I am actually kind of new to the Zelda series, my first Zelda game was BOTW. Out of curiosity, I went to the old Zelda games and was absolutely blown out. I fell in love with the old formula especially in the 2D games. It mixed a true sense of exploration with mystery. You really felt like you were going in an adventure. So it brings the question, what was so bad with it? I've heard complaints that it was boring and slow. How? It pushed the player to constantly be exploring and solving puzzles. Now the new formula feels kind of, stale. You have a map that points where every quest goes, the discovery of the dungeons(if they can be call them even dungeons) is streamlined, like if you were playing a tutorial game that constantly pushes you to follow a path. Other ways to reach that goal? No you have to follow the story of each tribe. It amazes me that people really call this a true successor to the original Zelda game for the NES. I just wished that there would be more of this in the future of the Zelda series.
Play SS.
I love skyward sword I really wish they would bring back motion controls
Big maps with only one way to proceed, often leading to novice players getting stuck.
And there's no point in linear railroaded games like twilight princess or windwaker having overworlds. It just becomes a time waster. There's nothing to actual do in them, which is why the only thing people talk about in those games are the dungeons since that's the only meaningful content.
this looked like it was ripped of off Click Clock Woods from Banjo Kazoooie
Hoo Hoo Kazooie, I invented seasons you know. They're rippin' me off. Tell 'em Bottles.
how
it rips off the way it does one level 4 times that ends with an ice level
>banjo Kazooie invented seasons
man this place is wild sometimes
I thought it ripped off Animal Crossing or Harvest Moon
You've made a sweeping conclusion based on two games. The issue was the 3D titles, never the 2D ones.
Ocarina of Time was an issue? I thought that was also a very good game, superior than BOTW by much. But still not in the level of ALTTP.
ALTTP isn't great. Design wise it's solid but pales compared to the GBC titles.
Well, the only problem that I have with the GBC titles is that they are way too linear. You go from dungeon to dungeon in order. There was more liberty in ALTTP.
How about ALBW?
>Ocarina of Time was an issue
No you fricking dumbass. Christ. Do I have to explain everything to you?
>The issue was the 3D titles
>No you fricking dumbass.
>title(s)
>doesn't understand oversaturation and lowering quality
Just end it brainlet.
You didn't imply that. You said title(s) which includes OoT and can be interpreted in different ways. Just admit you lacked context and keep it moving.
>thinks the worst element begins with the first 3D game
You frickong dumbass
Again, you didn't imply that. What's stopping someone from interpreting "the issue was the 3d titles" as ALL of the 3D games are bad? Answer this seriously.
>hasn't played it
>still doesn't understand
I never said that, it's pretty obvious dumbass. Take the L you're pathetic and still haven't posted nudes
>I never said that
That's my point.
>he thinks two people are one
Brohiem?
Nobody is talking to your boyfriend. He falls within your fault since he keeps talking.
Nice thread OP, enjoy your extreme autism.
>OP
>he thinks two people are one
>changing his story
*grabs your collar and lift you up*
I'm not going to repeat myself.
*clamps hands around your neck*
Say that again now
*i turn into smoke and reveal i was a mere substitute*
haha...
*huffs your smoke form in an assimilates your substitute into my own*
I kneel.
Are you guys fricking each other?
God I wish
Yeah 3D really burned people out with the first 3D game anon, not the other 4
Lmao
Nothing.
The problem was Skyward Sword.
Nintendo took the criticism against it and overreacted.
This, though I'd add the other half of the problem was Aonuma taking control of the series over Koizumi. I also don't think it was entirely SS criticism that did it, it was the fact that Minecraft and Skyrim both released at pretty much the exact same time and totally dominated, making Nintendo want to chase after that, but I'd argue not doing it anywhere near as well.
They didn't overreact at all, they took a needed course correction. Skyward Sword is literally just OoT with motion controls.
They always do that. They took the criticism about WW and we got TP
Relied too heavily on gimmicks and never captured the mystery of the first game.
The Zelda series came under control by a man who hated the games before him, so he changed what Zelda was to better suit his taste. He spent over two decades gaslighting people, and then BotW blew away all his lies in a single game.
They don't sell enough. For all the prestige zelda gets it was never a system seller. If you don't believe me look it up. Traditional zelda games have never had a 10 million seller (not counting ports being added to the total for single game release), but then they change it up and it sells 4x as much as the 2nd most sold traditional zelda game skyward sword
Twilight Princess helped shipped Wiis for sure. People were hyped for that game cause people wanted a Darker zelda so it caught everyones interest in it by the balls even if it turned out just ok in the end.
This. People wanted it to be thr Dark Souls of Zelds but it couldn't met that demand unfortunately
>people wanted Twilight Princess to be the Dark Souls of Zelda
just stop
>People wanted it to be thr Dark Souls of Zelds
go fricking have a nice day
Black person are you moronic? a game that sells less than 10% of the install base is not a system seller
Skyward sword killed the franchise
The problem was the lack of focus on Link and Zelda's relationship. DUH.
Zelda games after MM always put in some bullshit filler in the games. Triforce hunts, tear collecting, tear collecting again plus the bullshit with Fi always commentating constantly with annoying shit, and the eggplant boss being reused constantly
Play Skyward Sword, it will show you the problem with going way too overboard on the old formula. I still think the old formula is infinitely superior to the BotW/TotK formula, but the latter still deserves to get games. I just really don't want BotW/TotK gameplay to be the mainline unless they trim down the world heavily and add a bunch of sub items and roadblocks.
Hey babe 😉
The formula got pushed to it's breaking point throughout the 3D games with Skyward Sword being the final hey bail of intensely linear exploration and progression.
>hey bail
>Not "hay bale"
Frick me, I'm an EOL. How am I so bad at my native tongue.
