So why are they getting rid of dungeons? What is the reason
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
 Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
So why are they getting rid of dungeons? What is the reason
So why are they getting rid of dungeons? What is the reason
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
Why are you trans?
Because I was born with a woman's soul you fricking butthole.
why is it always a man with a woman's soul?
That's impossible! Women don't have souls.
Despite what morons on the internet say the vast majority of people hate running through dungeons and solving gay puzzles. People just want to play and it's mad annoying have to google a walkthrough the second a puzzle stops us from doing that.
imagine what it feels to do an inspired 120 shrines puzzles and 900 korok seeks
didn't that anon just say that he hates shrines?
Dungeons can filter players. The current structure of Zelda challenges are essentially vote-sized distillations of what dungeons used to exemplify. By swapping out dungeons for shrines you also benefit a lot in terms of cost and efficiency. No need to design multiple unique internal spaces- just one pallet will suffice. No need to introduce a new mechanic and fill the space with increasingly complex uses of it- just give the player a Swiss Army knife at the start of the game and then you can recycle the same puzzle probably 7 or 8 times.
See this moron:
Consider this the Bethesda-ization of Zelda
Bite sized *
>Consider this the Bethesda-ization of Zelda
Don't Bethesda games normally have npcs walking around and quests and a plot and gear and shit like that?
that implies that dungeons were difficult. Some puzzles may have been hard but they were the exception in a sea of VERY obvious solutions. You unlock a boomerang inside a dungeon and you know that all puzzles will be solved with it. While I dont want all future games to follow BoTW's formula, shrines were a great idea but the problem is the baby-tier puzzles which again, were also a bit of problem for the other 3D Zeldas
>You unlock a boomerang inside a dungeon and you know that all puzzles will be solved with it
Plenty of dungeons actually use multiple tools aside from the one you get in the dungeon. Off the top of my head, I would call Snowpeak Ruins in TP as much of a bomb dungeon as I would a ball-and-chain one.
Because curated interiors that revolve around the acquisition of a new tool fundamentally doesn't work in a game around creating your own solutions. The answer, then, is to make bigger interiors worth solving and it seems like they haven't gotten that down just yet. Hyrule Castle pretty much had the right idea, now they juat need to do that multiple times.
This is the excuse of a shitter that wants a playground and falls apart the moment there's a roadblock.
honestly. Walkthroughs and the internet killed the magic of gaming for me.
Solving the game by myself with literally no availability of support was dope af when I played the leaked ver of Origami king. I played it when there was no news or spam about it on Ganker.
You know that looking at walkthroughs is not mandatory, right? I never look at them.
Have you ever considered just not looking at walkthroughs? Just because it's there doesn't mean you have to use it.
Sounds like you're just lacking in skill.
Oh, so you're the audience that they made some of those absolute braindead shrine "puzzles" for.
source: my ass
Then why do we have Shrines, Labyrinths, Divine Beasts or Temples?
Zoomer attention spans can't tolerate extended gameplay
"people" want to run around and hit things with a stick
elden ring added that and they still kept their multilayered dungeons
Because they can't copy and paste them the same way they can with the overworld map and shrines
theres 5-6 fricking dungeons you moronic inbred frick
they don't hold up to other games
a few are better than the other games, ive played them all
also if you really want dungeon content do all the shrines, all 152 of them
Shrines aren't dungeons
Can we get your top 8 Zelda dungeons, please?
stone tower temple
forest temple
ancient cistern
water temple
lightning temple
arbiters grounds
deepwood shrine
construct factory-spirit temple (including dragonhead isle)
>Skyshit Sword dungeons
>good
you can dislike the game but the dungeon is great
My homie you also have Arbiter's Grounds on there which I can only excuse if you're counting the entire desert area leading up to it, because the dungeon itself is crap.
>filtered by abriters kino
nigmi
>filtered
That term means literally nothing in this context
The dungeon plays itself and the bossfight might as well be a QTE. It has a good introductory sequence and the heckin based ebin cutscenerino as your reward but the dungeon itself is corridors and grind rails, and its in the same game as the Temple of Time and the cool sky hookshot place.
