The 'Other' Wii U Thread

[Ashley]

Here's what worries me most about the game: Story. I think Zelda is due for an epic tale of heroism, kingdoms at war, love, hate, uprising, rebellion, etc.

We've heard that you could play the game without unfolding the story and I'm fine with that. It gives us a choice.

What we haven't heard (and that is what worries me): What is the story about? Will it change up the usual Zelda-formula? Will it have meaningful/interesting sidequests? Will the towns be populated and lively?

Until I hear more about that (as spoilerfree as it can be) I suspect that only the Zelda-gameplay will get much needed additions/changes and the story will remain as flat and 2-dimensional as it has always been.

 

They've said very little (intentionally) but there was the telling comment that "Zelda can't be the hero because then what would Link do?" It's obviously not the same as saying this, but to me it's basically confirming Zelda will once again be playing her usual role of damsel/active princess (she is never really all of one or the other). So presumably there will be some big bad causing this...wonder who that might be.

 

There might be more indepth story when it comes to the world/lore/universe, but then it might just be as deep as Wind Waker (i.e. it's there, it adds to it but nobody's going to look back at it in 30 years time and say it was the peak of storytelling).

 

I would love this huge amazing detailed storyline that is genuinely engaging and enthralling. I'm not expecting it though.

[Fierce_LiNk]

I'm struggling to get truly invested in it because I feel that I need to see what the NX is first and if/how that version differs from the WiiU edition of the game.

 

I'm not likely to buy an NX as I don't need another console and I'm still pretty pissed off at Nintendo for the WiiU. But, I'll be just as annoyed if the WiiU version of Zelda is gimped and it's all a ploy to "force" people to buy an NX for Zelda.

 

So, that's where I am. I'm basically waiting on the NX first to see what's up. Can't say I'm in any rush to play a new Zelda after Skyward Sword either. All of the reviews/previews were great for that too, with the media going completely overboard with it at the time. If I could sum it up in one word, it's caution.

[dan-likes-trees]

Can't say I'm in any rush to play a new Zelda after Skyward Sword either. All of the reviews/previews were great for that too, with the media going completely overboard with it at the time. If I could sum it up in one word, it's caution.

 

This is just it for me too. I find myself getting swept up in the hype but what was the last console Zelda I truely enjoyed? Wind Waker at a push. The default glowing reviews are really irritating.

 

I think it's more broadly an issue with videogame criticism - the way that game websites tend to give reviews to staff who are predisposed to like whatever the genre or franchise they're reviewing. Obviously not always the case, but I do feel that videogame reviewers buy into hype in a way that film critics etc don't. (Fallout 4 another recent example).

 

For me, it'll be a big ask since I don't own an NX and probably won't be getting a WiiU. Drahkon's TLDR sums it up for me too - 'I can see the hype, but I don't understand the IMMENSE hype that it gets.'. I'm specifically worried about the slightly lightweight looking equipment stats etc, and as I've said before, the current absence of towns is a real alarm bell. Solitude across a massive realm worked for Shadow of the Colossus because it added gravitas to the massive beasts that were the spine of the game. Here it just makes the world look like it's missing something

 

The one thing I am loving is the verticality of the world. It was the best thing about Skyrim's world design and if you take that an combine it with Unchartered-esque rock climbing then I think it adds a lot to the sense of go-anywhere-do-anything.

 

But yeah.. calm down everyone it doesn't look particularly new or particularly amazing, even if we all hope it will be.

[Ashley]

I think it's more broadly an issue with videogame criticism - the way that game websites tend to give reviews to staff who are predisposed to like whatever the genre or franchise they're reviewing.

 

You'll be happy to know we pretty much have a first come first served system

 

(well, not always)

[Fierce_LiNk]

This is just it for me too. I find myself getting swept up in the hype but what was the last console Zelda I truely enjoyed? Wind Waker at a push. The default glowing reviews are really irritating.

