4 replies to this topic

[SOAP]

Yup, just gonna leave this here.

[Veteran]

Wake me up when Majora's Mask gets a 3DS release.

[Crimson Lego]

Please be a TP sequel?

[Sir Deimos]

Please be a TP sequel?

Noooooooooo!



While my favorite style is Wind Waker, I would be more than fine with more of SS's art style. It's a gorgeous happy median only dick faces can complain about.

[canas is back]

while I liked the wind waker I am getting a little tired of the stylized look, but I am not unhappy with SS's look though so as long as the faces get a little work I am happy

[Sir Turtlelot]

I stumbled across this article a couple days ago, but I forgot to actually post it here. I'm really interested in the sheer size of the game. From the way the article describes, it sounds like Zelda is going to be a Skyrim sized world. I am very much looking forward to something like that.

And just when you thought SS took forever to get anything done.

Please be a TP sequel?

Noooooooooo!

Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesssss!

[Sir Deimos]

TP was garbage. Gaaaah. There is a reason TP is also short for toilet paper. Cause poop.

[Masamune]

The huge Rockstar-style world makes me excited, since I've been playing Red Dead Redemption for the first time. This is, in a sense, something Nintendo has already been trying to do. They did it with a small measure of success in The Wind Waker. The problem was that the wide ocean wasn't interesting or compelling to just go off and explore. They tried to litter it with neat things, but most of them you never felt a great amount of incentive to go and explore. All those pirate platforms over the ocean? Meh, whatever. What was nice about RDD was that sometimes I'd just be content to go run off the open path so I could go brutalize and skin some helpless animals. Or randomly run into somebody in need of help. A lot of it was just open desert, but that desert was more interesting than TWW's ocean or any of the Hyrule fields.

Nintendo has long been interested in making Hyrule looks vast, but haven't really pulled that off since... well, Zelda II. I'd be excited to see if they could pull it off without sacrificing the core Zelda gameplay that makes it so great.

[Sir Turtlelot]

TP was garbage. Gaaaah. There is a reason TP is also short for toilet paper. Cause poop.

I never understood why so many people didn't like TP, all I've really gathered is that it was over-hyped prior to release and people got their hopes too high about it.


I would like the new game to be a sequel to something that isn't OoT. SS and TP are the first that come to mind, since WW already had two shitty sequels and they're never going to go near any of the games made prior to OoT ever again.

[Sir Deimos]

Wolf sequences were dumb. I have other complaints but I'll save them for later.


What they SHOULD do is stop trying to appease timeliners. Don't continue anything. Don't prequel anything. Just make a new fucking Zelda.

[Sir Turtlelot]

Trust me, they don't even try to appease us.


And when I mean sequel, I mean in the era after that game, not necessarily right after that particular game. Post TP and SS have a great deal of unexplored potential, that I would really like to see.

[Nevermind]

I loved Twilight Princess. Keep calling it dumb. Get mad. It's awesome.


I was kind of hoping to see something more like that in HD. Like alternating the art styles each game.

[Sir Deimos]

If they weren't trying to appease timeliners there wouldn't be an official timeline. Check.

[Nevermind]

Aren't there like three timelines now? Sounds like they're trying to appease both types.

[joeymartin64]

Hold on. Do "big expansive world" and "yeah ss was great more of that" seem fundamentally at odds with each other to anyone else? I mean, the complete lack of world cohesion was probably the second worst thing about SS. I would fucking love to see a huge, open-ended Zelda game world as much as the next guy, but I can't help but tilt my head at the idea that this gels at all with thinking SS was any sort of a "sweet spot."

EDIT:

If they weren't trying to appease timeliners there wouldn't be an official timeline. Check.

If they were trying to appease timeliners, the official timeline wouldn't suck.

Sorry, contractual obligations.

Edited by joeymartin64, 03 December 2012 - 07:49 PM.

[Nevermind]

Skyward Sword's levels did feel to me like there was a big expansive world out there, we just weren't allowed to look at it. Perhaps dat-feel with an ACTUAL world to explore...?

[Selena]

I raise my eyebrow at "super-big dungeons" rather than just having one big world.

"They're getting sick of dungeon crawling? Well, okay, make the dungeons ten times bigger then."

[Sir Turtlelot]

If they weren't trying to appease timeliners there wouldn't be an official timeline. Check.

So because the developers pieced together their own imperfect timeline, from either in-game info or shit they literally just made up, they're trying too much to appease timeliners. Perfect logic.

