Difficulty modes. (hard mode, easy mode, and normal mode.)

diffuculty levels all depends on the type of Zelda game the designers are going for. If they wanted to make a God of War or Devil May Cry or Gears of War style Zelda game that has massive waves of enemies, then yes, a selectable diffuculty would be pretty kool. But the true Zelda games are about platforming, not making the game so hard the player dies 20 times just to get passed one sectoon of the game. If the designers did that, I feel LoZ would lose many fans

Originally Posted by Double A

What do you mean by "increased playability"? I for one would not gain anything from difficulty levels. Having to try all of the levels to see which one is best for me, and then having no additional reason to play the game again just doesn't appeal to me.

And you would rather see difficulty levels just because it takes up less disk space? WTF???

Many people are put off by games that are too easy or too hard. So say you start with Normal, but it's too boring or frustrating for you. So you go harder or easier. That increases playability because more people will be inclined to try other settings.

If they choose between DLs and a second quest, then they should go with the one that takes up less space. That way they can put more content into the game itsself.

I think both should be put into the game. But how?

First playthrough you can choose the difficulty. Harder the difficulty the more difficult the enemies. They are smarter, faster, stronger, and all that fun stuff. Dungeons will be twisted around. harder the difficulty, the bigger the dungeon becomes.

Each dungeon could have several paths to the boss. On easy, the easiest path is available. On normal, its a combination of both the easy and hard. But on Hard the easy path is completely obstructed. Meaning you have to take a detour. Some rooms will be shared on all routes, but for the most part its like three different dungeons for every 1. Of course you can only play one version of the dungeon.

So this is what it would be like throughout the whole game.

Now for the second quest. Puzzles would be reworked, enemies would be at their best and in full force. In the second quest, the previously blocked routes will be open, but you will need to complete it all.

Also in this second quest, more minidungeons similar to the Ice Cavern in OoT will be open.

What does this mean exactly?

The casual players can still get a good game. If they want to try it harder they can. hardcore fans can select Hard throught he first time around, and enjoy an even harder experience the second time around.

I think this would be one bad ass game.

Originally Posted by Aleitheo

Beaten them, the newer games are easier than the older ones so its natural we want them to get harder again

And since the upcoming games are probably even easier for the casuals, it can be seen why we want our difficulty levels, heh.

Originally Posted by Double A

- - -

The second quest idea basically creates two difficulty levels, the easy one and the hard one. Let's say that the easy one is too easy for me and the hard one is just the right challenge for me. So the hard one is a better 'game' for me.

Why on earth do I have to play the worse 'game' in order to play the better one? Why can't I just choose it from the start? I just can't get it.

And if I knew there was a second quest, I'd probably just rush the first quest and try to unlock the second one fast, just in order to get some challenge to the game. The thought of a second quest would gnaw on my brains; why should I do any sidequests when I'll just do them harder in the second quest? Why should I pay any attention to the plot, when I know I'll just see it all again? Why should I search any secrets, spoiling their locations for the second quest?

And besides, playing the game once would spoil all the plot events and dungeons for my second quest, making it a shallower game experience for me, compared of making the 'second quest' my first playthrough.

Originally Posted by lozfreak89

true Zelda games are about platforming, not making the game so hard the player dies 20 times just to get passed one sectoon of the game. If the designers did that, I feel LoZ would lose many fans

Uh, and if they make them too easy, they might lose even more fans?
And, platforming is a wrong word. Zelda's are generally about adventure, puzzles and combat, not jumping.
By the way, what does difficulty levels have to do with players dying 20 times? On the easier levels, they probably wouldn't.

i think the next zelda could follow the example of ALTTP;

ALTTP has a great quantity of dungeons and most of them are very short in comparison to Ocarina's dungeons...they are extremely easy in the beginning but they become a lot harder in the end...

so i hope that "casual zelda" means a zelda with shorter dungeons, but with a greater amount of then, and not nescessarily an easy zelda

there could be optional dungeons, or areas in dungeons, or objectives inside the dungeons, that could be a lot harder, just like in Mario games you dont have to get all stars, but if u want them, u will have to work a little harder...

i think that the zelda team is well aware of our concerns and they will try to satisfy our wishs in some way, while still managing to make a zelda game acessible to the new players

in short: i would like a zelda game that could bring back elements from ALTTP and also borrow a little more from Mario; that would be an extremely acessible, fun and challenging game (and a master quest seens always like a good idea also

Or they could do what Left 4 Dead did. You know; making it harder and harder the better you do, and easier and easier the worse you do. This way, the game form-fits itself to your own skill level. =D

Ok so-
Easy Mode-for n00bz
Normal Mode- --------normal-------
Second Quest- HArder enimies and puzzles
Critical Mode- You can only get 3 hearts

Originally Posted by Maefreak

I'm sorry to be a minority, but I would not want difficulty levels. I would rather them implement a first quest and then a second quest like the original.

Agreed, a regular first quest like TP difficulty and then a second quest that's even hard than OotMQ!!

