Zelda - A series of "Crucibles"?

Originally Posted by Double A

Yeah! That's completely not what I just said.

I was more so emphasizing your point, because for once, I actually agree with you on something!

Originally Posted by Double A

Why don'y they just design some new items around WM+, so we get our 1:1 experience without giving up our Zelda-style sword gameplay.

I'm not saying that they shouldn't impliment WM+ into the items, I was just giving an example of how it could work with sword-play.

I would imagine that if they do dicide to go through with WM+, that items would be one of their major focusses.

I gotta agree with Malstrom. Totally and completely.

TP's overworld had a lot of weird 'gaps' in it. Very weird. If everysingle part was accessible and crammed (give or take) with enemies and enviroments and stuff to do, I'd be happy.

And give us some useful optional items! Honestly!

Originally Posted by Fulcon

I gotta agree with Malstrom. Totally and completely.

TP's overworld had a lot of weird 'gaps' in it. Very weird. If everysingle part was accessible and crammed (give or take) with enemies and enviroments and stuff to do, I'd be happy.

That wasn't the point of what Malstrom was saying though. What he was saying is that dungeons should be tedious to make you appreciate the overworld more. Which is stupid.

Originally Posted by Meeps

That wasn't the point of what Malstrom was saying though. What he was saying is that dungeons should be tedious to make you appreciate the overworld more. Which is stupid.

... no. Completely wrong.

The dungeons are supposed to make us "stronger" by giving us more abilities/items. They're also supposed to be hard. We use these new abilities/items to explore the parts of the overworld we couldn't explore before.

Originally Posted by Double A

... no. Completely wrong.

The dungeons are supposed to make us "stronger" by giving us more abilities/items. They're also supposed to be hard. We use these new abilities/items to explore the parts of the overworld we couldn't explore before.

Yes, he says that as well, and that's something that I agree with. However, he also makes a point of saying that dungeons should be frustrating and "non-fun". And that's stupid.

---

Originally Posted by Meeps

Yes, he says that as well, and that's something that I agree with. However, he also makes a point of saying that dungeons should be frustrating and "non-fun". And that's stupid.

---

Yeh, you can go ahead and make the dungeons fun, but in the end the fun part is exploring the overworld with your newfound strengths.

If your a regular viewer of conversations *cough*heatedarguments*cough* that I normally have with Double A, then you must know exactly how weird these words feel coming out of my mouth but I completely agree with him.

Originally Posted by Fulcon

If your a regular viewer of conversations *cough*heatedarguments*cough* that I normally have with Double A, then you must know exactly how weird these words feel coming out of my mouth but I completely agree with him.

*cough*either-way-im-always-right*cough*

http://seanmalstrom.wordpress.com/20...ailed-starfox/

The man is unrelenting. Money Quote for the ages:

Originally Posted by Sean Malstrom

Whatever the gameplay idea is, they warp the content around that.
If anything, Starfox should illustrate that the way how Nintendo has been doing things is ending up destroying their franchises. Take Zelda. I remember when a Zelda, on handheld or console, was greeted with huge hype and enthusiasm. With Zelda: Spirit Tracks, i.e. the Choo-Choo Train Zelda, you don’t see any real excitement about the game. Nintendo made the game starting with the gameplay idea first (trains and tracks) and then warped the content afterward.

He puts to words what I've been bothered by for years - Nintendo are way too pleased with their concepts and little innovations to bother with making content and depth like all the other "soulless" "competitors". There's nothing wrong or nerdy about caring more about Hyrule than about how you throw a boomerang, but Nintendo seems to think so.

Originally Posted by MrBaconsock

I'm not saying that they shouldn't impliment WM+ into the items, I was just giving an example of how it could work with sword-play.

I would imagine that if they do dicide to go through with WM+, that items would be one of their major focusses.