Also keep in mind that nearly all of the issues with the timeline, are because they put story second to gameplay and because pretty much all of the games are generally designed to work as stand alone stories, as to not confuse players by referencing other games they may not have played.





Anyways, back on topic. I agree with Laz, SS felt like it was a giant world, that we just couldn't really see. From the sounds of this new game, they're going to make a game like SS, but with an actual explorable overworld. THAT would be awesome.

[SOAP]

I raise my eyebrow at "super-big dungeons" rather than just having one big world.

"They're getting sick of dungeon crawling? Well, okay, make the dungeons ten times bigger then."

Hold on. Do "big expansive world" and "yeah ss was great more of that" seem fundamentally at odds with each other to anyone else? I mean, the complete lack of world cohesion was probably the second worst thing about SS. I would fucking love to see a huge, open-ended Zelda game world as much as the next guy, but I can't help but tilt my head at the idea that this gels at all with thinking SS was any sort of a "sweet spot."

This made think too, especially the part where they describe a forest as large as Hyrule Feild and another part they describe dungeons so big they had to be split into three parts. That sounds almost exactly the set up with SS, in which each province was a huge dungeon in itself. You had the chunk of overworld/dungeon mash up leading up to the traditional dungeon proper, and then you had an "underworld" dungeon that goes even deeper into the dungeon/overworld hybrid. If that's what they're doing here as well then I have some conflicting thoughts about it. The way they broke up Hyrule in SS into three parts and made each chunk a separate mega dungeon, it just ruined the feel of a single cohesive world. Even though the provinces weren't physically disconnected, there weren't any way to travel between them besides flying up to the hub world and flying back down. It felt more like... well, playing a video game really. If you're concious that you're playing a video agme while playing a video game, then the game designers did something wrong. Besides, I never understood what was wrong with more smaller, "bite-size," dungeons.

Oh well, it's a rumor so take it with a healthy dash of salt.

[Egann]

I thought TP had some rather pointed faults, but on the whole I liked it almost as much as I like Wind Waker. Also timelines, official or not, are stupid. Who cares when this is happening if you're enjoying it?

The huge dungeon actually sounds less like a dungeon and more like an overworld sidequest. Which has me interested and also afraid.

I think it boils down to this: dungeons work by having the most insane, irrational architecture imaginable. I mean really, what idiot puts infinite chasms and spiked walls in their buildings? And don't tell me that this is a test for the hero, cuz that's been literally true once and only once...and the Tower of the Gods wasn't designed like that. Design a rational, well thought out building with a purpose, then break the architecture and/ or infest it with monsters to make a dungeon, and come up with a better reason for Link to be there besides "collect mystic item BlahBlahBlah." It's just a hedge maze with a glowing rock as the prize. That's gotten predictable and boring. Nintendo's starting to get that picture, but I don't think they properly understand it, yet.

But if dungeons really are acres in size, they don't have to be like that. A huge dungeon can soak up the player's time and energy in plot-relevant ways with narry a "locked door" in sight. The emphasis being plot-relevant; dungeons should at least be interaction-driven, if not outright character-driven. Monsters and Mazes is very much a mid-90's video game design, and it's starting to look ancient.

[Masamune]

I wish Zelda would make the jump to voice acting. Dungeon crawling would be more interesting if they kept some of the dungeon-partner mechanics (like with Medli and Makar), but made them computer controlled and provide some interesting commentary along the way. Though, I guess, that would mean Link talking. Or his obligatory peppy sidekick to interact on his behalf.

[SOAP]

I thought TP had some rather pointed faults, but on the whole I liked it almost as much as I like Wind Waker. Also timelines, official or not, are stupid. Who cares when this is happening if you're enjoying it?

The huge dungeon actually sounds less like a dungeon and more like an overworld sidequest. Which has me interested and also afraid.

I think it boils down to this: dungeons work by having the most insane, irrational architecture imaginable. I mean really, what idiot puts infinite chasms and spiked walls in their buildings? And don't tell me that this is a test for the hero, cuz that's been literally true once and only once...and the Tower of the Gods wasn't designed like that. Design a rational, well thought out building with a purpose, then break the architecture and/ or infest it with monsters to make a dungeon, and come up with a better reason for Link to be there besides "collect mystic item BlahBlahBlah." It's just a hedge maze with a glowing rock as the prize. That's gotten predictable and boring. Nintendo's starting to get that picture, but I don't think they properly understand it, yet.