Do you speak out words in your head before writing them?
Occasionally but I feel like I moron speaking to myself a lot for no reason.
Look at how happy open world chads are compared to how bitter and spiteful classicels are. Why would you go back to them?
I don't know why there has to be conflict. BotW/TotK and OoA/OoS are both masterpieces and some of the best games in the series, they were also literally directed by the same guy.
nothing. oos and ooa are goat.
They kept on trying to ape Ocarina. What they should have done with more games like Majora's Mask where they play with a mechanic/gimmick. Wind Waker was a step in the right direction with its initial message but after that, things took a nosedive and we got Ocarina of Time with a wolf and Skyward Sword should not be talked about period.
And for damn sure BotW/TotK have room to be improve on immensely but that can't happen if the fanboys keep shielding Nintendo from constructive critique. There can be a middle ground where both an open experience and a more traditional Zelda experience can coexist.
>Wind Waker was a step in the right direction with its initial message
Wind Waker tried to talk out both sides of its mouth by saying "don't be tied down to OoT forever! Toon Link you are the future of Zelda!" and then spend the entire game just being OoT in a Boat.
That was point, anon. At the end, they buried Hyrule and Link and Tetra went to make their own future.
The words ring hollow when the actions speak far louder.
>what was so bad with it? I've heard complaints that it was boring and slow. How?
it was the same shit every game, you truly understand that if you play more than a couple of them.
the problem is that you can't just play the same shit each time, it's boring.
the formula needed an overhaul, and Link Between Worlds was a half measure. Zelda is usually good about inventing a new central gimmick each time, but it's not enough to mask the fact that each game after Link to the Past was virtually identical.
what Breath of the Wild failed to do was make each step along the way feel meaningful, and less contrived. all the shrines look the same, have like one easy puzzle, and you sit through a loading screen to get inside and exit them.
if they had perhaps got rid of the shrines and had another 10 divine beasts then BotW could have been essentially perfect IMHO.
>if they had perhaps got rid of the shrines and had another 10 divine beasts then BotW could have been essentially perfect IMHO.
No, the Divine Beasts were still just glorified shrines, they just had a handful of small puzzles instead of one main one. What it should have had was stuff the quality of the DLC dungeon spread across the map. The DLC dungeon was exactly what the game was missing.
>the Divine Beasts were still just glorified shrines
YES, BUT; they were like several shrines coupled together, with their own gimmick, and storyline bits that lead up to entering and completing them. That is what each piece of content in the game needed, was that depth.
That whole Zora Domain segment should have been design philosophy behind the game. No matter where you go around that region a zora will inform you that Syphus is looking forward to making your acquaintance. Along the way to get to the city you find murals that describe the past hundred years or more of their history and culture, optional. Then when you meet them you are introduced to the king, and learn that you and Miphus were great friends (amnesia) and the murals and your friendship to her tie into sidequests in the city. You prove your worth and obtain eletric arrow type and have your presumable first encounter with a Lynal, too strong to fight now, but becomes more standard of an enemy variety way later in the game. Then you have the grand entrance of the divine beast which is very cinematic and interactive, pretty tough IMHO.
and then you get a """"glorified shrine"""" which is actually pretty cool.
compared to shrines this is a 10/10
^if that was varied and unique for all the content in the game then it would be a 10/10 game.
I can see where you're coming from, but if they did it this way the Divine Beasts would still need to be like three times as big for it to feel fun. They're simply way too short and you're done by the time it feels you're even starting to have fun puzzle solving. The Gerudo one is by far the best one they did in terms of an actual design because there's so much changing of the beast, it's long, and you can use clever ways to shortcut getting the balls like picture related. The Rito one kind of gets close with the fact that you can tilt the beast and then shortcut things by flying over to the thing, but I never felt that with either the Goron or Zora ones.
I like my dungeons to be structured, long (But not Ages JJB, PH OKT, or OoT Fire Temple long), with combat segments that aren't just one-shot enemies but also not complete tanks, with a miniboss, a sub item is granted that lets me solve even more puzzles, and a proper boss. Divine Beasts are structured, short, most combat segments just have you kill an infinite spawner of heads or a two-shot crawling turret, have no miniboss, have no sub item, and have a boss.
well I liked them, I don't think they need to be longer, just more plentiful.
That's the strange thing. BotW's gameplay worked best when presented with a linear path with an intended level of difficulty. Zora River throws lower level enemies at you while playing to the strengths of the rain mechanic with electric keese and arrows.
Nintendo created a structured and curated experience that most people think is probably the best part in what's otherwise a very open-ended game.
And what's most important is that while there's story segments throughout the river hike, it doesn't become an annoying intrusion which is the biggest issue of WW/TP/SS. BotW does the correct thing and lets the player breath and think for themselves and let them solve all the problems as they ascend into Zora's Domain.
Every time people have talked about their favorite parts of Breath of the Wild, they always talk about areas such as Hyrule Castle, Thyphlo Ruins, Zora River and Evantide Isle. They always list the most intentionally designed and most curated parts of the game. I never see anyone talking about how their favorite section of the game is exploring some empty area like the Faron Grasslands.
for sure, climbing and gliding off everything is a cool gimmick, but the overworld was too large for my liking, and a loathe shrines for being so numerous and short. I wish we had a whole game of Hyrule Castle, Thyphlo Ruins, Zora River and Evantide Isle content, THAT would have been a 10/10 game.
Yeah they clearly design Zora domain first, the game even pushes you in the direction first, and then the rest they just got really lazy about it. After I played Zora's Domain I got prepared for a game that could have easily beat OoT or MM in the narrative and experience department had that quality stayed the same but the rest of the game really dropped the ball, especially Goron section.