Originally Posted by farore-rocks333

Ok so-
Easy Mode-for n00bz
Normal Mode- --------normal-------
Second Quest- HArder enimies and puzzles
Critical Mode- You can only get 3 hearts

Easy - Newbs are in experienced people new to something, noobs are basically jerks
Second Quest - I would rather be able to play that mode straight away as a veteran mode
Critical mode - You can do that anyway, just don't pick up hearts

Originally Posted by Ninja J

Do you think that there should be levels of difficulty that you can select before you start your game?

I say yes. Simply becuase TP and WW were too easy in some areas, (combat, and in TPs case puzzles). It would solve the problems of both the casual and hardcore gamers. The Casuals could pick the easy setting where for example, enemies take less hits to kill; while the Core gamers could pick the hard mode.

In the hard mode you magic meter uses more energy. Arrows, bombs, and hearts are harder to find. Bosses and enemies deal more damage and are harder to kill.

But what do you think?

and for easy, your partner comes up with those irritating spoiling hints all the time!

Originally Posted by Chad

If they choose between DLs and a second quest, then they should go with the one that takes up less space. That way they can put more content into the game itsself.

You can't cram a whole lotta content into two quests? That would be awesome if you could. Better than spreading it over three.

And I think that two quests take up less space than three. I'm not sure. Is two less than three?

Originally Posted by Otuz

Why on earth do I have to play the worse 'game' in order to play the better one? Why can't I just choose it from the start? I just can't get it.

Does the first quest have to be so bad? My idea of the second quest is that it is different from the first one. Not story and town/dungeon location, mind you, but the dungeons themselves would be radically altered. Like in Galaxy, the second quest was harder in some places, easier in some.

Originally Posted by Otuz

And if I knew there was a second quest, I'd probably just rush the first quest and try to unlock the second one fast, just in order to get some challenge to the game. The thought of a second quest would gnaw on my brains; why should I do any sidequests when I'll just do them harder in the second quest? Why should I pay any attention to the plot, when I know I'll just see it all again? Why should I search any secrets, spoiling their locations for the second quest?

Why should you even play a Zelda game twice. Zelda games are too crap to play more than once, arent they? They have absolutely no replay value, don't they? When you beat the final OoT boss, I'm sure nobody felt sad that it was all over, and that nobody wanted whatever shred there was of "more".

Yeah, it is such a bad idea to make your second playthrough different from your first one, only relying on nostalgia to pull you back into the game. A bad idea, isn't it?

SARCASM FTW!!!!!

Why should everything be in the same places for both quests? The only thing they would keep identical in either quest is the town/dungeon locations and the story. They could even move people to harder-to-reach places to change the sidequests.

Originally Posted by Otuz

And besides, playing the game once would spoil all the plot events and dungeons for my second quest, making it a shallower game experience for me, compared of making the 'second quest' my first playthrough.

You don't have to do the second quest, you know...

Casuals aren't total noobs. Zelda and Mario games always have intuitive controls, so the learning curve is shallow. Thus, they don't have to make the first quest ridiculously easy. All they need to do is make the second quest different. Maybe slightly harder, but mostly different.

Sure, I'd like that. In Twilight Princess, most enemies in Hyrule Field take just one swing of the Master Sword to kill. I mean, I know that it's the blade of evil's bane, but I would honestly rather not have a powerful weapon in the game such as the Master Sword if the challenges would be lacking like that. Also, every phase of the final battle is littered with jars full of fairies (indeed, not just a fairy, but many), hearts, and spare arrows. I didn't even need these things because a bigger challenge for me than fighting Ganondorf is to actually die against him ... plus the biggest quiver for your bow holds 100 arrows. It would be downright sad if somebody needed more arrows than that against Ganondorf.

Nintendo.

Casuals are NOT stupid. Don't baby them and give them a ridiculously easy game (TP)

Originally Posted by Double A

Nintendo.

Casuals are NOT stupid. Don't baby them and give them a ridiculously easy game (TP)

Thank you so much for your opinion, Mr.I-Hate-TP-Therefore-TheGoronMoron-ByMyStandards-MustAlsoDislike-Tp-BecauseISaidSo.

Will you just shut up? Not everyone had an easy time with TP. Take me for example.

Seriously, I'm really getting sick of this threads.

Originally Posted by The Goron Moron

Thank you so much for your opinion, Mr.I-Hate-TP-Therefore-TheGoronMoron-ByMyStandards-MustAlsoDislike-Tp-BecauseISaidSo.

Will you just shut up? Not everyone had an easy time with TP. Take me for example.

Well, Mr Put-a-lot-of-words-and-hyphens-together-to-make-really-long-names-just-like-this-except-a-lot-less-funny-and-slightly-shorter-but-far-more-sarcastic, did you really find TP that much harder than OoT?

If so, I take it back.

If not, I stand by my statement. OoT was not ridiculously easy. OoT is more of the difficulty I myself would like to see, if not something ever-so-slightly harder.

