven't been debunked, right? Oh well. If a new MP turns out to be true, hope it's a big upgrade from MP 10 Plus, Mother 3!!
I see the mindset of a bunch of people is set to "Zelda = soooo disappointed!!!" because, well, reasons. We haven't even see the actual game running, and no, that off-screen "demo" barely qualifies as a "showing". It was a bone throw to quite the "vocal" part of the internet. I fully expect the game to be sublime and wonderful, but any future threads about it will be a pain to navigate, with people nagging about non-issues,as in, "I don't like the font used for the back of the box!", kind of issues. See Xenoblade X threads, as an example.
And that space, for Zelda? Oh, come on Nintendo! Zelda deserves at least TWICE the space. Get serious!
It's pretty understandable why we didn't, though But now we've had none since March, that's three months and counting...Used to be two months between each of them.
I see the mindset of a bunch of people is set to "Zelda = soooo disappointed!!!" because, well, reasons. We haven't even see the actual game running, and no, that off-screen "demo" barely qualifies as a "showing". It was a bone throw to quite the "vocal" part of the internet. I fully expect the game to be sublime and wonderful, but any future threads about it will be a pain to navigate, with people nagging about non-issues,as in, "I don't like the font used for the back of the box!", kind of issues. See Xenoblade X threads, as an example.
And that space, for Zelda? Oh, come on Nintendo! Zelda deserves at least TWICE the space. Get serious!
Sure, I get that. But skip the focus on quest, or the story, or RPG elements. Basically, after a 10min intro, your just a guy who has to rescue the Damsel. You can take your horse and go whatever miles in any directions. Maybe you'll find a cave. And maybe in the cave there's a treasure.
Isn't that, at the core, the same thing?
The Witcher 3 is focused on the quest and the story because, well, ther're really fucking good. (or at least well written) Skip the quest, you'll still have a very good adventure game with breathtaking panoramas, and scary caves, and forests, and all that.
So you're essentially saying that the presentation and atmosphere is where they are similar, and I totally agree with that.
But then I don't get what your original point is. How do we know how Zelda U's world will compare to that of the Witcher 3? We've barely seen anything at all. And honestly for me the world of the Witcher could've used a bit more variety. I know it's supposed to be a semi-realistic version of Europe, but that's not necessarily the most fun way to experience a fantasy game. What the Witcher excelled at was immersion and realism in design, and I really don't expect Zelda to even attempt realism in that way.
Maybe wait for the reveal to determine if it can "match up" to the Witcher's fantasy world. I have high hopes.
But if they have no games to release (which, if past history like the Wii's final year is any evidence, they probably don't), what is the point?
We know about Color Splash. We know about that Tokyo Mirage Sessions game. We know Dragon Quest and Pokemon are coming to 3DS. If they have no new games to show until NX, what would they fill time with?
I would't be so bad if these where single-line drive-pass post, but some people tend to just start going on and on about a single thing they dislike, and make this huuuuge rant that takes several paragraphs only because it didn't fit their mental image, dissecting every aspect of the offending feature or element, comparing to other games and calling for everyone to join them in their "anger", or whatever it is they feel.
One thing in sharing that, for example, in their opinion, having a jump button would benefit in X or Y way, and other is taking that and doing a long rant on how Nintendo needs to go 3rd party last year, in part because you can jump in game A or B.
I even saw some post calling out others because "underserved praise" and "giving Nintendo a free pass", ie, people who enjoyed StarFox Zero or that have no issue doing side quests in Xenoblade Chronicles.
Eww another Mario Party?? Even after the awful Mario Party 10 they decide to make another one?? Screw this. That franchise used to be great but now is deader than a tamagotchi. We will continue getting this kind of filler games until NX comes out isn'it? Well I will calm down because what if it turns out to be fake?
You people love making up dramatic scenarios. Zelda UNX will simply be a new Zelda. The idea that is competing with other games cant be helped but its still jank.
Also yall letting the "Open World" stuff get to yall head. Its how you approach the game, not the design of the game.
You are clearly reading all kinds of stuff into my post. Please do not do that. All I said was that people cannot shut out experiences they have had with other games when playing a new game. If there are ways the industry has moved on that could make Zelda seem downright quaint to some people, it shouldn't be a surprise at all.
Gonna have to stop you right there. Throwing KI and Soul Calibur together but not Zelda and Witcher? You must be astoundingly ignorant of fighting games and you are also completely missing my point.
