S0ULZB0URNE
Member
Hopefully
Depends. One of the jobs costs 6x or more less. Its even in the original quote. "I do have to admit making games that way always carries with it additional development costs".
Of course there's a scale but by your definition almost zero games are linear. In Time Crisis I can choose to shoot goons in different order than you.
In your opinion when is something linear and when is it not?
Or does not agree with you. no definitive right or wrong with any of this, all very subjective.Nah... fuck this guy. He's wrong.
Not everyone wanted that, but the fact that these games are runaway hits and by far the most successful in the franchise kinda shows more people than not, did want it this way. Zelda’s always sold fairly well but BotW and TotK have sold gangbusters, and BG3’s success is incredible for a CRPG. I was never into that genre and I’m hooked on it right now.Except not everyone want the bolded in every game. It'll be too stupid to make every game that way. It's NOT needed at all!!
SS also had tons of different approaches to combat and plenty of interesting inventory/gear decisions to make.Acting like The Wind Waker or Twilight Princess or even Skyward Sword were an on-rails experience. Both had a (mostly) linear main progression with really well thought out content, but offered plenty of side content that made the worlds feel alive and diverse, but in more meaningful ways than a lot of open world content can do.
Personally I have only seen a Rockstar game do #1. Most open world games I have played are the Ubisoft style, #2.I feel your first example makes up for the vast majority of open world games.
The other examples I’d wish we’d see more of. Those are what make open world games shine.
Once again, personal subjective opinions, passed off as facts...Ya know, I hate to go against a guy who has been heavily involved in some of my favorite games.
But he is flat out wrong.
As much as I loved Breath of the Wild, its lack of "curated moments" (which I find is a better description of what some linear games provide) never brought it to the highs of some of the previous games of the series.
And over the past few months I have really struggled to get myself into Tears of the Kingdom for mostly the same reasons.
While my final judgment on the game has not been made, I can say it's probably one of the most frustrating games I have played in a long time.
A big part of that has to do with my want to love the game, and the fact that it just doesn't seem to be what I was wanting it to be.
A great example is what I played last night. I found a part of the depths with the Mineru section that guides you to the Spirit Temple. While the puzzles were enjoyable, I often found the solution to be mostly the same. I was excited to find out I had reached the Spirit Temple (which is usually a highlight of previous Zelda games).
Come to find out all that's there is a simple, pathetically easy boss fight. Common sense with the robot you gathered the pieces of is thrown out the window.
When you use it, it takes battery charge. But when you don't, it's fine without it running around the world. During the boss fight, the battery meter is magically gone. It's attacks are basic, it doesn't even have combos, and for the most part or feels like you are better off just being Link most the time.
Even the most basic dungeons in every single 3D Zelda since 1998 had more elaborate and complex set ups than this. The dungeons in this game so far have been nothing but a straight up tease, and in some ways an insult.
On top of this you have your abilities, that are supposed to carry the game. Unlike in BotW where they felt completely organic, these feel almost like a jumbled mess.
It's not that they don't work, they do. You can totally tell the effort and hard work that went into getting all of these systems working together in place of this massive game.
It's just some don't work at a level of polish or fun you expect from this game. Ultrahand for example, the game's main crux. It's often a struggle to get things that you build working right, and even then they don't last.
And once they are working right, there is no grand spectacle that makes it special. They all control and feel mostly the same, like tacked on toys in a Zelda game. The Spinner in Twilight Princess was more fun than just about every creation I have made so far.
You are forced to teleport around the map to gather the Zonai balls so you can create again, instead of organically picking things up. The objects you find among the map are merely there to guide you to a solution nearby, not save them for later. It like they tried to add in a layer of "curated moments" without the the thought and care behind it in past games.
Recall on the other hand is amazing, but because it's so good you can use it solve almost any of the complicated puzzles in a very cheap way.
Ascend is cool, when it works. There are a lot of objects you can't pass thru, and the height limit is often annoying.
Fuse helps makes things you pick up feel more valuable, but it doesn't cover up the fact that the main combat system is exactly the same as BotW's. Not even a single new move for any of the weapons.
Wind Waker, Twilight, and even Skyward all had more enjoyable combat systems.
As I said, I continue to withhold judgment on this game until I am finished. I am not using a guide so I am taking my sweet time. But when I see Aounuma say this, it makes me sad. Really sad. Because there is a place for traditional Zelda games, and Ocarina is way overdue for a beautiful remake.
But he makes it sound like they are uninterested, and if a remake were to be made it would probably not be made in house. I question then if it would ever live up to expectations.
I hope at least in the next Zelda adventure, they go a whole lot deeper in some of the most basic aspects of the game. Combat, dungeons and abilities.
Ya know, I hate to go against a guy who has been heavily involved in some of my favorite games.
But he is flat out wrong.
As much as I loved Breath of the Wild, its lack of "curated moments" (which I find is a better description of what some linear games provide) never brought it to the highs of some of the previous games of the series.
And over the past few months I have really struggled to get myself into Tears of the Kingdom for mostly the same reasons.
While my final judgment on the game has not been made, I can say it's probably one of the most frustrating games I have played in a long time.