1. I don't hate TP.
2. A bit of difficulty is a good thing. It challenges you.

Originally Posted by Double A

You can't cram a whole lotta content into two quests? That would be awesome if you could. Better than spreading it over three.

And I think that two quests take up less space than three. I'm not sure. Is two less than three?

Different difficulties don't equal different quests, since my idea of different difficulties only consists of minor tweaks. Not added dungeons and changed puzzles and such. Just like I said in my first post. That way you don't have to spread content around three, or even two quests. You just put all the content into one quest, and thus that one quest is better.

Yes three is more than two. Two is also more than one. I'm talking about just one quest, only the higher difficulties have minor tweaks. Not added content that would take up space, and keep the overall game from being less than it could be due to less space for content.

You don't have to change dungeon locations, add more monsters, change/add puzzles, ect. to make higher difficulty. Just increase enemy damage given and taken, make them more aggressive, reduce items dropped by enemies, and increase prices in shops.

Originally Posted by Double A

You can't cram a whole lotta content into two quests? That would be awesome if you could. Better than spreading it over three.

And I think that two quests take up less space than three. I'm not sure. Is two less than three?

Difficulty levels are not three 'quests'. They do not take so much space, because they are the same game with different variables, like changes in enemies health, damage etc.
If the second quest is radically different, it takes more space than the difficulty levels would.

Now, why not just create a single playthrough, with difficulty levels, using all the space (and time and money) that the second quest would take for additional content? Like bonus dungeons, sidequests, etc.

-edit. Just as Chad said, heh. Slow-ninja'd.

Originally Posted by Double A

Does the first quest have to be so bad?

If it is easier, it's not as good as the harder one for me. I didn't say it was bad, silly man. I just said that the harder one would be better.

Originally Posted by Double A

My idea of the second quest is that it is different from the first one. Not story and town/dungeon location, mind you, but the dungeons themselves would be radically altered. Like in Galaxy, the second quest was harder in some places, easier in some.

Why would you use space on those, when you can just make the first playthrough a lot 'wider'.

And if the second quest isn't a lot harder, it's even worse. It doesn't really answer the question; how to create a game that appeals both to the casuals and the hardcore difficulty-wise?

Originally Posted by Double A

Why should you even play a Zelda game twice. Zelda games are too crap to play more than once, arent they? They have absolutely no replay value, don't they? When you beat the final OoT boss, I'm sure nobody felt sad that it was all over, and that nobody wanted whatever shred there was of "more".

I've never said anything like that, so you kind of fail trying to accuse me of it.

I did say, that I don't generally want to play a game twice, because I have other games that I have to finish.
In OOT, I collected every secret, searched every nook and hole just for shizzles. I didn't want to play it again after beating it though, not because it was bad but because I didn't want to.
And I didn't play the master quest for long, because I had already finished OOT, and it was a shallower game experience (compared to my first playthrough of OOT) because I knew what would happen in the plot etc.

Originally Posted by Double A

Yeah, it is such a bad idea to make your second playthrough different from your first one, only relying on nostalgia to pull you back into the game. A bad idea, isn't it?

Yes it is in this case. The point of this thread wasn't second playthroughs, but to solve the problem of difficulty.
First I thought you offered the second quest as an answer to the problem; by having an unlockable super hard difficulty level. Which I found bad, because I don't like unlockable difficulties.

Originally Posted by Double A

Why should everything be in the same places for both quests? The only thing they would keep identical in either quest is the town/dungeon locations and the story. They could even move people to harder-to-reach places to change the sidequests.

Why? Why not use all the space that would go to the second quest on additional content and the like? This way everyone would have a lot 'wider' experience, not just those that play the same game twice.

Originally Posted by Double A

Casuals aren't total noobs. Zelda and Mario games always have intuitive controls, so the learning curve is shallow. Thus, they don't have to make the first quest ridiculously easy. All they need to do is make the second quest different. Maybe slightly harder, but mostly different.

No. For me Tp was easy. For me Mario Galaxy was easy. And the next Zelda will be easy for me if Nintendo makes it to appeal to the casuals too.

A casual generally has far worse playing skills than I. That's why a game that has to be the right challenge for the casual will be easy for me.
And your second quest idea won't solve the problem. That's why I want difficulty levels in.

Originally Posted by Double A

2. A bit of difficulty is a good thing. It challenges you.

Yes, and since the Nintendo's modern games seem to lack it (except SSBB and MP3, both mysteriously with difficulty levels!), you can see why we want difficulty levels, eh?

I've said it before I'll say it again:
The Legend of Zelda only needs two difficulties: Man and wimp.

Sigh...

Difficulty levels are a lazy design choice.

How about just making two or three ways to finish each dungeon, each varying in difficulty? Casuals get their easy, you get your hard, and I get my second quest.

Besides, people like me have absolutely nothing to gain from difficulty levels.

Making more than one way to do something would make the game less linear, which definitely has merit. It's also better than making a different, unlockable second quest.