Why Zelda Wii will probably be the best game ever.

[D_prOdigy]

While M+ will have its benefits, I think its existance has killed off the chance of the current tech reaching its full potential. As EEVIL suggested, the current Wii-Mote does pretty much anything you want it to do fine, as long as you actually put a bit of effort and QA into it. So instead of developers now builing upon what Wii Sports first brought to the table, everyone is now going to wait to rip the things Resort will prove possible.

[LazyBoy]

Am I still alone in wanting Zelda to sleep for a bit? Leave the game a generation or two, make us want it, then come back with the Metroid Prime of Zeldas.

[Edjamakated]

I'm wondering if the current motion detection is as poor as you're suggesting it is.

 

Is it that bad?

 

Concerning swinging a sword? No. It's really good at that.

 

Concerning swinging a sword very accurately? Yes. It isn't very good at that.

 

Can the wiimote as is detect variable speed? Not accurately. It can, but it loses it when the movements are small.

 

Will motion+ be able to accurately represent my hand motions 1:1 (concerning speed, position, x/y/z axis)? Yes. That is what it was built for.

[Rummy]

Am I still alone in wanting Zelda to sleep for a bit? Leave the game a generation or two, make us want it, then come back with the Metroid Prime of Zeldas.

 

They made us wait long enough for TP and it wasn't *really* up to scratch to be fair, so no, no I do not want that at all. I want a good Zelda game, and I want it now/soon! Only, I don't really want one that bad, cos I've lost faith in it being any good after the shambles I consider TP to be in the Zelda line. If they DO put M+ in it too, I want it to be done well. I've considered how they will make it easily accessible to developers(I don't imagine it's as easy and straightforward as the original wii remote devkits, where it averaged from repeated performance of desired action), though if it's a Zelda game being developed I should imagine it'd be done by people with access to the top resources.

[Zero]

While I more than likely ruined TP for myself by over hype, I still believe it could have been better. It was in no means a horrible game but, I agree with Rummy. The first couple of trailers of it don't even seem to be present in the game but, I won't go into that now as this is not the thread for it.

 

I have complete faith in Nintendo this time. Even if I over hype it again, simply because they have said they will build it from the ground up.

[Foxfear]

While I more than likely ruined TP for myself by over hype, I still believe it could have been better. It was in no means a horrible game but, I agree with Rummy. The first couple of trailers of it don't even seem to be present in the game but, I won't go into that now as this is not the thread for it.

 

I have complete faith in Nintendo this time. Even if I over hype it again, simply because they have said they will build it from the ground up.

 

That's the danger of any hyped game... you get overhyped and due to your immensly high expectations, you end up being dissapointed...

 

I was super-hyped for MP3 and although it was a fantastic game, I was dissapointed, I felt like it could've been more (more weapons, flying with the gunship, etc.)

[Guest Maase]

Exactly, the game was a great, you just expected too much for him.

And nothing will be compared to the first Zelda you played, bear that in mind, you will waste your time if you expect something better than your first Zelda game.

[Diageo]

I never played any other zelda game before windwaker, i never saw any trailers or anything about TP until about a week before I got it and it was only a review.

 

I have to say I enjoyed it alot and it's one of the best games i've ever played and i enjoyed it more than windwaker. Granted i was younger and couldn't even finish windwaker, I like TP alot.

 

I think hype ruins games which is why I like how nintendo are announcing games later in their development like Wario Land.

[Grazza]

Let's face it, it will be an uphill struggle, but Eiji Aonuma is a genius and if he has an artistic vision and he's allowed to carry it out, it could well be the best Zelda yet.

 

Regarding MotionPlus, I'm all for it (assuming motion control is here to stay, that is). I'm assuming Wii Sports and Nintendo's other games so far are a good indication of what the existing motion control can do and, to me, it seems like it can only understand sharp, crude movements. The example of placing a stick is a good one, because I don't think the current controls can let you manipulate something in 3D space so carefully.

 

Plus, it'd only be like having the RAM pak included in Majora's Mask.

 

Apart from artistic vision, one of the things that makes an enjoyable game is how freely you can move around the overworld. It's the little things like being able to switch between 1st- and 3rd-person whenever you like (eg. to appreciate the detail on a ceiling), being able to manipulate the camera, minimal loading times and feeling that the world is fully modelled in 3D, with no 2D backgrounds.