WM+ what is that

im guessing it is like the mmorpg combat system right? if zelda goes there im stabbing in the back and finding a new series to fanboy

EDIT: i aint lying

Uhh... WM+ is a shorter way of saying Wii Motion Plus

Originally Posted by Kastanj

http://seanmalstrom.wordpress.com/20...ailed-starfox/

The man is unrelenting. Money Quote for the ages:



He puts to words what I've been bothered by for years - Nintendo are way too pleased with their concepts and little innovations to bother with making content and depth like all the other "soulless" "competitors". There's nothing wrong or nerdy about caring more about Hyrule than about how you throw a boomerang, but Nintendo seems to think so.

As much as I agree that this attitude can lead to some games that seem to focus too heavily on an element that the player barely cares about, it shows a continuous attempt to keep their franchises innovative. I'd honestly much rather them putting out new IPs making use of those ideas while perfecting the content of games whose gameplay foundations are already laid. However, if we didn't have Nintendo trying to push things forward, we'd be left an almost endless stream of Uncharted-like games: They made a formula nearly perfect, allying alot of game conventions and making a game that some argue to be close to complete(It still annoys me that Call of Juarezoun in Blood did cover better than most cover-based games and that there's NO platforming in Uncharted as much as mini cinematics triggered by a useless jump button). However, as much as you're impressed by it, you can't help but feel that EVERYTHING you're doing you've done already. Other than presentation, graphics and voice-acting, EVERY gameplay element of those 2 great games lead to some deja vu, while main Nintendo games tend to offer something minimally novel at least. On the 3D Zelda cases, I'd say the only one that offered nothing new to the table was TP. If you'll introduce a wolf character that's LESS fun to use than the regular Link and less rewarding, don't bother. I wonder if that's why I find it to be the 3D Zelda game that didn't impress me as much as the others. Ocarina of Time made 3D combat do-able and introduced an in-game, fully playable instrument(I can play real-life and in-game ocarina nowadays). Majora's Mask introduced a unique, cyclical gameplay, alongside FUN alternatives to Link(Except Deku Link, that was kind of lame). Wind Waker shifted Zelda's sense of humour back to Link's Awakening charm and proved that cel-shaded CAN be beautiful and natural, instad of weirdly painted polygons. EVERY screen of Wind Waker looks like a screenshot from a hand-made cartoon. That had never been done before and I don't remember anyone doing it as well afterwards. NMH looks highly stylized, so does Okami. This cartoon look is almost exclusive to Wind Waker. Besides, it presented a REALLY different battle system from what we were used to and an interesting mechanic, that was the King of the Red Lions. Long story short, I like how they focus on gameplay and style changes, but they sure as hell could try to ally that with content and depth.

Besides, I really believe the lack of "stuff" on TP's and Ocarina's overworld was mainly due to hardware restrictions. If you look at it, OoT presented HUGE draw distance for the console's power. Twilight Princess also offered a gigantic overworld, and they knew they had to sacrifice content in order to achieve sheer size. They were a company that made controlled experiences seeing their entire philosophy go gown the drain as games got bigger and blander. See GTA. You may argue there's a lot going on there, but honestly, San Andreas. Looked like s*** and had so much NOTHING it almost hurt. Yet, it made way more success than Wind Waker. People had forsaken Zelda and they were trying to adpat it to a "bigger, more epic, louder"-hungry audience. See the nods to Lord of the Rings in the game's first trailer. You had freaking Balrog and Shelob there, man. I actually think they'll be under a lot less stress this time around, being able to offer a game that focus on what THEY want to do. And this philosophy always led to better results when it comes to nintendo. Letting them do their own thing tends to lead to great experiences. Except for Star Fox DS. That was a cough-up of an old idea they just had to get out in the open. Pretty mediocre game, by the way. Besides, the Mario example put by Eurogamer and Malstrom isn't the best one. Super Mario galaxy is a content-full game and the torch-lighting was probably more of a nod than anything else, as much as I agree with pretty much he posted back there.