But if dungeons really are acres in size, they don't have to be like that. A huge dungeon can soak up the player's time and energy in plot-relevant ways with narry a "locked door" in sight. The emphasis being plot-relevant; dungeons should at least be interaction-driven, if not outright character-driven. Monsters and Mazes is very much a mid-90's video game design, and it's starting to look ancient.

But Zelda dungeons are even less monsters and mazes these days. Heck they're less about chasms and hazards now too and more about puzzles and unlocking doors. Some might say that's even more ancient, to the point that more monsters and mazes would be a breath of fresh air.

That's what scares me about this. If they're trying to make dungeons more about puzzles and trying to make dungeons bigger as well, that's going to get old really fast. The dungeons were enough of a chore as it was. This will be adding insult to injury. That's not to say puzzles are bad but they were cool when it was just once in a while thing in smaller dungeons. When they're the main focus and the dungeons are bigger, they wear off their welcome and become repetitive.

Which brings me to ask again, what was wrong with more dungeons on a smaller scale? Who asked Nintendo to make Zelda games with bigger dungeons? What's the appeal of that? I really don't get it.

[Sir Turtlelot]

Personally, I think a mix of dungeons is the best way to go. Having all dungeons large or small, or puzzle and/or action packed does get old after awhile, so mixing it up would be the best option. Say have one large dungeon full of enemies and one smaller, puzzle-packed dungeon, and all other kind of mixes.

[joeymartin64]

Well, the way it's phrased, it may not mean the dungeons are just bigger. One could make the argument that SS had its "dungeons" split into phases as well, since you did some talky-eventy puzzle-solvey stuff in each area before going into the official Dungeon That Contains Map™. That could just mean that a scenario objective in this new game might take you through a big cave, then a big forest, then finally the Dungeon That Contains Map™, rather than the Forest Temple just being a stone's throw from the village of the forest race du jeux. Or I could be completely wrong. As long as they don't pull that Level Select hub world bullshit again, it'll at least be a step in the right direction. This isn't Mario.

[J-Roc]

Wake me up when Majora's Mask gets a 3DS release.

Would they actually bother?

[Hero of Slime]

I would go out and buy a 3DS if there were to be a remake of MM for it.

[Sir Deimos]

Heck they're less about chasms and hazards now too and more about puzzles and unlocking doors.

Unlocking doors? Sure. But puzzles? Since the jump to 3D we've seen fewer and fewer puzzles. Less complexity. More mindlessness.

What they need to do is just modify the formula somewhat. Large dungeons could be perfect for that. Bring back exploration. Include parts in the dungeon that are possible to overlook. Hide powerful tools/artifacts/spells in the deeper recesses. CHALLENGE the player to find them! Leave clues these objects are out there, but don't hold the player's had to find them.

Since ALttP, the only "powerful hidden items" have been empty bottles. And that's criminal.

[Hero of Slime]

Other games since ALttP have had hidden items. OOX had secrets and rings and TMC had stuff found by fusing kinstones. None of these were in dungeons though.

ST had items hidden in dungeons which could be traded for Train cars. I liked that.


Also Empty bottles can be filled with milk and potions. And those are the most powerful items in the games when it comes to staying alive.

[Sir Deimos]

3D Zelda has the greatest chance at exploration based gameplay and they just don't utilize it. Your post proves my point.

[SOAP]

Heck they're less about chasms and hazards now too and more about puzzles and unlocking doors.

Unlocking doors? Sure. But puzzles? Since the jump to 3D we've seen fewer and fewer puzzles. Less complexity. More mindlessness.

What they need to do is just modify the formula somewhat. Large dungeons could be perfect for that. Bring back exploration. Include parts in the dungeon that are possible to overlook. Hide powerful tools/artifacts/spells in the deeper recesses. CHALLENGE the player to find them! Leave clues these objects are out there, but don't hold the player's had to find them.

Since ALttP, the only "powerful hidden items" have been empty bottles. And that's criminal.

Everything was a puzzle in SS. SS had the largest dungeons that I can think of. I just don't like the prospect of having even more puzzles and bigger dungeons when SS burned me out as it was.

Everything else in your post I agree with. 3D Zelda needs more exploration. Why the games have been getting more and more linear is beyond me. Seems to me encouraging exploration would make Zelda more "accessible" like they seem to be trying to make it. Like puzzles? Take the handholding tour of the dungeon. Want more action? Take an alternative route that involves more fighting hordes of enemies and sneaking about. Make it so there's more than one way to complete a dungeon. That'd be awesome.