 

I'm currently playing Dragon Quest VIII on PS2 and the design of the game is a joy to behold. The towns and villages just keep getting better and better. It's not about having too many nooks and crannies; it's just about pleasing design. The best one so far, Argonia, has a very wide path down the middle (due to a river), houses lining the left and right walls (but very far apart) and a large castle at the back. You can explore the castle and get views of the town as it really is.

 

And just as a run around Castle Town can highlight many of the problems of Twilight Princess, a trip to Windfall Island shows what Wind Waker got so right.

 

It does seem to me Nintendo is trying to simplify games too much in order to take choice away from the gamer. I'm all for streamlining, but not in terms of things like camera controls and 1st-/3rd-person views. I'm sure they just mean to make their games more accessible, but it does lessen them somewhat, I think.

 

PS - As for whether we really need a new Zelda yet or they should do a "Metroid Prime", I'm not desperate for one immediately, but I think it would be a shame if there was never one purely designed for the Wii. One per console is enough, but I think there's a danger of companies forgetting how to make their franchises if they don't do one per generation. One main game + one spin-off (using the same engine) is probably the best model, like Ocarina and Majora.

[Guest Maase]

Exactly Diageo, the problem is Overhype and Nostalgia Goggles, just that, the game deserves 95/100, without any doubt the best Zelda i played in my opinion (I played all the 3D ones)

Also, moving the vision with Nunchuck would be awful, the motion sensing from Nunchuck is weak, and it would be boring to be all the game changing perspectives with the Nunchuck

[Grazza]

I honestly don't think the problem is hype. Twilight Princess was an overworked painting rather than being a simple game with a great atmosphere. I think the reviews that scored it between 8.8 and 9.2 were right.

 

Anyway, who hyped it? I seem to remember Nintendo whipping up a frenzy about it since 2004! But like I say, hype's not to blame. It was just about 5-10% less good than one expects from a console Zelda, that's all.

 

My first Zelda certainly isn't my favourite, as it was Link to the Past and (as good as it was) I enjoyed most of the subsequent ones more.

[Zero]

I honestly don't think the problem is hype. Twilight Princess was an overworked painting rather than being a simple game with a great atmosphere. I think the reviews that scored it between 8.8 and 9.2 were right.

 

Anyway, who hyped it? I seem to remember Nintendo whipping up a frenzy about it since 2004! But like I say, hype's not to blame. It was just about 5-10% less good than one expects from a console Zelda, that's all.

 

While that is true, no matter how good a game is, you will be disapointed with it if, you expect to much. I think I would have enjoyed it more if, I hadn't looked up so much stuff on it.

[EEVILMURRAY]

Concerning swinging a sword? No. It's really good at that.

 

Concerning swinging a sword very accurately? Yes. It isn't very good at that.

 

Can the wiimote as is detect variable speed? Not accurately. It can, but it loses it when the movements are small.

 

Will motion+ be able to accurately represent my hand motions 1:1 (concerning speed, position, x/y/z axis)? Yes. That is what it was built for.

This is, to me, exactly what Nintendo doesn't need to do. I can see games taking ages making movements for every different detectable swing of a sword etc. They really should have focused on something more productive. I use the remote. I swing. Link swings his sword. I'm really not bothered about different angles. Eternal Darkness got it right by being able to focus your attacks on a certain body part, but I can't see motion+ being able to improve on it.

[Rummy]

I honestly don't think the problem is hype. Twilight Princess was an overworked painting rather than being a simple game with a great atmosphere. I think the reviews that scored it between 8.8 and 9.2 were right.

 

Anyway, who hyped it? I seem to remember Nintendo whipping up a frenzy about it since 2004! But like I say, hype's not to blame. It was just about 5-10% less good than one expects from a console Zelda, that's all.

 

My first Zelda certainly isn't my favourite, as it was Link to the Past and (as good as it was) I enjoyed most of the subsequent ones more.