 

I think it's more broadly an issue with videogame criticism - the way that game websites tend to give reviews to staff who are predisposed to like whatever the genre or franchise they're reviewing. Obviously not always the case, but I do feel that videogame reviewers buy into hype in a way that film critics etc don't. (Fallout 4 another recent example).

 

 

I just think that Nintendo in general get an easy ride with reviews because of their history. But yes, I agree, there definitely is room for improvement with how videogame reviews are organised and handed out.

 

The one thing I had a problem with in Skyward Sword was it's narrative and we've had absolutely nothing about that in the new one yet. The other thing is the connection of places and world building. Skyward Sword literally felt like it had a central hub, with three warp points to three unconnected lands. It's the most disjointed Zelda I've played and I didn't really have a great time maneuvering through the world. Again, we've not seen enough about the new one yet to judge that. The majority of the stuff we've seen looks fine, but it doesn't fix the issues I've had with previous games.

 

The final issue I have is with hardware. Now that I've got a machine that can take care of all of the third party stuff, it's going to be difficult now for Nintendo to persuade me to pay hundreds of pounds for a new machine that may not have a great range of games. Zelda is awesome, but is it £300-awesome?

[Happenstance]

I think it's more broadly an issue with videogame criticism - the way that game websites tend to give reviews to staff who are predisposed to like whatever the genre or franchise they're reviewing. Obviously not always the case, but I do feel that videogame reviewers buy into hype in a way that film critics etc don't. (Fallout 4 another recent example).

 

Did you see the stuff with Rooster Teeth getting all pathetic when Jeff Gerstmann gave Fallout 4 a 3/5 (for the console version, he gave the PC one a 4/5)?

 

EDIT: Here we go:

 

Edited June 27, 2016 by Happenstance

[drahkon]

People keep claiming that, but it hasn't. They've simply gone back to Zelda 1, that game pretty much had the same amount of freedom.

 

I think, with the technology currently available, even going back to Zelda 1 it is reinventing the series. There's a lot of stuff you couldn't do back in the day, which you now can. And with the previous 3D Zeldas being almost the same in every way I stand by saying that this is a reinvention.

 

But I do see your point. I don't want to agree, though, because to me that would mean taking a step back instead of moving forward.

 

They've only showed some early shrines and they did say the later ones are more difficult.

 

I hope so, but there's only so high they will go with the difficulty and as some people on here know I'm not one for easy games I need challenge

 

Freedom of choice?

 

Yeah, as I've said: Giving players a choice is great. And because I didn't know that the temperature played a role in that scene (I didn't pay close attention because of spoilers) - thanks to you and @kav82 for pointing out the cold climate - I found the approach (cutting down trees) weird.

Now I still think it's...odd? I feel restricted in my actions when certain aspects (in this case temperature) prevent me from going the easy way (no, it doesn't pose a challenge...it's simply a restriction). But that's just me.

 

I genuinely don't understand what people mean when they say this, what is it you want? From the footage it looked like there was plenty of stuff to do

 

Probably should've elaborated. What I meant was that there was a lot of empty space, in the sense that the foliage was very sparse. I'd like to see dense forests with deers running around, rocky mountains (heh), a maze of rivers, wildlife, etc. What I've seen so far were just plain fields with not much going on.

 

They've purposefully not given much away in regards to the story but have said that they removed the towns from the demo because interacting with NPCs would've given away the story. What you're best knowing is that ruin has befallen Hyrule and Link has "awoken" to save it from peril.

 

I know that they've kept the story secret, but Hyrule falling into ruin isn't that much different to what we've seen before...some evil force (whoever that might be....) wrecked shit...Link comes to save the day. And that he has awoken isn't something special - unless it turns into some Assassins Creed subplot

 

There are different styles of weapons too which each have their own move-sets and effects on you weidling them (heavy weapons and you'll not be as nimble).

 

Yup, but I'd still prefer a deeper combat system.