Not that I didnt have fun, but it was very disappointing compared to the initial setup.
that Goron section sucked so hard. during the part where you go up the mountain with the divine beast, I got to the end and nothing happened, I went up and down the mountain for twenty minutes. I googled it and other people got stuck there too. did the game bug or glitch?
nope
you're supposed to fire the goron guy at the divine beast in a canon a few times as you go up the mountain.
but the goron will follow you up the mountain anyway instead of hanging by those canons and maybe just saying out loud "hey we better use this canon". that's all it would have taken.
it didn't have to be this fricking janky.
I don't understand the praise the DLC dungeon gets. It's just as shitty as the divine beasts.
Way better puzzles overall, more enemies that aren't just floating heads or the weakest Guardian spawns, a great boss, you've gotta think a bit more spatially, and each biome has a different way to solve it.
I barely remember anything from it, everything in BotW blurred together. Nothing had any identity.
>if they had perhaps got rid of the shrines and had another 10 divine beasts then BotW could have been essentially perfect IMHO.
That'd move it in the right direction, but it'd have to fix a shitload more problems than that. The real problem is the open world itself and the fact that nintendo is clearly unwilling to put the proper effort and care into filling it with good content. Regardless of how similar at their core previous zelda games were, I was at least compelled to finish them thanks to their structure and progression. Botw was the first one I'd ever dropped and I did it halfway through after seeing how copy paste even the divine beasts were and I know that I'd seen everything it had to offer by around the 10 hour mark. If I had tried to tough it out and finish it, it'd have never gotten any better and I'd have hated it that much more for it. The zelda series may have gotten stale over 30 years and however many games, but botw got stale before I could even finish it. And now with totk that's apparently the new formula they're going to be taking forever with and charging $70 a pop for.
if you quit before doing the divine beasts you missed the best content, and the DLC had a divine beast too.
what the game really needed was to tighten down the mechanics in the experimental segments of the game which felt rather rushed.
sneaking through the hideout was a cool idea, but there wasn't any thing that stealth games have to make that not jank.
could have been a clothesline to stand behind, could have been more rafters or a crawlspace.
the boss fight was great though, it felt like traditional Zelda and that's great.
it's cool that they expanded upon the character and what became of him in the sequel, that's great.
really there should have been more towns, and they needed the care and attention Kakariko got.
the sidequests about catching fireflies and releasing them inside an NPC's house was good, but getting more than 1 or 2 should have been optional, altering her dialogue to reflect the player themself going above and beyond.
the cucco thing was fine, but the kakariko cucco lady was better, she had a reason they got away and she couldn't retrieve them, and in BotW the dude is a crazy cat lady living with the cucco's, dumb.
the best quest there though has to be tailing NPC's and having those unique interactions with several of them, the entire game needed that, it needed the variety, the interactions, the care put into it.
>if you quit before doing the divine beasts you missed the best content
I apparently did the two best divine beasts and their associated towns, naboris and rutah, and I had already ran around hyrule castle and made it to the blight room well before I was supposed to go there just to see if I could. Everything I've seen and heard about what I didn't do assures me that dropping it was the right choice and I wasn't about to spend $20 on a season pass for a game I was this disappointed with.
To me the game has loads of potential, yet is simultaneously extremely fundamentally flawed. And I don't think nintendo is either capable or willing to fix those flaws, especially not after the reception and sales not just botw got, but totk still got despite being the biggest rehash the series had ever seen. There's a hell of a lot of irony in so many people saying botw is so great because it was such a breath of fresh air and the change the series needed, only for totk to come out after six years and get the same huge sales and positive reception despite being the exact same thing and improving upon nothing while making other things worse. Just makes me think the series was never for those people and they only liked it after it became something fundamentally different. I mean you don't get fans of tetris saying it sucks because every game is still tetris. They play it because they like tetris. Zelda should've been the same. If nintendo wanted those minecraft and skyrim bucks it should've been a new ip. Not to say zelda couldn't be open world, just that it needed to retain the structure and progression and all those other little elements, like an emphasis on music, being medieval fairytale-esque over anime, or "dungeon supremacy" as miyamoto put it, that made zelda, zelda, rather than just a zelda skin.
>They play it because they like tetris. Zelda should've been the same. If nintendo wanted those minecraft and skyrim bucks it should've been a new ip.
Yes, I absolutely think that, and it goes for any series that they basically use the branding to sell games.
I understand that from a business point of view that they will reuse the brand, but from an ethical standpoint they really shouldn't.
Thankfully Miyazaki is aware of that and create a new brand for each new game of his.
The sims 3 to 4 is basically a different game, not an evolution for the series, but they surely had to use the name "The Sims" basically to rerelease all the expansions already released for 3, instead of fixing its bugs.
It's all business decisions when it comes to branding. BotW is surely not a "Zelda" game. Just like Pikmin 4 is "not" a Pikmin game.
ER really should tell Nintendo how to make a proper Zelda in an open world, but I have zero faith in them willing to learn any lessons from it. It would not be hard to have Zelda dungeons and items in an open world while retaining a healthy level of freedom. Simply make it so that there's multiple ways through a dungeon depending on the kit Link has available. If he has nothing, than he'll have to really explore to try and find a way through. And bring back the actual discoveries and secrets instead of everything being so painfully, tediously predictable. There's no hidden wall or Siofra moment in BotW and it desperately needs that.
To add to this, Ittle Dew 1 and 2 both annihilate Zelda puzzle design in freedom, creativity, difficulty, etc. as far as I'm concerned. Nintendo could learn a shitload from them as well. Ittle Dew 2 in particular let's you explore the entire world and do all the dungeons and collect all the mandatory items in any order you wish aside from the very last dungeon and after playing that I can't help but question why Nintendo couldn't go this route instead. I mean, yeah, Ittle Dew 2 is far more difficult and definitely filtered tons of players as a result, but it'd be easy enough to just not make it that hard.