I don't think Zelda is going to compete with other open world games. Mario 64 came out almost 20 years ago and nothing really competes with it. Like its hardware, Nintendo's software doesn't really compete with the rest of the industry.
EVERYTHING had to compete with Mario 64 because it reinvented gaming in 3D. That is my point. When gaming moves forward and people become accustomed to it, that is a factor in their experience of your game.
Forget Skyrim, forget GTA, forget Witcher 3. I think Zelda is going to have to compete with the original idea of a Zelda game. You have to go back all the way to the original. What would that concept look like with modern technology? That's really what Nintendo has to do with this game.
I don't know what you're getting at with the Zelda 1 stuff or how you think putting Zelda 1 in 3D is somehow entirely different from any other open world adventure game because of whatever peculiarities that would hold. People can't just forget the experiences they have had elsewhere. They will all come into play, even stuff like Assassins Creed. Differences in design do not nullify the similarities.
I feel like you guys have a completely different (and far too narrow) idea of what I mean by "compete with" and perhaps also think I'm implying Zelda is doomed to fail. That's not what I'm saying at all. What I mean is that gaming itself has been advancing in all sorts of ways that Nintendo hasn't bothered with. That doesn't put them in a special bubble where those things aren't nice to have or subconsciously desired. If you have played Mario 64 you have a lower tolerance of janky 3D game controls. If you have played numerous modern games, you'll have subconscious expectations going into an open world Zelda.
Unless you indoctrinate yourself to compartmentalize Nintendo into a separate realm with double standards.
With that in mind, Zelda is going to have to keep up in order to blow people away enough to justify banking on it so hard as it seems they are. I have my doubts that they have it in mind to do so. It seems to me that instead of being an industry leader that sets the standard, Zelda is slipping into a more personal identity and scope of ambition, somewhat akin to what Dragon Warrior has been doing. Not if but when some people are underwhelmed, the "but it's different and has different goals" arguments are going to be besides the point for them.
Eww another Mario Party?? Even after the awful Mario Party 10 they decide to make another one?? Screw this. That franchise used to be great but now is deader than a tamagotchi. We will continue getting this kind of filler games until NX comes out isn'it? Well I will calm down because what if it turns out to be fake?
It's pretty understandable why we didn't, though But now we've had none since March, that's three months and counting...Used to be two months between each of them.
Very true ;__; And yeah, I suppose it has been three months...dang But, as far as we know PM is just about the only thing direct worthy left to show. That and PM. A full-on Direct (rather than Mini) focusing on those two might be a disappointment to some.
Gonna have to stop you right there. Throwing KI and Soul Calibur together but not Zelda and Witcher? You must be astoundingly ignorant of fighting games and you are also completely missing my point.
I have played all of the fighting games you listed, and I completely disagree with your point.
As far as gameplay is concerned, those games are similar in that the purpose is to attack your opponent in order to lower their health bar to zero. I don't think that can be debated.
The gameplay of the Witcher is obviously much more varied than in fighting games, but it is an RPG that essentially balances quests/choices, using items to buff combat abilities (oils, decoctions, crafting better items), and finally performing said combat, with very limited in-combat items that are useful (bombs, potions, signs).
The gameplay of Zelda is essentially devoid of RPG quests and choices, and rather focuses on a balance of environmental problem solving, item gathering and very simplistic combat, occasionally using specialized item for special enemies. This definition can be applied to every Zelda game I can think of (barring Link's crossbow training and CDI abominations) so I would say Zelda boils down to those features.
Fighting games by definition are less varied in their gameplay focus. Obviously abilities, tactics, moves, speed, location can all be wildly different in different fighting games, but barring a few games like Smash, the overall gameplay focus is on attacking your enemy(ies) until their health gets down to zero. The Witcher's is using level ups/buffs/upgrades to excel at combat, Zeldas is to solve problems related to environments and enemies.
Zelda and the Witcher are only superficially similar.
Edit: this is all fairly off topic so feel free to PM me to continue the discussion.
You are clearly reading all kinds of stuff into my post. Please do not do that. All I said was that people cannot shut out experiences they have had with other games when playing a new game. If there are ways the industry has moved on that could make Zelda seem downright quaint to some people, it shouldn't be a surprise at all.
Gonna have to stop you right there. Throwing KI and Soul Calibur together but not Zelda and Witcher? You must be astoundingly ignorant of fighting games and you are also completely missing my point.
EVERYTHING had to compete with Mario 64 because it reinvented gaming in 3D. That is my point. When gaming moves forward and people become accustomed to it, that is a factor in their experience of your game.