 

It's been rumoured to have main dungeons in addition to the 100+ "shrines", but I don't know if it's been confirmed yet.

 

Yeah, I don't doubt there will be dungeons. But I fear that they won't be as extensive as the "outside world" looks to be, which will cause a disconnection. Again, this is just personal preference.

 

I don't think it's a reinvention as such, more that it looks to be the Zelda I've always imagined!

 

See the first paragraph of this post.

 

But yeah.. calm down everyone it doesn't look particularly new or particularly amazing, even if we all hope it will be.

 

This is basically the crux of my posts...I don't want to destroy anybody's hype. Heck, I'm glad that Nintendo gets so much positive reactions.

But I do think this Zelda won't be revolutionary or new or inventive.

Edited June 27, 2016 by drahkon

[Ronnie]

Then there are the 100 shrines. I don't like the idea because from what I've seen the puzzles seem to be generic, easy and boring.

 

You've seen two shrines, out of one hundred, probably the two earliest ones in the game, that serve more as more of a tutorial on how to use the runes than anything else. I think criticism is a little unfair given the above. The fourth shrine they showed off was apparently quite cool and complex and had to do with stopping time or some such.

 

Can you not swim? If you can't, why not?

 

Probably to do with the temperature of the river but not being able to swim is nothing new in Zelda games. You couldn't do it in the original without a ladder or raft, and you needed the Zora scale in ALTTP. I'm sure you'll be able to freely swim eventually anyway, once you've crafted the appropriate potion or are wearing the right clothes, they just weren't available in the demo.

 

3D-Zelda combat has always been boring and it looks to me that it'll stay that way.

 

Sounds like you haven't seen much of the game then and the various ways you can fight enemies. The combat seems hugely expanded from recent Zelda games.

 

Probably should've elaborated. What I meant was that there was a lot of empty space, in the sense that the foliage was very sparse. I'd like to see dense forests with deers running around, rocky mountains (heh), a maze of rivers, wildlife, etc. What I've seen so far were just plain fields with not much going on.

 

You've seen a small portion of the Great Plateau, the starting area of the game, which itself is 1 tiny fraction of the whole map. Again, your criticism is a little unfair. "There are towns" according to Bill Trinen. The world looks vast and it's genuinely exciting to see what the rest will look like.

 

Yeah, I don't doubt there will be dungeons. But I fear that they won't be as extensive as the "outside world" looks to be,

 

What's your basis for that fear? If the rumour of four dungeons is proved correct, I expect them to be massive and grand is scope.

 

But I do think this Zelda won't be revolutionary or new or inventive.

 

Everyone who has played the demo had a totally different experience to the next person, they found dozens of crazy ways to interact with the land. And we've only seen 1% of the game, according to Aonuma. I'm not sure what you were expecting to see

Edited June 27, 2016 by Ronnie

[Rummy]

Four dungeons?? Just four dungeons?! The saddest thing about MM for me is that it only had four dungeons. I know there's the shrines but I'd hope that this is supposed to be geographically the biggest Zelda ever that there are more than four bloody dungeons. The amount of theme-ing they can do per dungeon is one of the things I love about going through Zelda and experiencing its dungeons that tend to reflect their environmental settings/theme. Having just four bloody dungeons is weak AF if true. Hope there's at least 7-10.

 

I know that they've kept the story secret, but Hyrule falling into ruin isn't that much different to what we've seen before...some evil force (whoever that might be....) wrecked shit...Link comes to save the day. And that he has awoken isn't something special - unless it turns into some Assassins Creed subplot

 

What if...Link isn't the Hero...

[drahkon]

What if...Link isn't the Hero...

 

Would love if there was a major plot twist like this.

Highly doubt Nintendo will aim for that...happy to be proven wrong, though

[drahkon]

The amount of theme-ing they can do per dungeon is one of the things I love about going through Zelda and experiencing its dungeons that tend to reflect their environmental settings/theme.