Not buying your games homosexual.
By all means, do explain.
suspicious, very suspicious
If you think I'm shilling for those games, then I'd tell you to go play them so you'd know what I'm talking about, but then I'd really be shilling. The point is what they do and how they do it in relation to Zelda while still being structured very similarly to the early 2D Zeldas. I'm not trying to sell them to anyone.
humhm
>I'm not trying to sell them to anyone.
what do you mean? Did you really develop them?
That's actually cool.
I was only trying to say I'm not a shill. I have made things, but not those. Kind of surprised bringing up such similar games that do what so many people claim they want from the series was met with that. Figured they'd be a little more well known.
The problem with clone games is that... they aren't original. They really need to do something outstanding to pop or get shilled by the media, like a lot of pixelated indies out there.
I wouldn't say it's a clone, they absolutely stand on their own. They're about as much of a clone as Hollow Knight is to Metroid. They just take that concept of Zelda dungeons in any order and run with it in a way that I thought worked really well. But they can deceptively be very difficult, far harder than anything in Zelda, despite the game's appearance, which is why I think they didn't appeal to as many people.
Fun fact: the guy who made Hero Core and Iji worked on the Ittle Dew games.
>the guy who made Hero Core and Iji worked on the Ittle Dew games
Oh, cool, I didn't know, now that's how you sell shit to me.
>Ittle Dew 2 in particular let's you explore the entire world and do all the dungeons and collect all the mandatory items in any order you wish aside from the very last dungeon and after playing that I can't help but question why Nintendo couldn't go this route instead
They literally did this with ALBW. It's just that they haven't done a 2D Zelda since.
Kind of, but ALBW still does it very differently. They hand out rental items at the start so you can use that item whenever necessary for the dungeon and its puzzles that require it whereas Ittle Dew's dungeons and puzzles are all structured around being able to solve them in different ways depending on whatever you may have on hand from the dungeons you've cleared before without sacrificing difficulty despite more ways to get through a problem.
>Ittle Dew 1 and 2 both annihilate Zelda puzzle design in
I've heard tons of people say this about various games, but I've never found it to be the case for anything. Usually they only mean "this game has more stuff in it than just the block pushing puzzles in Zelda dungeons" and ignore all the other great things the Zelda games do, which they don't match up to, which is why I flat out don't listen to people who say things like this unless they can back their shit up.
If I'm being totally honest I think Ittle Dew 2 puts the 2D Zeldas to shame from a game design perspective. Nothing to do with things like block pushing puzzles, Ittle Dew has plenty of those as well, they're just way harder. The major difference that'd drive preference is Ittle Dew doesn't take itself seriously at all to such a degree it can be off-putting. The art style can also put people off, and the difficulty definitely can. They even give you a sarcastic companion who basically tells you jack shit about how to solve anything just to rub it in and the combat can be difficult to the point of frustration despite how basic it is.
They're a very different feel from Zelda and it's that feel that I think makes people prefer one over the other at the end of the day, not so much the gameplay. In Zelda you're going out on a quest to save Hyrule and you go into dangerous dungeons and fight big threatening enemies (though ironically all much easier than what's in Ittle Dew). In Ittle Dew you nonsensically crash your raft in the middle of a pond on an island and have to build a new one by looting pieces from places like some loser's basement and when you're done the entire island explodes as if a nuke was dropped on it for absolutely no reason. Link wants to save the land and its people, Ittle wants to beat people with her stick and loot their shit and calls that an adventure.
Just being honest, don't care if people think that's shilling. This is a thread on the state of Zelda, I think what it could've learned or the direction it could've gone in that other games have done is fair game.
yeah
>Zelda 1 Link bequeathing the Master Sword to BotW Link
That picture gets more hilarious the more you think about it.
Yeah the fact that Zelda 1 Link even has the Master Sword and Navi for that matter.
To be fair she's not in the original promotional image Nintendo made.
botw doesnt feel like zelda but some generic open world exploration game, i really dont get the hype
graphics are ass
weapon system is ass
physics are basically a dumbed down version of the source engine (game from 2004)
shitloads of empty planes to give you the feeling of a big world, yet its empty as frick with sporadic chests all over
both N64 games have more appeal than this shit, i can only get it if botw was the first zelda game youve actually played
I enjoyed the reactive nature of the game mechanics, other open worlds felt stiff and static, but the animations and such were fluid in BotW.
>What was the problem with the old zelda formula?
Absolutely nothing. Spergs played one bad Zelda game and thought that the formula should be thrown in the trash for good.
None of that bullshit you just said is true.
shut it, troony
BotW and TotK are closer to the Oracle games than SS or even Twilight Princess is.
Is TotK even getting DLC?
Maybe.
We don't have master mode, there are hints about the sky, the depths are completely unexplained, in addition to koume and kotake appearing in a cutscene, kass isn't in.
There is certainly room for it.
What do I think would actually improve the game?
>challenging guided content designed in a similar vein to the great sky island / the master trials to really bring out the potential of fuse and routing paths
>new enemies that can allow for new level design to take place
>zonai devices mk.2 that cause more damage and buff effects (e.g. greatly extend / remove duration limits on wings and hot air balloons, lasers that do considerably more damage in exchange for more energy so they're a threat to both higher tier enemies and link in the endgame)
>more world building / locations (I mean like a big sky island that genuinely feels unique and different, visually and in atmosphere).
I like that they try to reinvent the series once in a while. OoT and BotW have been hailed as some of the greatest games ever, whether you don't agree with that or not doesn't matter.
At some point, the botw formula will get stale and they will do something else. TotK was already pushing it honestly but also it's the same map.