I don't know what you're getting at with the Zelda 1 stuff or how you think putting Zelda 1 in 3D is somehow entirely different from any other open world adventure game because of whatever peculiarities that would hold. People can't just forget the experiences they have had elsewhere. They will all come into play, even stuff like Assassins Creed. Differences in design do not nullify the similarities.
I feel like you guys have a completely different (and far too narrow) idea of what I mean by "compete with" and perhaps also think I'm implying Zelda is doomed to fail. That's not what I'm saying at all. What I mean is that gaming itself has been advancing in all sorts of ways that Nintendo hasn't bothered with. That doesn't put them in a special bubble where those things aren't nice to have or subconsciously desired. If you have played Mario 64 you have a lower tolerance of janky 3D game controls. If you have played numerous modern games, you'll have subconscious expectations going into an open world Zelda.
Unless you indoctrinate yourself to compartmentalize Nintendo into a separate realm with double standards.
With that in mind, Zelda is going to have to keep up in order to blow people away enough to justify banking on it so hard as it seems they are. I have my doubts that they have it in mind to do so. It seems to me that instead of being an industry leader that sets the standard, Zelda is slipping into a more personal identity and scope of ambition, somewhat akin to what Dragon Warrior has been doing. Not if but when some people are underwhelmed, the "but it's different and has different goals" arguments are going to be besides the point for them.
I read what you put, now you're just reiterating it.. I disagree with it and will reply the same way if I could. Zelda is Zelda. Comparisons can be useless if you comparing a different genre.. are you talking about the world or the gameplay? I already said its inevitable to compare.
With that in mind, Zelda is going to have to keep up in order to blow people away enough to justify banking on it so hard as it seems they are. I have my doubts that they have it in mind to do so.
What is that you feel Witcher 3 is doing so well in the open world genre? I don't think anybody is going to be saying that Witcher 3 is a landmark game 10 years from now. It will be forgotten. It's not like the original Zelda, Zelda: A Link To the Past, or Ocarina of Time. I really feel that Nintendo can really bring something fresh and innovative in the open world genre.
Aside from the Grand Theft Auto series, I feel nobody has really created a compelling open world game. While the WItcher 3 is a huge game, most of the game and side quests are uninteresting. The combat also is rather mundane. Leveling up isn't fun. I think if Zelda can learn anything from the Witcher is that bigger doesn't necessarily translate to fun when none of the game systems are particular interesting.
While the gameplay in WItcher 3 isn't the most interesting, I feel that the story is compelling enough to make you play. It's like a good novel. Without the story very few people would play Witcher 3.
This is probably the biggest area where Zelda is behind in terms of the rest of the industry. The story and how it is told is really not that interesting.
Forget Skyrim, forget GTA, forget Witcher 3. I think Zelda is going to have to compete with the original idea of a Zelda game. You have to go back all the way to the original. What would that concept look like with modern technology? That's really what Nintendo has to do with this game.
It's called "Direct Mini" so don't think it'll be "huge" by any means. And most of those are already known games that would get a bad response by most people if were in a "Digital Event" (as "boring! no really new games!"). So I think it's better to show these in a regular Direct if you don't have three or four new really big games ready to show.
Don't believe it's real, usually they announce Directs two days in advance, but who knows, some of them were revealed just 24 hours before the event if I remember correctly...
What is that you feel Witcher 3 is doing so well in the open world genre? I don't think anybody is going to be saying that Witcher 3 is a landmark game 10 years from now. It will be forgotten. It's not like the original Zelda, Zelda: A Link To the Past, or Ocarina of Time. I really feel that Nintendo can really bring something fresh and innovative in the open world genre.
Aside from the Grand Theft Auto series, I feel nobody has really created a compelling open world game. While the WItcher 3 is a huge game, most of the game and side quests are uninteresting. The combat also is rather mundane. Leveling up isn't fun. I think if Zelda can learn anything from the Witcher is that bigger doesn't necessarily translate to fun when none of the game systems are particular interesting.
While the gameplay in WItcher 3 isn't the most interesting, I feel that the story is compelling enough to make you play. It's like a good novel. Without the story very few people would play Witcher 3.
This is probably the biggest area where Zelda is behind in terms of the rest of the industry. The story and how it is told is really not that interesting.