Ahaha oh frick I just realized the poster meant the BotW arbiter's grounds
Arbiter's Grounds is great. One of the best in the series.
>If you want a Whopper eat 4 White Castle sliders
This is the most amazing food analogy I've ever seen kek. Good job
Zoomer alert
moron who didnt play the game alert
Played it, its a 4/10 at best
3D Zelda "dungeons" are fricking garbage. They only entertain people with extremely low IQ. They have literally never been good. That said, what we got from BOTW and TOTK aren't really good either. But you can scream and cry about them all you want, doesn't change the fact that 3D Zelda dungeons are dogshit.
The correct thing to do is go back to Zelda 1 and 2 style of dungeons and gameplay. Those were actually good.
Because dungeons require effort and talent and the devs realized that most consoomers will chug their cum if they give them a sandbox they can make moronic fricking tiktoks in.
The real question is why does Elden Ring manage to elevate every single design decision from Zelda I while Zelda itself has been in shambles for about a decade?
Because LttP and OoT threw all that shit away and since everyone loved OoT they just kept the series like that forever until recently when they realized they fricked up.
Yet despite being direct departures from the Zelda I formula, OoT and ALttP are both excellent games. Things didn't go to absolute shit until the time of Skyward Sword, when even Nintendo realized they needed to reboot the franchise.
laziness
The new dungeons are better. They allow for more thought and multiple solutions.
'Use the spiny skateboard thing in every place where you see a grind rail', or 'use bombs everywhere you see a cracked wall' are not puzzles.
Yeah its almost like the point of zelda dungeons isn't to jack you off over what a smart little lad you are and instead to drill you on using newly introduced gameplay mechanics so that future dungeons can continue to increase their mechanical complexity. Like a linear series of challenges with a clearly communicated skill floor is the basis of playing videogames, or something.
>so that future dungeons can continue to increase their mechanical complexity.
Except in most cases, that isn't done.
>Like a linear series of challenges with a clearly communicated skill floor is the basis of playing videogames
So basically what you have with the Sheikah slate and Ultra hand then?
I'm not paying money for some make your own fun physics sandbox
Best part of any Zelda game is getting to the dungeon. Not the dungeon itself. Prove me wrong
Possibly, but its unfortunate that walking around empty plains isnt fun lol
Nah, a good dungeon is where Zelda peaks. But you're not wrong in that the leadup to a dungeon is supplementary to said peaks and is basically a close second. It's definitely where the intrigue peaks in the overworld.
Zelda dungeons are shit outside of the NES games and Oracles, because those are the only games willing to make dungeons challenging gauntlets designed to test you with punishing enemies that aren't simply there to be 'solved' once and for all, and hence can have challenges more interesting than having to navigate to a room to find some key that you were stuck on.
This doesn't make full 'open world' the fight way to do things, but most Zelda dungeons are way shittier than they could be.
Balance is next to impossible. Adjusting linear dungeons to a non-linear game is rather hard. Especially when you want to make absolutely sure that no one could ever get frustrated when trying them.
Also, funny that you post a WW pic, because I haven't played that fricker in like two decades before trying out the HD version recently. Just did the earth and wind temples yesterday. They were fricking b***hes at times, but I really enjoyed them. Well, outside of the bosses, but combat isn't exactly WW's strong suit.
>Balance is next to impossible. Adjusting linear dungeons to a non-linear game is rather hard.
This is the part where people dogpile you for the short length and static difficulty curves of those dungeons instead of realizing that they were the right step to take and should've been refined upon.
if anything TotK dungeons are even shorter and have worse difficulty curves since ALBW had tunic and master sword upgrades while TotK just had basic constructs for all of them
I don't remember all the details about this one, so I may be wrong. But you basically rented your items and lost them whenever you died, right? Well, again, the idea is OK, but you had to frick up quite hard to die. And if you did, you could just reload the last save to skip this whole unpleasantness. And you still end up with the whole "need A for dungeon X" dilemma.
>oh no you have to play the game if you want to play the game
>this is just unacceptable
I seriously want to know what happened to you people in early life that caused you to grow up like this
>"need A for dungeon X"
And what's wrong with that?