The thing with the new formula is that it's fun when it comes to combat and movement, but I don't feel like it's good for sequential games if it follows the same scope. Even if TotK was a new map the same size as Hyrule I'm pretty sure people would still be getting the same burnout they're already complaining about.
For me, I want them to trim the map down to about half of what it is in either of the two games, pull a Subrosia (So, basically what they did with TotK) that's about equal size to it or maybe less that's drastically different visually, lock me out of progressing to certain areas if I haven't found certain sub items, and provide more dungeons and caves to explore on the overworld.
The best part about the old formula is being locked out of areas and forced to find ways to overcome those locks. That led to you finding new areas, sub items, dungeons, minibosses, and led to you using those new sub items both for maneuverability, but also puzzle solving because it granted new puzzles to play with. The big issue with BotW and TotK puzzles is that you always have the same loadout right from the start meaning you will always have more or less the same puzzles on repeat, with Revali's Gale letting you cheat some.
With the old system they would always interweave everything you get into new puzzles the further into the map you got, allow you to get stuff you couldn't get before, and make dungeons entirely about using everything possible on top of the thing you just got being the primary way to do stuff. With these games you don't get that, you can do everything from the start so there's never a sense of you gaining new activities to do.
I'm sick of being able to go anywhere I want because, like ALBW, I already know I can solve everything from the start and won't find anything I'll have to backtrack for.
No problem at all, nintendo just wanted to do an open world zelda and they did, im sure they are gonna make old school zeldas again maybe not so big like botw but still
3D temples are overwhelming to engage with unless they're easy, and puzzles in general require massive signposting and handholding because it's so easy to overlook details in 3D. there's nothing wrong with the 2D formula but there are a shitload of them at this point.
and yet somehow I beat OoT and MM before I turned ten. the frick are you talking about, clearly you weren’t alive when they released
The problem is that they often have points that require the player to reach a certain threshold of mastery in order to pass them and Aonuma absolutely hates this aspect of game design. Many proponents of open world games are in the same boat, whether they realize it or not. Link Between Worlds is a good game but one of the core design tenets of the game was that if a player found themselves having trouble with one dungeon, they should be able to freely put it on hold and explore elsewhere and come back stronger. Again Aonuma and many talking heads and casual fans hate it when games hard check their progress and force them to actually overcome them.
this worked to the benefit of Elden Ring though, the problem is that 3D Zelda games have never been mechanically difficult and BoTW and ToTK are both stupidly easy. I mean they aren’t combat focused but imagine if they had TP’s combat, I think the game would instantly become much more engaging. as is sometimes I feel like the point of the new games is to just take it all in, and immerse yourself and feel lost in the world, which is cool but I genuinely think WW had a better approach to this
This. These people also like to say the botw style of games are the hardest yet just because combat is laughably balanced, when they are by far the most casual friendly. There is zero risk of getting filtered in these games by something the player is incapable of figuring out or beating and a plethora of very intentional ways to cheese everything. Getting filtered was something nintendo became extremely, overly concerned about with zelda and it's why they created companion characters, culminating in fi being a big blue babysitter to try and make sure the casual wii audience could get through a dungeon heavy game like ss. The series really went to the wrong man instead of sticking to its guns.
> culminating in fi being a big blue babysitter to try and make sure the casual wii audience
Oh boy, you just reminded of her. "You have a 87,8776% of not succeding master"
"your batteries are running master"
"master I'm so lonely master"
"master talk to me master"
"hold my sword and swing it master"
"master, use this master"
"master" "master""master""master""master""master""master""master""master""master""master"
If you play SS do yourself a favor and play the Switch version.
The problem is that you are only doing fetch quest after fetch quest. Of course, OoT, MM were amazing, ALttP too. Twilight Princess, though, is just too easy, has to many padding and in general just feels slow. The story is not interesting, because it's always an after thought, at the time, though, people still thought that every game were following a grand scheme, but, in reality, each game is essentially a reboot.
The lore motivation was removed after Skyward Sword, also, in SS it was obvious that the game was stale, that if they were going for the "open world" route that they really should let us do whatever we please.
BotW is great in this aspect, but it's not a Zelda game. I don't think that Nintendo will ever give us a OoT/TP with an open world and a good story.
wrong, Twilight Princess is the best 3D Zelda game and you burnt yourself out with all the previous ones
It's too linear, had too many padding, like going around collecting orbs? The Epona/Wolf dynamic is funky, since you can't commit to any of them to travel fast, the combat is very easy, the excessive glow can give you headache on a CRT tv, the 2 hours just to get to Hyrule just to be gated again, emptness everythere, IIRC there are 4 Hyrule hub areas with nothing in them, a lot of useless items, like the rod and the spinner, that fricking western Hidde Village mission, the part that we need to save the zora's prince... and so on.
I loved the dungeons, though. The truth is that BotW should've evolved TP, used the same engine, even, but add the Open World and true dungeons. yet they the combat and the game feels nothing like Zelda, except for some themes and some style.
If they actually tried to evolve the series instead of reinvent the wheel the series would've been so much better.
the collectathon segments were great and had a climatic finale. the horse is faster than the wolf, but in-town the wolf is more useful. you are complaining about a bunnyhood-to-horse dynamic that existed in Majora's Mask already.
the combat was varied with a lot of useful moves, but the normal difficulty didn't cause you to lose much health when impacted. sure.
the game has great pacing and puts you back in hyrule field when you've places to actually go.
TP is easily the best and I could write paragraphs about what it provides. Every single person who disses and dismisses the game doesn't actually get it. They're not ready.