A big part of that has to do with my want to love the game, and the fact that it just doesn't seem to be what I was wanting it to be.
A great example is what I played last night. I found a part of the depths with the Mineru section that guides you to the Spirit Temple. While the puzzles were enjoyable, I often found the solution to be mostly the same. I was excited to find out I had reached the Spirit Temple (which is usually a highlight of previous Zelda games).
Come to find out all that's there is a simple, pathetically easy boss fight. Common sense with the robot you gathered the pieces of is thrown out the window.
When you use it, it takes battery charge. But when you don't, it's fine without it running around the world. During the boss fight, the battery meter is magically gone. It's attacks are basic, it doesn't even have combos, and for the most part or feels like you are better off just being Link most the time.
Even the most basic dungeons in every single 3D Zelda since 1998 had more elaborate and complex set ups than this. The dungeons in this game so far have been nothing but a straight up tease, and in some ways an insult.
On top of this you have your abilities, that are supposed to carry the game. Unlike in BotW where they felt completely organic, these feel almost like a jumbled mess.
It's not that they don't work, they do. You can totally tell the effort and hard work that went into getting all of these systems working together in place of this massive game.
It's just some don't work at a level of polish or fun you expect from this game. Ultrahand for example, the game's main crux. It's often a struggle to get things that you build working right, and even then they don't last.
And once they are working right, there is no grand spectacle that makes it special. They all control and feel mostly the same, like tacked on toys in a Zelda game. The Spinner in Twilight Princess was more fun than just about every creation I have made so far.
You are forced to teleport around the map to gather the Zonai balls so you can create again, instead of organically picking things up. The objects you find among the map are merely there to guide you to a solution nearby, not save them for later. It like they tried to add in a layer of "curated moments" without the the thought and care behind it in past games.
Recall on the other hand is amazing, but because it's so good you can use it solve almost any of the complicated puzzles in a very cheap way.
Ascend is cool, when it works. There are a lot of objects you can't pass thru, and the height limit is often annoying.
Fuse helps makes things you pick up feel more valuable, but it doesn't cover up the fact that the main combat system is exactly the same as BotW's. Not even a single new move for any of the weapons.
Wind Waker, Twilight, and even Skyward all had more enjoyable combat systems.
As I said, I continue to withhold judgment on this game until I am finished. I am not using a guide so I am taking my sweet time. But when I see Aounuma say this, it makes me sad. Really sad. Because there is a place for traditional Zelda games, and Ocarina is way overdue for a beautiful remake.
But he makes it sound like they are uninterested, and if a remake were to be made it would probably not be made in house. I question then if it would ever live up to expectations.
I hope at least in the next Zelda adventure, they go a whole lot deeper in some of the most basic aspects of the game. Combat, dungeons and abilities.
Or does not agree with you. no definitive right or wrong with anu of this, all very subjective.
I don’t think he said any of the things you imply here though. He even acknowledges that there’s a clear market for linear games, if only because non-linear titles tend to require a lot of additional development costs.He's objectively wrong. There's a clear market for linear games.
Said market may not be as large as for open-ended design games (that's debatable), but it's still a sizeable market of gamers that will buy the products if you make and sell them.
His claim that linear game design is somehow outdated, is frankly horseshit.
From sales and critic/player reception, there is clear evidence that the open world route is the right way to go. Now of course if they want to build more linear quests within this, it's up to them.He's objectively wrong. There's a clear market for linear games.
Said market may not be as large as for open-ended design games (that's debatable), but it's still a sizeable market of gamers that will buy the products if you make and sell them.
His claim that linear game design is somehow outdated, is frankly horseshit.
Errr...I don’t think he said any of the things you imply here though.
Games which have a strict order of events are "kind of games of the past," Aonuma said, whilst modern games "can accept a player's own decisions and give them the freedom to flexibly proceed"
Open-world =/= open-ended gameplay mechanics or non-linear game structure.From sales and critic/player reception, there is clear evidence that the open world route is the right way to go. Now of course if they want to build more linear quests within this, it's up to them.
Nothing in that quote says anything about there not being a market for linear games.Errr...
You are confusing yourself at this point. I was talking specifically about BOTW, it has a pretty much do what you like approach to it's gameplay, you can just run around and explore, or be more focused on the main quest and shrines etc. I am not bothered in the slightest what other open world games do, as Aonuma was not talking about them.Open-world =/= open-ended gameplay mechanics or non-linear game structure.
Most open-world games have very linear game structures. There is a linear string of main quests that you complete one after the other, wherein in most cases you complete a linear sequence of tasks that more often than not can't be completed with different approaches or different mechanics.
The above describes the prevailing majority of openworld games, meaning most openworld games are in fact very linear games in terms of structure and mechanics. Zelda is an exception to the rule.
You're speaking about something completely different to Eiji and the rest of us in the thread.
Or does not agree with you. no definitive right or wrong with any of this, all very subjective.