>"need A for dungeon X"
>And what's wrong with that?
Because it isn't an engaging puzzle, dumbass. If it's just a case of using the right item in the right location, then why not just get rid of all items and replace them with keys and locked doors? It would be exactly the same fricking thing.
Because it isn't when the items are more mechanically complex(and can be used to deal with the dungeon enemies too)
>use sand rod to create bridges
>use sand rod to use the "merge into walls" move to reach places that bridges can't reach
>use ice rod to traverse lava
>use ice rod to create platforms so a rolling ball can reach a cracked wall to break it
And this is just stuff I can remember from playing ALBW a long time ago, there are plenty of mechanically interesting items in the rest of the series that can lead to more fun exploration than being simple keys to very specific locks
>Because it isn't when the items are more mechanically complex(and can be used to deal with the dungeon enemies too)
>>use sand rod to create bridges
>>use sand rod to use the "merge into walls" move to reach places that bridges can't reach
>>use ice rod to traverse lava
>>use ice rod to create platforms so a rolling ball can reach a cracked wall to break it
So literally like the abilities in BotW and TotK, which are highly versatile and can be used in many different scenarios?
>BotW
Almost, they were handy new ways to interact with the world but they had almost 0 use for puzzle solving and you got them after dungeons
>TotK
Really well designed moves(Mineru and Sidon aside) but the controls are so incredibly bad you could argue they make the game worse by being active
They also don't have almost any clever or complex puzzle uses
>Tulin
movement upgrade, the best sage move and it's more or less the equivalent of a Roc Feather
>Riju
Really cool move and the gibdo interaction is good but you only really use on the dungeon switches, good combat use but too jank to use compared to shock fruits
>Sidon
funnily enough he is the most used for puzzles with the flamethrower wall and cleaning mud, but he is the worst sage power
>Yunobo
basically bombs, aka the worst and least inventive Zelda power, but the "make a bridge so he can blow up a rock" are probably the best puzzle implementations of sage powers
Basically they all suck for puzzles but they are pretty cool for combat
the problem is there is no progression with those items. botw had 3 items that weren't bombs.
Make ice blocks, freeze object, move metal
statis was the only item that was interesting to use and had devent combat use, the other 2 were a meme.
TOTK, all the items except Ascend are used for it's sand box mechanic. recall had potential but isn't really useful besides getting your shit the fell down the cliff and a few shrines.
Huh??!! Ascend in my experience has been the most fun in the overworld
Adds a whole new level of verticality to the map
God I love that game so much. I keep telling friends who like BOTW and TOTK to play this because it's basically the precursor to that open ended style in several ways
I recall reading during the times of Skyward Sword how they wanted to blur the lines between the overworld and dungeons. With these last two games, they’ve basically succeeded. The dungeons are smaller and occasionally play like the overworld, and the overworld is littered with puzzles and dangers we previously saw primarily in dungeons. They probably won’t stop, and will instead move closer and closer to the old equilibrium. The worst part is their insistence on designing puzzles with multiple solutions; that merely means no puzzle will be complex enough to forego multiple solutions.
>The worst part is their insistence on designing puzzles with multiple solutions; that merely means no puzzle will be complex enough to forego multiple solutions.
What are you talking about? Zelda dungeons have never been complex.
Majora’s Mask had some cool, interconnected puzzles in its dungeons. The basic joy of playing with the new item is gone, all in the name of allowing the game to be played in any order.
>The basic joy of playing with the new item is gone
MM's dungeon items were all fricking arrows. You get those same arrows in BotW and TotK.
You seriously going to try to argue that there is more fun and depth in playing with MM's arrows than abilities like stasis or ultrahand?
Yes.
I guess I chose a bad example. I’m trying to forget Majora’s Mask so I can replay it soon enough.
Ultrahand is neat, but all of the puzzles are too easy.
stop being a moron, mm you get most items outside dungeons. the masks are way more fun than ultra hand shit
Because shrines, despite being smaller and focused on one gimmick, outnumber the content dungeons can provide.
