slaughterking
Member
Isn't Monster Hunter 3G being released next week too ?
Tomorrow actually.
Isn't Monster Hunter 3G being released next week too ?
There is so much confusion in your post I don't feel like addressing it.
It bears absolutely no resemblance to the Zelda I grew up with on the NES and SNES. Its disappointing. I have intentionally boycotted this release in the hopes that Nintendo will change its ways and reboot the series
The SNES game was good for a 2D game 15-20 years ago. The gameplay is just completely lacking..
Isn't Monster Hunter 3G being released next week too ?
Which for a person like him might mean nothing, since it's still quite an easy game, with lots of padding and overly intrusive companion character.Fisher-Price? Jesus, if you didn't 'boycott' this release you might've realized it's perhaps the most difficult 3D Zelda.
Here's what Nintendo should do for a New Legend of Zelda: The graphics should be 3D, but celshaded like Phantom Hourglass and Spirit Tracks. The view should be strictly top down like the old 2D Zeldas. The game should have a single starting house like LttP, and maybe a nearby "town" like in LttP, but there shouldn't be much story or dialogue. There should be no real cutscenes. The actual game should be designed exactly like the first Zelda where you have an overworld which can mostly be traveled freely in any order except for minor bottlenecks which require certain items. There should be dungeons hidden throughout the overworld, some in plain sight, while others are hidden.
And now the controversial part: I feel that Nintendo should spend a year or two doing nothing but designing dungeons and special items items for that dungeon. There should be like 20-30 items, and each item-type dungeon should have 4-5 variants, so there would be maybe 100 dungeons in total. Each time the player plays a single loop of the world, there will be 8 dungeons randomly selected from that pool, with no item overlaps of course, and placed throughout the overworld in hundreds of possible locations. Each play loop should take about 5-10 hours at most, and the final dungeon is always in the same place, but the dungeon itself will also be randomly generated based on which 8 items the game decided to generate for that world loop, such that the dungeon will require you to use every single item in some way to solve it.
There should be leaderboards, and options to generate worlds for multiplayer as well ala Four Swords. If the actual design is spot on, it will be the more replayable Zelda of all time, and I will die playing it, because I'll still be playing it when I'm an old man on my deathbed.
Edit: Oh and if they decide to have a "town", to make it interesting they should have the town start unpopulated, but as you play and complete dungeons, the town starts filling up again each time. Like, if you get bombs, a bomb seller will set up shop, if you get a hookshot, someone will decide to set up a hookshot minigame range or something, etc. Just a distraction for players who like that shit, but completely optional.
That sounds great, Duckroll. I would approve of such a plan.
It should also be noted that I would approve of such a plan even without the randomised array of dungeons, just a new, top-down zelda where I don't have to look around with a button.
Although the advantage of it being on a powerful system would mean that I *could* look around with a button if I wanted to, and perhaps find hints and secrets in that manner.
Zelda: Diablo Edition
MH and Mario?Why people are so pessimistic with Vita japanese launch ?
I mean, what makes people think that 3DS will sell more next week than Vita, although it will be it's launch ?
Isometric action and randomized world generation are pivot points of Diablo. Levels are usually filled in a way that require special combat strategy (and hence different use of weapon for each particular level) as well, at least in the first one. There is also only one hub (again in the first one).What? Not at all.
OK, you really want a Zelda: Diablo EditionAlso, I love dungeons. I love items. Just give me a reason to keep playing.
I'd say a combination of available supplies on shelves, 3DS heavy hitters reaching critical mass and the general greater holiday lift for Nintendo.Why people are so pessimistic with Vita japanese launch ?
I mean, what makes people think that 3DS will sell more next week than Vita, although it will be it's launch ?
Here's what Nintendo should do for a New Legend of Zelda: The graphics should be 3D, but celshaded like Phantom Hourglass and Spirit Tracks. The view should be strictly top down like the old 2D Zeldas. The game should have a single starting house like LttP, and maybe a nearby "town" like in LttP, but there shouldn't be much story or dialogue. There should be no real cutscenes. The actual game should be designed exactly like the first Zelda where you have an overworld which can mostly be traveled freely in any order except for minor bottlenecks which require certain items. There should be dungeons hidden throughout the overworld, some in plain sight, while others are hidden.