 

This is why I would love to see more than four and much bigger/expansive dungeons than we've seen in earlier games.

There's so much potential, it seems to be wasted with the small number of dungeons. Of course, we don't know whether the four will be great. The thing is: If they are great I'd want more.

[peterl0]

When playing Xenoblade X, there were quite a lot of caves and sub areas to explore that were not massive.

 

I actually quite liked that because it meant that a lot of the tasks could be completed quickly (relatively) and it felt like it was worth exploring more of the nooks and crannys. They rarely outstayed their welcome. Also it meant that each section of the game need not be a massive commitment of time.

 

So I quite like the shrine idea, especially if there is a genuinely useful reward in each of them.

[Ike]

If you can't offer anything sensible to the discussion, please don't post. Continued behaviour will result in a thread ban.

[Ronnie]

When playing Xenoblade X, there were quite a lot of caves and sub areas to explore that were not massive.

 

I actually quite liked that because it meant that a lot of the tasks could be completed quickly (relatively) and it felt like it was worth exploring more of the nooks and crannys. They rarely outstayed their welcome. Also it meant that each section of the game need not be a massive commitment of time.

 

So I quite like the shrine idea, especially if there is a genuinely useful reward in each of them.

 

Yeah I love the Shrine idea too, the ones we saw looked cool and the promise of another 96 of them is great. They're a clear step up from the dozen or so 60 second shrines in Tomb Raider.

[Eddage]

Yeah I love the Shrine idea too, the ones we saw looked cool and the promise of another 96 of them is great. They're a clear step up from the dozen or so 60 second shrines in Tomb Raider.

 

To be fair non of the Tomb Raider tombs are 60 seconds long, even if you know exactly what to do I doubt any of them can be completed that quickly.

 

It's ridiculous exaggerations like this that get on people's nerves.

[Ronnie]

To be fair non of the Tomb Raider tombs are 60 seconds long, even if you know exactly what to do I doubt any of them can be completed that quickly.

 

It's ridiculous exaggerations like this that get on people's nerves.

 

But saying that this game is "just another openworld game" is fine?

 

I apologise for the exaggeration, I should have said they were 160 seconds long, basically one puzzle rooms. Coming from Zelda I was more than a little disappointed.

[Ike]

Can you not have a discussion without insulting something to try and make a point?

[Eddage]

But saying that this game is "just another openworld game" is fine?

 

I apologise for the exaggeration, I should have said they were 160 seconds long, basically one puzzle rooms. Coming from Zelda I was more than a little disappointed.

 

At the moment I think it is okay for some people to say "just another open world game", because we know so little about it. Yes what we have seen looks fantastic but until we know more about the number of villages/towns, NPC's, sidquests, story, etc it's very hard to say anything more.

 

Obviously this is a Zelda game so it has that going for it, however many people feel that it's been a long time since Zelda was at the pinnacle of gaming and would argue that Twilight Princess and Skyward Sword were disappointing games (especially Skyward Sword in my case). So for them just the fact that it's Zelda doesn't mean much.

 

Also, as others have mentioned, one of the best parts of Zelda is the dungeons. We have been told there are four main ones. Obviously we don't know how big and intricate they are but this does seem like a low number when compared with the likes of Ocarina of Time.

 

So, while the demo looked great and helped to show the interactivity with the over world really well, until we know more people have every right to be cautious and not to get their hopes up too high.

[drahkon]

Just remembered something:

 

Weapon/armor stats and durability. I'm not sure whether these will benefit Breath of the Wild.

 

Let me use the word "disconnection" again. For a game that looks to be a lot about exploration I think inventory management will disrup the experience.

 

Example: I'm exploring the wilds. Enemies attack, my equipment breaks during the fight.

So before I get back to exploring I would have to open the (quick)menu , choose new equipment, equip it (duh) and only then can I go back to searching the area.