I'm not ready for extreme linearity and padding. It could've been so much better though.
the game is great. it's properly paced, the characters are fleshed out, there's attention to detail and environmental storytelling, the gameplay is varied, it has the best dungeons and music in the whole franchise no contest, midna gets a lot of praise even from those outspoken against the game, the graphics and artstyle are probably the best in the series, it represents the peak of the formula.
if you like Ocarina of Time, then it makes little sense not to like Twilight Princess. the game makes good on many things OoT set up but didn't pay off.
you get to see the outcome of Zora's Domain thawing out.
you actually get to experience the Time Temple dungeon, and the Sky Dungeon.
you have actual horseback combat.
many different combat manuevers which you require to complete a 50 floor gauntlet of challenges.
the best transformation in the whole series, bar none, the wolf integrates 8 different abilities that you would be pausing and switching items to do in previous games.
the Zora Tunic makes sense for why you can breathe with it.
fishing is prominent, with many fishing holes across hyrule, and bait to use, and dozens of fish to catch.
easily the best version of Hyrule we've got. the magnitude of it was Breath of the Wild before Breath of the Wild. at first it's bewildering, but by the end you've conquered it and it's become yours.
>:if you like Ocarina of Time, then it makes little sense not to like Twilight Princess. the game makes good on many things OoT set up but didn't pay off.
Anon, going into Hyrule Field the first time was an amazing experience, like no other at the time, also, you'd go into the dungeon and out, in like, 1 hour.
In TP you take take just to get into the first dungeon, the game is just too slow, there are too many characters, it's like they were forcing you into like the characters.
IIRC you had to go through 2 minigames before going out of the village, the one with the goats and another one with a sumo thing.
It does a lot of good, but it's not great at all, unless you really like to read dialogues or go around collecting spheres. I remember that there was a Lake Hylia one, that was crazy, I still don't which one was worst, the one in the forest in SS or this one in Lake Hylia.
Also, the NPCs were bizarre, okay there were kinda deformed in OoT too, but OoT was low poly while TP had a much bigger poly count, the characters came off as bizarre, some were great, though, like the Zoras.
It was almost there, but the pacing and extreme linearity ruined it. Originally it was supposed to have a complete Twilight World, they removed it, maybe that played a rola on why the game was so linear.
you just can't appretiate the game, it does many things well and being "slow" isn't one of them when you are constantly doing a bunch of different stuff from moment to moment. it's paced very well. Ocarina of Time is very barebones.
>Sumo before leaving Ordon
not true, you come back from Kakariko when you cannot progress up Goron mountain, and you are taught sumo and given the iron boots (his secret weapon)
it's a very great game and easily the best the series has to offer. the normal difficulty is just too easy, and the hero mode is just too front loaded with difficulty. that's it. everything else is truly great.
>linearity bad
shove it, doing dungeons in different arrangements adds absolutely nothing substantial to the games. as evidenced by LTTP and ALBW, the ones that had the most of that.
the artstyle is impeccable, and I definitely remember those characters unlike a lot of the other games.
You had to sumo the mayor, didn't you?
Or you had to get catch a goat using the same sumo mechanic, I don't remember exactly.
>the artstyle is impeccable
>casually gives you headache with a insufferable amount of glow
it's time to get a prescription pair of glasses
you return later in the game to learn sumo, and it builds off the one time you might catch a goat. if herding goats for under two minutes and catching one in five seconds is too much for you then how do you play any other video games.
>if herding goats for under two minutes and catching one in five seconds is too much for you then how do you play any other video games.
If said videogames were basically read forgettable text bubbles and while doing fetch quests, yeah, I'd probably have stopped playing games a long time ago. There are still games that want to be games though.
that's horseshit. Twilight Princess introduces interactive game elements that it builds upon naturally as the game progresses. you catch a goat early on, and later in the game you sumo wrestle gorons leveraging the iron boots to stand your ground. you purchase lantern oil by dipping your lantern in the vat of oil, and later when you kill chu chu jellies you can dip your lantern in them, naturally. you catch a fish to get the cat to return home, and halfway in the game you catch a fish to learn a new scent to pursue the objective. you catch a poe in front of Jevoni, in the arbiter grounds you catch a poe to learn a scent and navigate the dungeon and find the others, the poes increase your total poe souls count, naturally. it's the Zelda game that does this gameplay design the most and best.
Oh boy, 12 minutes of orb collecting is super fun
it fricking is. I like Banjo Kazooie, I like Mario Odyssey, sue me.
I just called my lawyer.
The problem was that they left some idiot in charge of the franchise and he had no idea how to make a proper Zelda game in the old formula since his only experience prior was being a dungeon jockey.
>It mixed a true sense of exploration with mystery. You really felt like you were going in an adventure.
Sounds more like BotW to me. Dont get me wrong, old Zelda was better but compared to BotW it was more of a linear and guided themepark than a, well, open world.
>You have a map that points where every quest goes, the discovery of the dungeons(if they can be call them even dungeons) is streamlined, like if you were playing a tutorial game that constantly pushes you to follow a path.
Literally what? Finding shrines was spontaneous, literally the opposite of streamlined. BotW literally does the opposite of pushing you to follow a path.
>Other ways to reach that goal? No you have to follow the story of each tribe.
That's silly of course there is still stuff you're going to have to do in order to do something else.