You and others seem to be misunderstanding the word objective, in relation to what you all personally feel or want. As I said Aonuma is speaking about the Zelda franchise here, rather than linear game design in a more generalized way. He is basically saying why would people want to go back to the older Zelda games like OOT, which were far more a product of the technical limitations of the time, when you can now have the open world, go anywhere/explore type adventure that's possible now. He also mentions nostalgia, which of course is very strong with retro games, as we tend to have fond memories of them based on our initial thoughts when they were released, and of course were for their time cutting edge. And he also does not seem to be saying half of the things some are accusing him of here.No this isn't subjective. He's objectively wrong. Not every company even has the budget to make an open world game. Plus not every creator wants to make that style of a game. Making a linear game is a design choice. It can't be a thing of the past.
What if the buffet gave you a choice of all your favorite things to eat, would that not make it better. With BOTW and TOTK, their is still a main objective, and side quests etc, you just can decide to tackle it in youe own way. Many core hobby gamers forget that not everybody has an insane amount of time to dedicate to playing videogames, even more so with the wider demographic of Switch owners, this approach means everyone can get something out of the game, in their own personal way.This is like saying buffet is automatically better because you have the freedom of choice.
this post is genius i award youWhat if the buffet gave you a choice of all your favorite things to eat, would that not make it better. With BOTW and TOTK, their is still a main objective, and side quests etc, you just can decide to tackle it in youe own way. Many core hobby gamers forget that not everybody has an insane amount of time to dedicate to playing videogames, even more so with the wider demographic of Switch owners, this aproach means everyone can get something out of the game, in their own personal way.
Or that other deveolopers should stop making them, and also not sure of the point some are making about certain developers not being able to afford to make expansive open world games, as this has no bearing whatsoever on them being better or worse than more linear type gaames.Nothing in that quote says anything about there not being a market for linear games.
In relation to this interview I think the point is that open-ended game design is very time consuming, and especially so for a big open-world game (given that you aim to iron out all the issues that can occur). Something like BotW/TotK must have been hell to develop, we know from past interviews that they had a finished product one year prior to release but spent an entire year solely to playtest it - for example. I can’t imagine many developers having that time, or the luxury of being able to delay their game to that extent.also not sure of the point some are making about certain developers not being able to afford to make expansive open world games
Go for A Link Between Worlds philosophy then.Zelda producer Eiji Aonuma thinks linear games are "games of the past"
Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom producer Eiji Aonuma has responded to fans' hopes of a traditional linear Zelda game, sayin…www.eurogamer.net
"It's interesting when I hear people say [I miss traditional linear Zelda]," Aonuma revealed, "because I'm wondering 'why do you want to go back to a type of game where you're more limited or more restricted in the types of things or ways you can play? Games which have a strict order of events are "kind of games of the past," Aonuma said, whilst modern games "can accept a player's own decisions and give them the freedom to flexibly proceed". This is the design philosophy of the Zelda team at Nintendo, he stated, though he added "I do have to admit making games that way always carries with it additional development costs".
Deal or no deal?
i grabed all 900 in BoTw not gonna do it in ToTk fuck it.
i grabed all 900 in BoTw
Doubt it’ll matter either way. I feel they got a lot of critique on BotW and a lot of its systems that they barely acknowledged in TotK.I think there will be a fair amount of fans asking for a change in formula by that point.
What if the buffet gave you a choice of all your favorite things to eat, would that not make it better. With BOTW and TOTK, their is still a main objective, and side quests etc, you just can decide to tackle it in youe own way. Many core hobby gamers forget that not everybody has an insane amount of time to dedicate to playing videogames, even more so with the wider demographic of Switch owners, this approach means everyone can get something out of the game, in their own personal way.
I think the potential for there to be amazing "curated moments" within an open world is like you said... Very high, but it seems to be difficult and rare for this to be pulled off for whatever reason.This was an interesting write up but I have to ask...
Isn't it (obviously) easier to add "curated moments" and more intricate dungeon design to the open world formula than it is to shed the player of the feeling they're being forced down a narrow path in the linear formula?
To me, it seems obvious that open world design has a creative cieling that's unbelievably high. There are so many more things you can add to and improve upon with that canvas. Linear design feels like it's been stuck in the mud for 20+ years at this point.
If you look at the Doom 1 map closely it kinda looks like a strange robot showing the right thumbs up, lol.For the most part I agree. Open Biomes are the new linear. Also, no one really followed Doom nor Goldeneye's examples when it was in regards to linear design. They should have.
People have interpreted it that way, and of course there will always be nuance lost in the translation, I feel he was discussing the Zelda series in isolation. Still not sure your buffet analogy has a lot to do with this.He gave a blanket statement so I gave a blanket response. Not everyone is at the level of quality as BOTW or TOTK, and so it's just a non-memorable buffet experience.
You and others seem to be misunderstanding the word objective, in relation to what you all personally feel or want. As I said Aonuma is speaking about the Zelda franchise here, rather than linear game design in a more generalized way. He is basically saying why would people want to go back to the older Zelda games like OOT, which were far more a product of the technical limitations of the time, when you can now have the open world, go anywhere/explore type adventure that's possible now. He also mentiones nostalgia, which of course is very strong with retro games, as we tend to have fond memories of them based on our initial thoughts when they were released, and of course were for their time cutting edge. And he also does not seem to be saying half of the things some are accusing him of here.