@Double A: Agreed, if anything, Wii Motion Plus should be limited to minigames(FISHING! PLEASE! 1:1 FISHING!) and item usage. Hit detection would be too messy if it was implemented on swordfighting. Besides, the need for recalibration would be absurd, for you'll undoubtedly start waving your arms frantically at some point, lending to the controller not having any idea as to where it is.

Wonderful post you made there.

Originally Posted by Julian

I'd honestly much rather them putting out new IPs making use of those ideas while perfecting the content of games whose gameplay foundations are already laid.

Absolutely. A developer should innovate (creating a new sort of quality) as well as just stuff more content into games (more quantity of the same quality) that already have an attractive quality. If you already have good mechanics and a nice "feel" to the interaction, don't reinvent the wheel. Nintendo has many franchises and should try and see what approach suits which franchise, but they seem to be lost in another mode of thinking.

Originally Posted by Julian

However, if we didn't have Nintendo trying to push things forward, we'd be left an almost endless stream of Uncharted-like games: They made a formula nearly perfect (...) (It still annoys me that Call of Juarezoun in Blood did cover better than most cover-based games and that there's NO platforming in Uncharted as much as mini cinematics triggered by a useless jump button) (...) Other than presentation, graphics and voice-acting, EVERY gameplay element of those 2 great games lead to some deja vu, while main Nintendo games tend to offer something minimally novel at least.

Way to take the macro perspective! I agree that Uncharted - while looking sexier than God's girlfriend - simply can't escape the cons of cinematographic gaming even as it perfects it. Changing the mechanics and the input might be the only way to break out and bring something new.

Originally Posted by Julian

On the 3D Zelda cases, I'd say the only one that offered nothing new to the table was TP. If you'll introduce a wolf character that's LESS fun to use than the regular Link and less rewarding, don't bother (...) Ocarina of Time made 3D combat do-able and introduced an in-game, fully playable instrument (...) Majora's Mask introduced a unique, cyclical gameplay, alongside FUN alternatives to Link (...) Wind Waker shifted Zelda's sense of humour back to Link's Awakening charm and proved that cel-shaded CAN be beautiful and natural (...) Besides, it presented a REALLY different battle system from what we were used to and an interesting mechanic, that was the King of the Red Lions. Long story short, I like how they focus on gameplay and style changes, but they sure as hell could try to ally that with content and depth.

Bolded for truth. However, while you approved of MM's three-day mechanic, many people found it too overbearing to aid enjoyment of the game. Furthermore, WW's combat wasn't enough of a step forward to be as effective as the series needs, and the sailing put a lot of people off. WW didn't get Link's movement in the overworld right either, many would say.

Originally Posted by Julian

Besides, I really believe the lack of "stuff" on TP's and Ocarina's overworld was mainly due to hardware restrictions. If you look at it, OoT presented HUGE draw distance for the console's power. Twilight Princess also offered a gigantic overworld, and they knew they had to sacrifice content in order to achieve sheer size.

I never considered that aspect before. I think that might be a bigger problem than people expect.

Originally Posted by Julian

They were a company that made controlled experiences seeing their entire philosophy go gown the drain as games got bigger and blander. See GTA. You may argue there's a lot going on there, but honestly, San Andreas. Looked like s*** and had so much NOTHING it almost hurt. Yet, it made way more success than Wind Waker. People had forsaken Zelda and they were trying to adpat it to a "bigger, more epic, louder"-hungry audience. See the nods to Lord of the Rings in the game's first trailer. You had freaking Balrog and Shelob there, man.

Now that you mention it, TP's trailer really had some LotR tang to it. Actually, many would say that the first Zelda is a lot more free-roaming than TP (which was very controlled). Both OoT and MM were not completely linear either, or rather they were linear but there were new branches to discover the higher you climbed. TP didn't really please that many people in the long run.

Originally Posted by Julian

I actually think they'll be under a lot less stress this time around, being able to offer a game that focus on what THEY want to do. And this philosophy always led to better results when it comes to nintendo. Letting them do their own thing tends to lead to great experiences. Except for Star Fox DS. That was a cough-up of an old idea they just had to get out in the open. Pretty mediocre game, by the way.