Zoomies got "tired" (despite being 15 years old) of good games so now we have open world slop Zelda Edition until the end of time.
there are hundreds of zeldaclassic clones using the zelda formula and people do play them so the formula is hardly stale. If anything the twists people are referencing are what made it a different genre. I have no interest in playing the BOTW open world type games
tendies don't play videogames not developed by Nintendo.
you’re looking at it from the reverse perspective, even if it’s an artistic project filled with passion and love and great art, and music and ideas it’s still a product and in order for it to continue to exist it must be profitable. the series didn’t really evolve much from one 3D game to the next so eventually they had to try something different and they decided to appeal to a younger generation who maybe weren’t interested in Zelda as a series and bet that longtime fans would be willing to try the new formula too. I don’t really care for the new style of games but they didn’t change Zelda because they ‘had to’ or because it was ‘bad’ it’s just the natural evolution of a franchise that has existed for thirty years
>it’s still a product
That is the problem at the end of the day, that's all it is to nintendo. 3.5 million sales? Not enough, we want 30 and we're willing to butcher the series and turn it into something else to do it instead of risk making a new ip. There's no passion or care for the series, it's just about appealing to as wide an audience as possible and making money in this industry now. Same deal with pokemon. It's why totk is the way it is and regardless of criticism or disappointment from zelda fans I don't think nintendo is going to want to risk changing anything for fear of losing that new audience and all their money.
that’s not a ‘Nintendo’ problem, that’s an inescapable fact of reality. at least the internet has given release platforms to more independent projects, which isn’t to say that a AAA game isn’t made by people who care or have passion or that it’s inherently lacking soul but Zelda is a massive franchise
>that’s not a ‘Nintendo’ problem
Obviously not an exclusive nintendo problem, it's a corporate problem. It's just the industry didn't used to be like this way back when. Some of it is obviously just my rose tinted goggles of childhood and growing up with these games, but I firmly believe back when there wasn't so much money in it devs were creating more what they wanted to without worrying about how they should try to appeal to as many people as possible via design by a committee of suits. Nintendo would never make another game like majora's mask today. They hate taking risks with new ips and what new ips they do come out with are often ultra casual concepts like ring fit or labo. Splatoon was a good one in recent memory and then they promptly proceeded to beat it into the ground with ultra safe sequels. Arms didn't sell 80 million units so they promptly sent it the way of f-zero.
with great power comes great responsibility, anon. the bigger you are the more it takes and compromises must always be made but the other reality you have to accept is that they know they have your dollar, they need to rope in new people so the series will tailor to your (and probably mine as well) interests less and less over time. happens in every medium and video games are a massive industry now
>that picture
got a good laugh out of me
poor paco
>the series didn’t really evolve much from one 3D game
The problem is the initially 'tried to evolve' with MM and WW, but people rightly recognized that those games were full of tedious nonsense despite their advances, and so the series just kept regressing and becoming more linear.
There is nothing 'natural' about completely removing item progression. The actually natural thing to do would be to include a tasteful amount of it, similar to LoZ like what it does with its ladder (which is what I presume the waterfall climbing and 'knocking down trees to cross ravines' is supposed to approximate), and having the possibility of minor items to 'open up' things but otherwise letting the player be relatively free.
I feel like a huge issue was just that Nintendo felt pressure to show off everything at E3, so put all the game's cool stuff at the start instead of having you discover it yourself.
>there’s nothing ‘natural’ about removing item progression
it’s entirely natural if they’re targeting a demographic that doesn’t care about those things, and guess what? they’re not targeting you, or me for that matter, they’re going after younger people and they are being hugely successful doing it
>I mean they aren’t combat focused but imagine if they had TP’s combat
I don't even genuinely believe this. Aonuma went full on ultra hard super linear gating for years, like he saw no problem with that and barely realized that people didn't like it, and then, after finally understanding that people don't like being told what to do all the time, in his characteristic way, he full on overcompensates and turns the series in the complete other direction where you can always get whatever you need for the problems you face no matter what.
A don't at all believe that it's a matter of 'chasing demographics', as the same people would still love the games if they had more minor gating (like, you can cross this gorge, but you basically need to find an axe or something that does something similar and can't just brute force the problem), it rather a matter of competence, handling item gating intelligently is hard, because it requires good planning, design and management and that's hard to do well compared to completely linear or completely open structures.
It was easier to rehash Ocarina of Time repeatedly than to make new 2D games.
No, really. That was pretty much it. A Link to the Past (SNES) started the trend of three dungeons, then eight more dungeons, and Ocarina of Time (N64) basically followed that trend, but in 3D. Then Twilight Princess (Gamecube) did the same, and Wind Waker (Gamecube) did something similar but with less dungeons, and even Skyward Sword (Wii) followed the same trend. It wasn't until Breath of the Wild that they decided to not lead you around to three dungeons, then open things up for eight more dungeons, and tried something different.
I'll also note that Zelda was a system seller, so they frequently appeared on consoles. The handhelds generally didn't get Zelda titles, with most being made by another company (Capcom) or had some really experimental control methods (the DS games). So most of Zelda was on console, which meant 3D, which meant following what had become the 3D Zelda formula.
I liked 2D Zeldas better than 3D Zeldas.
Having to think confuses and enrages zoomers. They lack the attention span for dungeons and the intelligence for even the simple puzzles the older games had.
kino
Welcome to Zelda OP. You should try Zelda 1, ALttP, Link's Awakening, and OoT afterward. Then don't play any others. They all pale in comparison.
And MM of course.
>Director of Oracle Games and Minish Cap leaves Capcom and joins Nintendo
>Makes Skyward Sword and botw/totk
He was so kino at 2D what went wrong when he made 3D?
His 2D track record is so-so
>It mixed a true sense of exploration with mystery
no it didn't.
>new area
>puzzle that requires new toy to solve
>sometimes uses old tools
>what was so bad with it?
doesn't have to be bad to warrant a change. It was stale.
>It pushed the player to constantly be exploring and solving puzzles
you're heavily romanticizing a very simple puzzle formula. it was made for kids. if you're impressed by it then you're easily impressed.
let us all pray that Metroid prime 4 is too niche to be altered in a similar fashion
I hope they make it open world and take place on multiple planets
The old Zelda games were metroidvanias, but with a top-down perspective instead of a side-scrolling one.
Get a new item and you can explore more of the world. It's a good system.
People started to get frustrated when the later (middle?) games added more story checks, which misses the point of a metroidvania and makes them linear.