And now the controversial part: I feel that Nintendo should spend a year or two doing nothing but designing dungeons and special items items for that dungeon. There should be like 20-30 items, and each item-type dungeon should have 4-5 variants, so there would be maybe 100 dungeons in total. Each time the player plays a single loop of the world, there will be 8 dungeons randomly selected from that pool, with no item overlaps of course, and placed throughout the overworld in hundreds of possible locations. Each play loop should take about 5-10 hours at most, and the final dungeon is always in the same place, but the dungeon itself will also be randomly generated based on which 8 items the game decided to generate for that world loop, such that the dungeon will require you to use every single item in some way to solve it.
There should be leaderboards, and options to generate worlds for multiplayer as well ala Four Swords. If the actual design is spot on, it will be the more replayable Zelda of all time, and I will die playing it, because I'll still be playing it when I'm an old man on my deathbed.
Edit: Oh and if they decide to have a "town", to make it interesting they should have the town start unpopulated, but as you play and complete dungeons, the town starts filling up again each time. Like, if you get bombs, a bomb seller will set up shop, if you get a hookshot, someone will decide to set up a hookshot minigame range or something, etc. Just a distraction for players who like that shit, but completely optional.
The reason why I feel that adding an array of randomization from a huge pool of items/dungeons is because I feel that one thing that totally kills Zelda compared to Nintendo's other franchises in terms of long lasting sales and word of mouth, is that they are not really that replayable unless you're a big Zelda fan..
http://forums.tigsource.com/index.php?topic=10372.0And now the controversial part: I feel that Nintendo should spend a year or two doing nothing but designing dungeons and special items items for that dungeon. There should be like 20-30 items, and each item-type dungeon should have 4-5 variants, so there would be maybe 100 dungeons in total. Each time the player plays a single loop of the world, there will be 8 dungeons randomly selected from that pool, with no item overlaps of course, and placed throughout the overworld in hundreds of possible locations. Each play loop should take about 5-10 hours at most, and the final dungeon is always in the same place, but the dungeon itself will also be randomly generated based on which 8 items the game decided to generate for that world loop, such that the dungeon will require you to use every single item in some way to solve it.
There should be leaderboards, and options to generate worlds for multiplayer as well ala Four Swords. If the actual design is spot on, it will be the more replayable Zelda of all time, and I will die playing it, because I'll still be playing it when I'm an old man on my deathbed.
Edit: Oh and if they decide to have a "town", to make it interesting they should have the town start unpopulated, but as you play and complete dungeons, the town starts filling up again each time. Like, if you get bombs, a bomb seller will set up shop, if you get a hookshot, someone will decide to set up a hookshot minigame range or something, etc. Just a distraction for players who like that shit, but completely optional.
Why people are so pessimistic with Vita japanese launch ?
I mean, what makes people think that 3DS will sell more next week than Vita, although it will be it's launch ?
No, I just don't have time to delve into a detailed post about Zelda. First of all, the modern games feel and play nothing like the original games. They have a surface coat that looks like Zelda but that is where it stops. So I completely disagree with your assessment that the modern games and SS are anything like the first 3. When I say it needs to go back to the originals, I don't mean an exact copy in 3D. I am saying that it needs to take the basic skeleton and re-imagine that in a modern context. Zelda was an arcade-action/rpg. It took from the rpgs like D&D, DW, and FF and then merged it with quick action gameplay from the arcade. Zelda was originally designed to be an arcade game as an unbroken progression through dungeons. when it went to the NES, they added the overworld. Zelda needs to take the best of best modern RPGS and merge that with precise, quick-action gameplay like you would find in an arcade. That is what Zelda is. That is what Zelda fans are looking for, it doesn't and hasn't delivered that in a long, long time. When ALttP came out it did well, but all we end up getting are dumbed-down and fluff-filled iterations of that game in 3D. But ALttP actually was pretty good because it retained more of those core Zelda elements - those were abandoned when the series came to 3D and Aonuma took over. Aonuma thought Zelda was too hard, thus he made it easier and focused on the non-action elements like Puzzles, and NPCS, etc.