The thing is that Nintendo doesn't always want the same thing as its customers! Malstrom uses the examples of SMG 2, 3D Mario on the DS, Starfox losing its focus from SF 64 and the Train mechanic for ST to show that Nintendo has a tendency to create some little novelty they are all agog over and then try to push it on consumers, who really just want more stuff to do. Wii Music is another exhibit: Miyamoto was excited over User-generated content, and tried to push it on us even though we want content made by skilled developers. He can be a "cocky little freak", to quote Starfox 64. However, I agree fully that Star Fox Command was the nadir, nay, the very undoing of the concept "fun".

Originally Posted by Julian

Besides, the Mario example put by Eurogamer and Malstrom isn't the best one. Super Mario galaxy is a content-full game and the torch-lighting was probably more of a nod than anything else, as much as I agree with pretty much he posted back there.

SMG was menu-laden , a bit sterile and surprisingly linear. I thought both SM 64 and SMS were better 3D Marios and SMG 2 does not imbue me with optimism.

Originally Posted by Julian

@Double A: Agreed, if anything, Wii Motion Plus should be limited to minigames(FISHING! PLEASE! 1:1 FISHING!) and item usage. Hit detection would be too messy if it was implemented on swordfighting. Besides, the need for recalibration would be absurd, for you'll undoubtedly start waving your arms frantically at some point, lending to the controller not having any idea as to where it is.

I've heard the swordfightan in Wii Sports Resort is choice, so it could work in ZWii. Also, don't forget about Red Steel 2: (Electric Boogaloo)

Originally Posted by Kastanj

SMG was menu-laden , a bit sterile and surprisingly linear. I thought both SM 64 and SMS were better 3D Marios and SMG 2 does not imbue me with optimism.

I reluctantly accept your opinion. VERY reluctantly.

Though I wouldn't count on Nintendo making another non-linear 3D Mario, since linear Mario is what sells and is what has always sold (64 was a launch title, it don't count)

I actually think linear gameplay suits Mario better. I remember walking around on Sunshine almost begging to get into action that actually makes me step closer to my real goal. They injected a 2D-platformer philosophy into a 3D platformer game while making it feel expansive at the same time. There were the few ocasional kind of free-roaming galaxies every now and then, but even on those it's quite difficult to get lost.

Super Mario Galaxy is straight to the point, easy to pick up and easy to put down. I really like it about the game, for it resembles the Mario games of the old, 2D era. Come to think of it, I actually believe that Mario's moveset is too limited to justify a free-roaming game. It shines at its most when the developer has more control over what you're doing. Mario 64(and Super Mario Sunshine to a lesser extent) did not shine because of free-roaming levels with gameplay that suited them. It was brilliantly pleasant level design and music that did the trick. One thing is a Zelda game, where you have a variety of items at your disposal. With Mario, you can jump. Or jump twice. Sometimes, thrice. Add do that a little spin. And that's it. They COULD make a huge world to be explored, but it wouldn't require from the player as much exploration and thought as it would take sheer skills and perseverance. As is the case in some of Super Mario Sunshine's incredibly annoying purple coins tucked away at places you'd never look because you barely thought they were accesible through anything other than a glitch.

What I mean is that with a limited moveset, any exploration relies heavily on HIDING things from people, not putting them at places that feel natural to be explored, much like in Zelda. And, as much as I liked the warp pipes from previous Mario games, they served little to no purpose to me other than simply skipping the VARIOUS quasi-identical levels that were presented. I played SMW recently and I was struck at the same time by how GOOD the game still is and how little variation it offers compared to what I remembered.

By the way, Kastanj, I didn't follow the last part of your post. As I own the game, I could better explain what you were referring to=D If you refer to the camera being optional, it's actually stuck behind a translucent Mii. Which works fine, but in the Showdown, with several enemies, they'll always refrain from attacking you unless you're targeting them, which proves to be an unsatisfactory system to be implemented on ZWii, on my opinion.