>quantity is more important than quality
Yeah nah
No dungeongay worth their salt finds the drip feed of content that are shrines even remotely satisfying in comparison. Here's a 10 minute hit, now go wander outside for an hour to find the next one, you junkie.
The forest temple is considered the best dungeon in all of zelda, and it's not even for its puzzles, it just that it has good atmosphere and music.
Eventually people will collectively realize that Zelda dungeons are remembered more for their atmosphere than their mechanical complexity, which is precisely why 3D dungeons are so fellated.
Eventually you will realize that the well recieved dungeons had such memorable atmosphere because their tone matched with the nature of the challenges provided and created a harmonious experience, and an empty room with some music playing (the entirety of BotW and TotK) is not memorable and leaves no imprint.
when did Ganker become full of so many zoomers? children who are too young to remember or understand why Zelda was rebooted in the first place.
Zelda was rebooted because of the popularity of Skyrim.
No, it was rebooted because boomers like me didn't want to play the same game over and over again. OOT was an incredible game- it did not need a further 4 remakes as MM/WW/TP/SS.
No items. No dungeons. No triforce. No green outfit to start with. It's not even Zelda anymore.
The next Zelda game could be totally different.
>all these conversations
What is going on here? Do people really not enjoy dungeons? I get that not every dungeon is great, but man dungeons are at least 1/3rd of the game time for most LoZ games.
In most of the games the dungeons are basically filler where you get the items you need to explore the overworld, where 90% of the actually interesting parts of the game are. It doesn't have to be that way, but most dungeons are so unimaginative and close to bereft of interesting secrets, side-quests and challenges that the overworld has a wealth of, and which really make Zelda worth playing, that they are nothings where you run through rooms until you get to wherever you need to be to make progress.
Talk about the duality of man because I feel the polar opposite. Most of the time I see the overworld as a vehicle to the next bit of actual level design via dungeons, and if I'm lucky I get a puzzle or two to solve along the way. Some games like Zelda 1 and Link Between Worlds have overworlds worth giving a frick about, but most Zelda really don't as far as I'm concerned. Aside from the last 2 Zeldas and WW, I can rely on dungeons at least being a decent time though.
Anon you're talking to a contrarian Ganker games 'analyst'
The idea that dungeons are filler in fricking Zelda is the most inauthentic, inorganic talking point I can even imagine.
Not only that, but the constant use of the word 'content' to explain the shrines in comparison to the dungeons. Who fricking cares about how many shrines there are or how much content a game has, the past Zelda games succeeded because they were solid games that offered a unique experience with each title.
I hate the 'analytical' sector of video games nowadays, it's the new "Mature games for mature gamers such as myself".
>Who fricking cares about how many shrines there are or how much content a game has
You'd be surprised and so would I.
I'm aware and I hate it. I wish these people would stop trying to sophisticate video games and just let them be fun and not have a need for a checklist or getting your money's worth by padding it with busywork and chores.
I don't think lording over amount and type of content is sophisticating it so much as fetishizing and even attempting to legitimize consumerist habits. I can't stand the "more = better" mentality and any game that attracts that ilk is a major red flag for me.
Fair enough.
Zelda dungeons are only good when they are hard. They are at their worst when they are long via being repetitive but easy slogs which is the actual reason why the water temple is rightly shit on, and at their best when they are 'short' but full of concentrated, varied and interesting challenges, so I absolutely would love the dungeons were they closer to what the Gerudo Training Grounds was, or were otherwise more like the original game's dungeons.
But really the 3D games' dungeons are just inferior to Tomb Raider's levels on almost every front, but the N64 games specifically have the most interesting worlds in any game, which more than makes up for any weaknesses in their dungeons.
In the good 2D games though, the dungeons are the stars of the show.
Zelda has never been hard outside of Zelda 2 and even that's pretty overstated outside of a handful of encounters. Clunk 2D combat that's never been a focus of the series does not make the 2D games' combat good.
Zoomers have a low attention span
Shrines: quick, easy, don't gate progress
Dungeons: Long, comparatively challenging, gates progress
Another victim of the lowest common denominator. Hence the focus on tik-tok meme building and continued inclusion of koroks, etc. Which is funny because everybody hates ubisoft for doing the same thing.