 

I pretty much second this post on its points, most in particular the last part about first Zeldas, and indeed Link to the Past! That was MY first zelda, but I am in doubt of whether I'd consider it the best. I think I've got a good amount of Zelda in me too, so I'd say my decisions wouldn't be too biased by hype nor 'nostalgia goggles' as Maasse mentioned, but I will admit I find it hard to order/rank the Zelda games as each has generally offered something that another has not.

On the point of these nostalgia goggles and hype clouding our vision Maase, can I ask upon what criteria you judge TP to be 'the best Zelda' you've ever played?

[...]

While it may not be the consensus, I felt that Twilight Princess played a little dated. Which is strange because it had everything I could want; more items, more dungeons, more side-quests, more characters, more interaction; but for some reason, it felt like I already played it.

 

Eh?

 

 

I am confident that Nintendo can experiment away from the classic Zelda foundation and find something that is fresh and exciting, but is still Zelda at its core. Just look at Metriod Prime and most notably, Mario Galaxy. Games can be completely different but still contain what you really loved about their past iterations.

 

Ok, seriously, SMG is not that different from SM64. I look at it and I see exactly the same game design and structure as SM64. You go on several levels to pick up 120 stars to defeat Bowser at the end. You have a few main levels in which you have to enter more than once, and they are all scathered around a main hub area. And to be frank, SMG's hub is damn boring to navigate, the 64 Castle has not yet been bettered.

The gravity effects were new (and great and awesome, etc) but really, the game structure is exactly the same as it has ever been since 3D.

 

SMG is groundbreaking as it is, but if they had changed its old structure then it would've been off the scale in "groundbreakingness". And they could/should have implemented gravity effects in the hub too, afterall it's floating around in space.

[Edjamakated]

This is, to me, exactly what Nintendo doesn't need to do. I can see games taking ages making movements for every different detectable swing of a sword etc. They really should have focused on something more productive. I use the remote. I swing. Link swings his sword. I'm really not bothered about different angles. Eternal Darkness got it right by being able to focus your attacks on a certain body part, but I can't see motion+ being able to improve on it.

 

There is nothing to program with respect to motion+. What you have to do is make the game world responsive enough to do deal with motion+, but that isn't different from any other game. No extra time is needed. In fact, it'll probably be easier to program rather than programming individual swings like they do now.

 

Eh?

 

 

 

 

Ok, seriously, SMG is not that different from SM64. I look at it and I see exactly the same game design and structure as SM64. You go on several levels to pick up 120 stars to defeat Bowser at the end. You have a few main levels in which you have to enter more than once, and they are all scathered around a main hub area. And to be frank, SMG's hub is damn boring to navigate, the 64 Castle has not yet been bettered.

The gravity effects were new (and great and awesome, etc) but really, the game structure is exactly the same as it has ever been since 3D.

 

SMG is groundbreaking as it is, but if they had changed its old structure then it would've been off the scale in "groundbreakingness". And they could/should have implemented gravity effects in the hub too, afterall it's floating around in space.

 

SMG was definitely much different than SM64. Yes you controlled Mario the same, but the world and gameplay were completely different. Gravity was never a big deal in 64, but in Galaxy, that's all it's about.

[Emasher]

Eh?

 

 

 

 

Ok, seriously, SMG is not that different from SM64. I look at it and I see exactly the same game design and structure as SM64. You go on several levels to pick up 120 stars to defeat Bowser at the end. You have a few main levels in which you have to enter more than once, and they are all scathered around a main hub area. And to be frank, SMG's hub is damn boring to navigate, the 64 Castle has not yet been bettered.

The gravity effects were new (and great and awesome, etc) but really, the game structure is exactly the same as it has ever been since 3D.

 

SMG is groundbreaking as it is, but if they had changed its old structure then it would've been off the scale in "groundbreakingness". And they could/should have implemented gravity effects in the hub too, afterall it's floating around in space.

 

TBH, Even though Mario 64 was a much better game, I think sunshine actually had a better hub world. It just seemed more big and open. The castle was still great, it just got tiring a bit faster.

[...]

SMG was definitely much different than SM64. Yes you controlled Mario the same, but the world and gameplay were completely different. Gravity was never a big deal in 64, but in Galaxy, that's all it's about.