I could not choose to equip new stuff, but then I might have a disadvantage in the next fight.

 

Then there is cooking, which apparently is the only way to replenish health (correct me if I'm wrong).

Collecting hearts midfight has always been great. Your health runs low, you switch up your tactics, try to single out enemies to make them drop hearts.

 

What do you do now? Can you eat during a fight? If so, do you have to always cook something between fights - which again makes you stop exploring.

 

I don't know much about the mechanics so I could be wrong with my assumptions.

 

Each of those activites might only cost me 30 seconds, but I'm pretty sure if added together they will take up a considerable amount of time...and that just doesn't fit with Zelda.

[Ashley]

I'm pretty sure there's food you can pick up and eat then and there so I guess cooking is for greater replenishment.

[drahkon]

I'm pretty sure there's food you can pick up and eat then and there so I guess cooking is for greater replenishment.

 

I see.

Having more heart containers will most likey put the focus on cooking, then.

[Rummy]

This is why I would love to see more than four and much bigger/expansive dungeons than we've seen in earlier games.

There's so much potential, it seems to be wasted with the small number of dungeons. Of course, we don't know whether the four will be great. The thing is: If they are great I'd want more.

 

Tbh since E3 I only have what others say to go on - so hopefully it isn't true but doesn't fill me with inspiration if it's a rumour with basis. We've also only seen a small portion of the game so not a lot of environments and hopefully there'll be fresh and new ones too - but as I said some really solidly themed dungeons would be fantastic. I can think in my head of OoT and the Forest Temple/Music with its strange melancholy jollyness and that echoing choir-like melody(used to be one of my least appreciated dungeons too) plus its general setting just makes it feel like....I dunno. Just....the emotion of it. When I think of stuff with Zelda I just feel things, that I can't always put into words, and that's what I'd like from this. Themed dungeons can be such a crafted atmosphere to achieve that!

 

Also to go back to MM(as it's a fairly fair comparison to OoT) - some of the dungeon mystery was lost by each one's treasure being a new arrow. I can see why and it worked in the game, but OoT(admittedly fresher, as MM drew heavily on it) felt like a real exploration as you didn't know what you were actually gonna get! TP recaptured this(NO TAKE MIRROR!), but sadly the post-dungeon usage of items was then limited - something I really hope WON'T be the case in this game given its openness.

 

Also don't get me wrong, it's not that I'm against the shrines - I just feel I don't know how much atmosphere etc each will offer compared to a real, proper, full-fledged dungeon where there's possibility to build the whole thing around its area, as I felt was done with OoT and MM's. Having exploration areas is cool - OoT+MM offered this in some ways with random holes etc, LttP had caves etc, I really really like all of that and I think shrines may well capture that - just as long as there's enough variety to go with it all.

[Kav]

@drahkon, it's been said that potions will be in the game too.

[drahkon]

Also don't get me wrong, it's not that I'm against the shrines - I just feel I don't know how much atmosphere etc each will offer compared to a real, proper, full-fledged dungeon where there's possibility to build the whole thing around its area, as I felt was done with OoT and MM's.

 

Agree. Shrines probably won't have that much "personality". I mean...it's basically what you've seen in other games: Find a point of interest (in that case a shrine), complete it, done.

 

It's not a bad thing, but I'd really like to see more than four dungeons and in turn less than 100 shrines.

 

@drahkon, it's been said that potions will be in the game too.

 

That doesn't alleviate my biggest worry. Especially since you probably won't be able to carry a lot.

 

I still think that cooking and equipment durability won't do the game any good. But I am happy to be proven wrong.

 

At the moment I think it is okay for some people to say "just another open world game", because we know so little about it.

 

Perfectly put. And what little we know is that this Zelda borrows heavily from the other games, which - let me make this clear - is not a bad thing.

[Shorty]

Is it really necessary for this Zelda discussion to be out of the main Zelda thread? I don't want to read about that game.