Zelda was difficult, there weren't cutesy moronic goblins in leopard print and S&M costumes running around.
These contentions that SS is more difficult that Zelda I are ludicrous. You easily had to play most dungeons through 10 or more times before you could best them with double potions. The final dungeons would throw multiple bosses at you and room after room with 10 darknuts and wizrobes firing sonic waves at you while they disappeared/reappeared and chased you all over the screen. Seriously... cut the crap.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
|System | This Week | Last Week | Last Year | YTD | Last YTD |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
| ALL | 1.723.000 | 1.362.000 | 3.276.244 | 44.002.000 | 55.049.625 |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, it's not, there are many more elements than a surface coat. You even said the surface coat is what offends you because you don't like the bokoblins or whatever.No, I just don't have time to delve into a detailed post about Zelda. First of all, the modern games feel and play nothing like the original games. They have a surface coat that looks like Zelda but that is where it stops.
It took from things that didn't exist?It took from the rpgs like D&D, DW, and FF
I'd rather it takes the best from Zelda, I've not played any modern RPGs that have better puzzles or better combat systems than Zelda. They have merits, hence why I'm playing Skyrim still (for now) but not in such aspects. Also, few if any of them are really any harder at all. I can't think of any that resemble Zelda at all.Zelda needs to take the best of best modern RPGS and merge that with precise, quick-action gameplay like you would find in an arcade.
Not really.That is what Zelda is.
Speak for yourself, not any larger group in another attempt to validate your opinion as better.That is what Zelda fans are looking for
Because they didn't fit in 8x8 (or whatever) pixel sprites.there weren't cutesy moronic goblins in leopard print and S&M costumes running around.
I didn't say more difficult, I said more nonstop action which you specifically asked for, since outside the tutorial and a few other parts it mostly eliminates the overworld structure and just gets you right in dungeon-like areas (even if outdoor) one after the other, unless you choose to dick around.These contentions that SS is more difficult that Zelda I are ludicrous.
------------------------------------------------
|System | This Week | Last Week | Last Year |
------------------------------------------------
| PSP | 32,5% | 15,8% | 14,3% |
| WII | 25,4% | 10,1% | 17,2% |
| PS3 | 23,8% | 42,1% | 39,3% |
| 3DS | 8,6% | 8,8% | 0,0% |
| NDS | 7,6% | 15,8% | 25,0% |
| 360 | 1,9% | 7,0% | 3,2% |
| OTH | 0,2% | 0,3% | 0,1% |
------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|System | This Week | Last Week | Last Year | YTD | Last YTD | LTD |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| 3DS | 110.088 | 88.225 | | 2.642.808 | | 2.642.808 |
| PS3 | 30.740 | 38.836 | 61.096 | 1.249.731 | 1.371.365 | 7.199.618 |
| PSP # | 30.086 | 36.872 | 74.439 | 1.716.217 | 2.101.845 | 17.993.148 |
| WII | 17.912 | 11.833 | 39.691 | 706.290 | 1.355.677 | 11.936.582 |
| NDS # | 1.582 | 1.455 | 46.816 | 698.417 | 2.420.180 | 32.822.715 |
| 360 | 1.238 | 1.467 | 4.155 | 103.084 | 191.092 | 1.509.747 |
| PS2 | 639 | 644 | 1.459 | 54.611 | 85.113 | 21.950.522 |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| ALL | 192.285 | 179.332 | 227.656 | 7.171.158 | 7.525.272 | 96.055.140 |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| DSi | 1.582 | 1.455 | 45.170 | 672.519 | 2.208.892 | 8.233.392 |
| PSP | 30.086 | 36.872 | 73.521 | 1.696.094 | 2.042.902 | 17.832.573 |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zelda predates both FF & DQ actually. The major JRPGs that predate it are stuff like Black Onyx, Dragon Slayer and Hydlide.It took from things that didn't exist?