 

You're just being confused by a "magic trick". SMG and SM64 have the exact same game structure. I'm not saying they have the same worlds and I'm not talking about "you control Mario the same". If you look closely at both games, you'll see the same basic game outline. Nothing is new structurally. I don't know how to put this any clearer...

 

Main hub + around 10 core levels with 6/7 stars each + secret stars. 60/70 stars give you access to final boss. You discover rooms with a few new levels, jump freely around the levels you already opened to gather more stars to discover more rooms with more levels. Repeat. This is the 3D Mario structure in a nutshell and SMG is no different. It's all I'm saying and it is fact, not opinion.

[Edjamakated]

Why change what isn't broken?

[Zechs Merquise]

Look how they reinvented Mario in Galaxy, well expect the same in Zelda!

[EEVILMURRAY]

Why change what isn't broken?

My thoughts exactly on motion+

[Rummy]

Galaxy felt a bit lacking to me too, I dunno if I felt it too easy(I actually never bothered to finish it in the end, I really should at some point) and Sunshine had felt the same. They didn't offer enough newness or freshness compared to Mario 64, and 64 did it better because it didn't hold my damn hand so much! I guess it ties in well to the thread about linearity, but I liked how in 64 you could accidentally stumble upon a different star when you didn't mean to, and there was no need to change that in the later games, was there? Galaxy, for all its space and openness, led me far too much and easily down the path of where I was meant to go, SM64 did not. It even told you where you'd find secret stars!

As for why change something that ain't broken, well, it's a fair point. But why not make something that is good great instead? That's the reason to change, to try and achieve something even better! We can't just stick with what we know because it works, there's no progress in that, and it can get old and tired. We need freshness!

[darkjak]

My personal oppinion is that every Zelda that doesen't score 10/10 is a flawed Zelda. Bar Zelda 2, every game in the series had scored 10/10 until OOT. Every Zelda since then has been a let down. From the gazilion portable games (Minish Cap, Oracles, etc), four swords, Majoras Mask and TP have been letdowns.

What Nintendo should do is to lay down more resources on the coming Zelda than any other game before it. Make it a technical marvel, add every cool feature in a Zelda game so far (different people do different things in different times of days and different weekdays like in MM, different timezones like in OOT or ALTP), and add brand new features.

 

I hope for an adult Link adventure. The reason that Twilight Princess isn't as memorable (to some people) as Wind Waker isn't the graphics: it's the level design. Everything's too linear, making the surroundings feel to artificial.

 

Nintendo should just do what the first Twilight Princess trailer promised: An enourmous overworld, a natural feeling forrest without walls everywhere, epic Dynasty-Wariors scale battles.

[EEVILMURRAY]

My personal oppinion is that every Zelda that doesen't score 10/10 is a flawed Zelda. Bar Zelda 2, every game in the series had scored 10/10 until OOT. Every Zelda since then has been a let down. From the gazilion portable games (Minish Cap, Oracles, etc), four swords, Majoras Mask and TP have been letdowns.

Oh hell no. The Oracles were the shit! What about Phantom Hourglass? Haven't played it yet, but because it has toon Link it strikes me with the fear of a letdown.

[...]

Why change what isn't broken?

 

Did you forget the point of this discussion? You said in your first post that you want them to steer away from the "Zelda foundation" and make a completely different game that is still Zelda at its core, and you pointed out SMG as an example. I merely pointed out that SMG did not steer away at all from the "Mario foundation" and is essencially the same game structure as it has been since 1996. And now you reply "Why change what isn't broken?"...?

 

Just to clarify, I'm not diminishing SMG at all, it's awesome, and I also want a "different" Zelda, just like you. I just think your example of SMG as a game that changed everything about Mario is wrong, cause it didn't change much. It just introduced gravity, it didn't change the structure. And frankly, I think it's time they changed the structure. I think they should experiment in making a Mario game that is more adventure and not just collecting stars. The 2D ones felt more like adventure, cause you actually advanced in a world (ie, you reached a castle, and moved on to a next world, you even crossed seas by boats to reach the next levels).

 

In 3D you don't advance in a world, you have a hub that's like a playground and you enter levels from it. I would try to make a 3D version of the SMB3 or SMW game structure, create an overworld where Mario advances and discovers levels along the way, eventually reaching Bowser's castle.