I actually play the Witcher 3 for the world and exploring. It feels very organic. Havent played the other 2 witchers, I couldnt say flat out Im enjoying the story in the W3. Im not really a huge story dude anyway though unless its from a franchise I like, like Zelda. which Skyward sword made me cry lol
What is that you feel Witcher 3 is doing so well in the open world genre? I don't think anybody is going to be saying that Witcher 3 is a landmark game 10 years from now. It will be forgotten. It's not like the original Zelda, Zelda: A Link To the Past, or Ocarina of Time. I really feel that Nintendo can really bring something fresh and innovative in the open world genre.
Aside from the Grand Theft Auto series, I feel nobody has really created a compelling open world game. While the WItcher 3 is a huge game, most of the game and side quests are uninteresting. The combat also is rather mundane. Leveling up isn't fun. I think if Zelda can learn anything from the Witcher is that bigger doesn't necessarily translate to fun when none of the game systems are particular interesting.
While the gameplay in WItcher 3 isn't the most interesting, I feel that the story is compelling enough to make you play. It's like a good novel. Without the story very few people would play Witcher 3.
This is probably the biggest area where Zelda is behind in terms of the rest of the industry. The story and how it is told is really not that interesting.
I think the Witcher will be remembered for being one of the most believable, cohesive game worlds ever made. Add onto that the great storytelling and it will be for sure mentioned 10 years from now.
I actually play the Witcher 3 for the world and exploring. It feels very organic. Havent played the other 2 witchers, I couldnt say flat out Im enjoying the story in the W3. Im not really a huge story dude anyway though unless its from a franchise I like, like Zelda. which Skyward sword made me cry lol
Hrrmmm... I've got W3 on Steam but haven't taken the plunge just yet, I actually had this impression that it was story rich so if you're not digging it I'm a little dismayed as I myself as a story kinda guy.
It's probably why I keep coming back to Zelda, I just like the basic formula and premise so much I don't mind that it's recycled for a large part from previous entries. Now, I realize there's differences in each Zelda I'm just saying that the combination of exploration, dungeon crawling/puzzles, interaction within the world and presentation really kick my imagination into overdrive. There isn't another series I follow where I'm always wondering "what if". The possibilities are endless it seems for Zelda to continually expand and blow me away each time, sure you could say that I guess about a lot of games/series, but to me Zelda (the game itself and the story as well as lore) are just so masterfully crafted in general each time...well it's like the game I never knew existed when I was 5 and imagined adventuring into unknown worlds. I was Zelda-ing before the game was a thing. I don't know too many IP with that kinda magic...
I got to go in before the doors even opened.. no line for me. We were doing LiveWire directly from the floor that year and we had run of the place before anyone else was allowed in. That was my first time running into Miyamoto and Reggie. Also got to meet Charles Martinet.
I don't know, I'm replaying Witcher 3 right now and it's such an incredible take on the fantasy open-world idea that I'm struggling to see how Zelda could possibly match it. Both the public and press will be aware that the standards have been raised...
If TLoZ turns into an anime-ish version of WRPGs but with worse production values then the franchise will continue its descent into irrelevancy, that style doesn't have much reach in the same way most gamers don't care about Fire Emblem and Xenoblade outside of the otaku market. The market for cartoony/anime characters is insignificant in comparison to the one for mature and photo realistic games. I'm not saying it will sell less than SS, but without smart gameplay design as a hook you loose the only thing the franchise has going for it which makes it stand out and be its own thing.
This is what I see when I play video games: Storytime with Jonathan Blow at PAX East 2016. The diagram visually represents the thought process I'm going through as I analyze the underlying mechanical structure of the game and consider the wide range of gameplay possibilities resulting from its base mechanics to figure out how to overcome all the obstacles and puzzles being thrown at me. This is a great example of a level with a high density of clever ideas, Nintendo used to be associated with this sub-category of game design which Blow and many other indie devs specialize in.
Many current gen Nintendo games show that they still have the capacity to blow us away with brilliant gameplay design. I don't want to be stuck playing indie games to receive what I used to get from Mario, Zelda and company. There's nothing I like about Witcher 3, meanwhile I had an absolute blast playing through SS and its gamey outdoor areas. I think Rich put it nicely in his review: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vRd5hd2BlC0&t=2m59s (watch to 3:26). Zelda shouldn't concern itself of matching The Witcher 3 at being The Witcher 3, it should instead aim to indirectly outdo it with clever gameplay design.
If TLoZ turns into an anime-ish version of WRPGs but with worse production values then the franchise will continue its descent into irrelevancy, that style doesn't have much reach in the same way most gamers don't care about Fire Emblem and Xenoblade outside of the otaku market. The market for cartoony/anime characters is insignificant in comparison to the one for mature and photo realistic games.
" ?
Plus, Mother 3!!