Everyone blew their loads when BotW was announced to be non-linear, but again it missed the point in the opposite direction. If you can go anywhere whenever you want then it completely ruins the mystique and anticipation of exploring a location that was blocked off before.
I like the story and characters in zelda, particularly the N64 games, I think they added a lot over the 2d games, but I do agree that fundamentally zelda is and should remain a metroidvania of sorts and that it should never be gated just for story reasons. Oot (separated into child and adult) and particularly mm's dungeons are so separate from one another that they really should've offered more freedom and been doable in different orders. Characters and story should always be conducive to the gameplay here, never the other way around.
By Allah's light I hope somebody gives you a few million to pick a team and make a game
You don't even need that. If you wanted to and had the skills you could help hack the N64 games and actually implement this stuff.
Those tweaks are now easy to make with decomp and all that. It's easy enough to move the boulders so that they only block of certain sections of the river (so you still have reasons to come back after getting the bombs) but otherwise let you get the silver scale and complete Jabu earlier, and I have things set up like that in my hack. The game is so great, but there's still so much potential to untap.
In OoT, the only thing keeping you from doing Jabu before Dodongo's Cavern are a few boulders. It's like they added it in last minute due to playtesters or something.
It bugs the crap out of me after I started thinking about OoT's linearity and how it could be way less linear with a few tweaks.
Tehy also gated Lake Hylia for no reason. It was like they were forcing you into the Gerudo.
I really hate the term "metroidvania" and how fast and loose people play with it. A game isn't a metroidvania just because it has progression thresholds and expanding arsenals.
What would you prefer? These labels are all vague, broad and poorly named. Just like immersive sim or roguelite are horrible labels. The point isn't the label so much as what people are trying to convey about the game with that label.
I knew someone would complain, there's always one.
>A game isn't a metroidvania just because it has progression thresholds and expanding arsenals.
That's literally my definition of one.
1. What do you think a metroidvania is?
2. What's the proper term for games with progression thresholds and expanding arsenals?
Adventure game is a better term and how these games were categorized before the term metroidvania became popular.
You can add top-down, side-scrolling, point-and-click, etc, if you need to specify.
Adventure game is much vaguer and how mustards describe their point and click games.
>>1. What do you think a metroidvania is?
A side scrolling adventure game with a larger, interlinked world rather than level-to-level progression
>2. What's the proper term for games with progression thresholds and expanding arsenals?
This probably applies to most video games period. But "Metroidvania", for as faulty a term it is, generally refers to side scrollers specifically. Games like Devil May Cry or Fire Emblem give the players more tools and power as they progress but no one would call them a Metroidvania. Zelda titles were simply top down adventure games, sometimes called action-adventure to distinguish them from a less combat oriented game like Myst for instance.
>A side scrolling adventure game with a larger, interlinked world rather than level-to-level progression
AND ITEM GATING. The larger interlinked world opens up new areas as you get new items. Items are the root of Metroidvania progression.
Your obession with item gating is an item gay-thing
Your definition would make Cave Story a metroidvania, which I'd disagree with.
Super Metroid and SotN are 2D sidescrollers so people generally associate the genre as that, but the concept of getting a new ability and using it to progress isn't necessarily limited to 2D games.
"Adventure game" is way to vague and doesn't describe the item-progression design I was talking about.
>The old Zelda games were metroidvanias,
Both Metroid and SotN respectively were explicitly based on Zelda.
BOTW is the only Zelda game I felt compelled to explore and finish. Never got the same pull from the prior games.
I would say the problem with the old 2D Zeldas, while I enjoyed some of them, were that they felt far too similar. It's like if Pokemon never evolved out its artstyle and game mechanics out of the 3rd Gen games. It was also too "gamey," like Diablo; there's nothing in the world except fighting and killing enemies in dungeons to complete the main story quest. All the challenges in the game slowly start feeling more like chores the deeper I get, with the same solutions to bigger, longer, but less challenging puzzles. Eventually I just get bored.
BOTW never gave me that feeling. I always felt like I would, and did, see something new over the next hill. The open world was beautiful, and the mechanics in BOTW were a real refinement of things that were far clunkier in other games. Plus, for the first time Hyrule really felt like a lived-in world, with places like Hateno, Kakariko, Goron City, and the many stables actually feeling like places where NPCs were going about their lives.
TP has Rollgoal.
I feel like I'm the only person who played it
the big problem was Nintendo kept trying for too long to innovate the OoT formula but were just coming up shorter and shorter. imo the mainline 2D Zeldas were pretty much all good across the board. I can't think of a single one that is not great. it's a shame that Nintendo isn't likely to toss us a new 2D Zelda like ALBW in between the BotW clones.
Reminder BotWgays, you're currently at the Majora's Mask stage of the formula life cycle. You'll soon get your Wind Wakers and Twilight Princesses.
The 2D Zelda games are absolutely fantastic. Link's Awakening got a good remake, despite the performance problems. I wish OoA and OoS would get a remake bundle. Call them the Oracle Saga or some shit.
Who fricking asked for weapon durability to be a thing in Zelda games
You know what, against all fricking odds, smacked a little bit of "Zelda" to me?
Crosscode.
The combat's nothing like it, aside from the occasional puzzle-y bosses, but the puzzles and the tools you used to solve them felt like a really natural Zelda-ish system, just extrapolated to more complexity than Zelda does.
linear puzzle games are off putting to casuals because if they can't figure out what to do they are stuck. instead they prefer open world sandbox games because they can have fun fricking around with no pressure. same reason gta is so popular.
we will get more classic style zelda games, they are just going to be smaller 2d games
Because the Zelda fandom is moronic and obsessed with Ocarina of Time.
In my opinion, 3D Zelda isn't real Zelda. Only 2D is.