>So why are they getting rid of dungeons? What is the reason
it's too hard
making dungeons is too hard! too challenging!
i just want your money but i dont want to do hard things
give me your money stop asking for dungeon!
I wish they would just get rid of the master sword and Zelda AND Ganon
instead of having more of the shitty way they are used now
After Skyward Swords poor sales performance, they looked over the fence at Skyrim shattering records and it became pretty clear that Zelda was no longer the series it used to be, it wasn't THE fantasy game series anymore so something needed to change because Zelda as it was just wasn't cutting it and thus they fell for the open world meme.
And that's fine except for the part where ALBW was a great course correction from SS that saw due critical and commercial acclaim. Nintendo were right to make Skyrim hold its beer in terms of appealing to shifting sensibilites and sheer commercial acumen, but SS's sins were addressed before BotW came out.
Albw and botw were both born from the feeling that Zelda needed to change, and while albw was a decent success for a 2d game, it did not come close to botw.
God dam, it's over isn't it
It'll always be open world shit now. But surely, SURELY, they aren't going to make botw 3.
I'm proud to be one of the people who brought Four Swords Adventures. It's the best multiplayer Zelda game to date.
It's not a bad idea but it was ahead of its time. Nintendo were off their fricking rocker asking people to buy 3 GBAs and 3 link cables on top of the game just to play it as intended, and the sales speak for themselves on that one. And it's not like Nintendo's made an honest effort since wireless multiplayer has been standardized - first thing everyone thought with Tri Force Heroes is "so it's Four Swords with less players...why?".
No Purple Link, no buy.
I emulated it and after an hour, I dropped it.
Same brother
The get five things and fight boss formula really takes away the mystery. Once the shit your supposed to activate is marked on the map, all of the mystery of the nu-dungeon disappears. The traditional 3d formula has this pattern of peeling pack discoveries with how you collect keys and have no concept of the breadth of the dungeon until you get the map and then you finally find the compass and can see all the shit you missed. You can see the whole scope of nu-dungeons from the beginning and get a detailed map at the start. When you get a map in an old game theres sometimes a shock with learning how the place is structured or how many floors there are. Combine that sense of discovery with consistently superior atmosphere and you can clearly see why people miss old dungeons. No, they werent mechanically deep, but they were memorable.
The Oracle games are where zelda dungeon design peaked. Non-linearity in terms of which doors and puzzles you could tackle, how each puzzle was a small fragment of a bigger puzzle, how the games would even take advantage of their particular exclusive mechanic to add some depth to it. They were far more mechanically complex than most 3D dungeons. Take a few examples:
>go into Jabu's belly
>basically the water temple but even harder
>have to plan your route through the whole dungeon just so you're in the right position to constantly change the water levels, requires planning 10 rooms ahead so you don't jump off the wrong cliff
>Mermaid's Cave
>have to visit it both in the present and the past, have to alter the past to affect the future, need to know where to go and how to get there, and which time period will do it
>can't remember this specific one
>have to basically destroy 4 support columns to bring down a part of the ceiling, which acts as a floor to get you to the next part of the dungeon
>it's one of those "you go one way, and the next way you turn direction" dials, so you have to plan out where you approach from, so the dial turns you in the right direction
To this day they're stilll fun because they require more thought than "put block in hole" or "flip switch".
I got filtered by the 3rd dungeon in Ages until I realized:
>You go on the rotating platform that takes you in one direction, and go around back to where you came from to take you to the upper room if I remember because of how the rotation works
Hard to explain, but once I figured that out, the rest of the game was easy-peasy.
Pic related filtered the frick out of me for almost two years.
Last one sounds like Eagle Tower in Link's Awakening. But yeah, aside from maybe MM's structural manipulations the Oracles pretty soundly beat 3D dungeons in terms of scaling complexity.
The same kind of puzzle exists in Link's Awakening, but I know it also exists in the Oracle games. It's the Moonlit Grotto, I believe.
We just got dungeons 10 minutes ago!