Hey, Go Vacation passed 100k (yay!). I wonder where Family Fishing is at now?
The reason why I feel that adding an array of randomization from a huge pool of items/dungeons is because I feel that one thing that totally kills Zelda compared to Nintendo's other franchises in terms of long lasting sales and word of mouth, is that they are not really that replayable unless you're a big Zelda fan. There's nothing in the games which really allow people to play over and over. The same thing applies for Mario really. But suddenly, when Nintendo made a new 2D Mario with SHITLOADS of levels, that changed. The same might apply to help Zelda feel more replayable for casual gamers who just want "more" out of a game.
Also, I love dungeons. I love items. Just give me a reason to keep playing.
This makes me happy, 100k within sight. So glad Prope finally managed a hit.Seeing as it stabilized at around 3k in October, it should probably be at 85k right now.
It took from things that didn't exist?
Well I should have bolded DW thenMaybe he meant Fighting Fantasy!
But - as far as I can tell from your plan - you don't love *interaction* between items. Your plan seems to hinge around the "One item used in one dungeon" structure, with little use for items to solve puzzles outside the given dungeon - or you *do* build puzzles around interaction between items, which would be great - but open development up to a *phenomenal* combinatorial explosion nightmare.
Also: I'm pretty sure that Nintendo pretty much spend a year or two refining *eight* dungeons, if not longer. I'm not quite sure where the hundred dungeons would come from!
There is nothing wrong with an item being used almost exclusively for one dungeon. The idea is not to make it complex, but to make it fun. Each dungeon is a little toybox, and the overworld is a treasure map that leads to various toyboxes. That is very much the original base concept of the first Legend of Zelda game. The interaction between items will come in during the final dungeon, which is a sort of test or exam for the player to show that they still remember what they learned throughout the dungeons.
I'm talking about LoZ style dungeons where the dungeon could take maybe 10-30 minutes to beat depending on how familiar you are with that particular layout, and it would be top down and played in 2D, made up of smaller rooms.
Link's Awakening is the best Zelda game ever made, and it has more dungeons than Skyward Sword. It took them less than 2 years to make the game.
A final dungeon where the player has eight items out of maybe thirty, and the game has to generate a dungeon that's interesting for any of those makeups?
I love LA, but for me, the dungeons aren't very *interesting*. There's a few interesting puzzles (I have to single out the pillars in the tower dungeon; that was great), but for the most part, they're don't really give me that spark.
The final dungeon itself isn't generated. The final dungeon would simply be picked from a pool of designed final dungeons which fix the item selection of that world. I guess 20-30 items is actually pretty ridiculous. A more realistic number would be maybe 12-15 items at most, and having certain items be required due to overworld design (let's say: bomb, bow/arrows, bracelet, and some special new item), so we have 4 fixed items, and 4 randomized ones from a pool of 10 possible other items.
they've just potentially split from a 5m user base, what harm would it do putting out another version on PSP that runs on PSV (or an HD PSV version) ?
I know about the local VS online play, but i dont think there is that much different there. If you want to play local with friends, you need the same system as they do. But that goes for online as well.
Hey, Go Vacation passed 100k (yay!). I wonder where Family Fishing is at now?
It sounds almost like what you're after is a Zelda version of Indiana Jones/Yoda's Desktop Adventures, with a little more design and a little less randomness.
I'm not fundamentally opposed to that, I have to concede. I'd just worry that you'd have to sacrifice too many of the puzzling aspects I'm fond of in order to make everything work cohesively.
It's been a *long* time since I dived into probability theory, but I think that's 10C4=210 potential final dungeons.
I have a sneaking suspicion you'd be better off making a pool of *rooms* - each door of which contains data stating which objects you need to make it to each of the other doors in it - and randomly generate a dungeon from that. In fact, thinking about it now, I rather like that as a design structure.
Srsly duckroll, play that game I linked. Or is the dl down? I can upload somewhere if so.
Er. Ok.