The 'Other' Wii U Thread

[drahkon]

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.

 

I tried to avoid Ronnie's responses so I decided to put my thoughts here. Sorry if that caused you to be exposed to spoilers.

 

Since Ronnie entered the discussion the previous posts could very well be moved to the Zelda thread.

 

I will most likely be out of the discussion then, because I fear that my opinions will become read by others who won't enter this thread and I don't want to deal with everything I say being taken apart or passive agressive provocations just to ridicule me for my past mistakes.

[Hero-of-Time]

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.

 

I guess @drahkon felt it was safer to talk about the game in this thread, without having people getting on his case. Like myself, he doesn't think much of what he has seen of the game and probably figured it would be best to have a conversation on the side of the forum with people who maybe think the same as him. I done the same thing when wanting to talk about Star Fox Zero. Granted, the situation isn't ideal ( essentially splitting the forum in two ) but I guess it is what it is.

 

EDIT: Never mind, drahkon has already responded.

[drahkon]

Like myself, he doesn't think much of what he has seen of the game and probably figured it would be best to have a conversation on the side of the forum with people who maybe think the same as him.

 

That's not realy it. I just wanted to have a friendly discussion and a lot of people here made this possible.

But we all know two posts were intentionally put here to ruin that atmosphere. I really had hoped this wouldn't happen.

 

In the future I will probably resort to PMs with certain people who challenge my views in a productive and friendly way so I can discuss things and even be criticised/corrected without being annoyed.

 

Edit: And I'm sorry for talking about these things yet again, but it's really not great for the forum if some people have to think about how to phrase opinions or - which is even worse - just decide not to say anything at all.

[bob]

The length of the dungeons in Zelda always put me off. I'd rather have 50 minidungeons than 10 huge ones.

 

I can maybe fit in 1 hour of gaming at a time, and it always annoyed me that I got sent back to the dungeon entrance each time in previous Zeldas. It's nice to pop on, do a couple of tasks, and pop off.

[Ashley]

For what it's worth Ronnie has a thread ban for now.

[Shorty]

Feel free to keep discussing Zelda here then, I'll just stay out of the thread myself

[drahkon]

The length of the dungeons in Zelda always put me off. I'd rather have 50 minidungeons than 10 huge ones.

 

I can maybe fit in 1 hour of gaming at a time, and it always annoyed me that I got sent back to the dungeon entrance each time in previous Zeldas. It's nice to pop on, do a couple of tasks, and pop off.

 

I can see your point. But I don't care what you want. :p

 

In the end it all comes down to personal preference, of course. However, I would argue that having maybe 8 huge dungeons will benefit the game more than having 100 shrines and only 4 dungeons. It would make the game stay closer to the Zelda-formula.

[Kav]

There's been nothing from Nintendo themselves in regards to any number of main dungeons as far as I'm aware. At the mo it's all conjecture I think.

[Rummy]

The length of the dungeons in Zelda always put me off. I'd rather have 50 minidungeons than 10 huge ones.

 

I can maybe fit in 1 hour of gaming at a time, and it always annoyed me that I got sent back to the dungeon entrance each time in previous Zeldas. It's nice to pop on, do a couple of tasks, and pop off.

 

That is a fair point actually, as I ask for more dungeons I do kind of think of them in terms of length of previous dungeons. The ones in SS and TP I didn't find overly long, but I may have saved myself specifically for them and Ninty have generally been going at giving you 'return points' of sorts.

 

I wouldn't mind a larger than usual dungeon if that's got that aspect of a return point - but then as well my most recent Zelda experiences have probably been OoT and MM on 3DS where you could essentially do exactly what you say - pop on and off pretty easily without any major interrupts!

 

Another option is, though I know it annoyed some, something similar to what PH did with its main time temple and returnablility of sorts - what if they made almost multi-layered/multi-tiered dungeons that you can do a bit of here and there but will essentially have to come back to one or twice later to fully finish off/complete. Quite metroid-esque, though. In my mind Prime's springing in as I think about it.

[Happenstance]

I think I would probably be ok with less dungeons. I've never actually managed to complete a 3D Zelda before so maybe having less dungeons to work through would benefit me.

[drahkon]

There's been nothing from Nintendo themselves in regards to any number of main dungeons as far as I'm aware. At the mo it's all conjecture I think.

 

I thought I remembered a couple of quotes from the Zelda thread say there will be only 4...maybe I got that wrong. Sorry if that's the case.

 

Another option is, though I know it annoyed some, something similar to what PH did with its main time temple and returnablility of sorts - what if they made almost multi-layered/multi-tiered dungeons that you can do a bit of here and there but will essentially have to come back to one or twice later to fully finish off/complete.

 

This is an idea that came to me yesterday. If dungeons will be huge to keep it close to the immense world, multi-layered and maybe even connected dungeons would be awesome.

[Ike]

Four dungeons?? Just four dungeons?! The saddest thing about MM for me is that it only had four dungeons

 

I think they got the balance right for MM, do you really want to go through 7 - 10 dungeons while on a time limit?

[Happenstance]

Thinking about it. With it being an open world I'd be interested in just having massive dungeons that are accessible in multiple locations from the open world, something that could even change the way you would have to work to complete those dungeons depending on where you entered or what you entered with. It would probably add to a sense of scale as well, running around in the open world knowing this sprawling dungeon is under your feet.

[Eddage]

The four main dungeons thing came from a rumour that there would be "4 main dungeons and 100 mini dungeons". The 100 mini dungeons (shrines) part was accurate so people are presuming the four main dungeons to be true as well.

 

There is no official confirmation though.

[drahkon]

knowing this sprawling dungeon is under your feet.

 

This is what I love about the Elder Scrolls games. While certain limitations have put the "dungeons" in a separate instance from the overworld I loved seeing an entrance to a cave knowing there'd be lots of treasures, enemies and secrets to be discovered.

 

Something like this + the typical mechanics from Zelda dungeons would be awesome.

[bob]

I can see your point. But I don't care what you want. :p

 

In the end it all comes down to personal preference, of course. However, I would argue that having maybe 8 huge dungeons will benefit the game more than having 100 shrines and only 4 dungeons. It would make the game stay closer to the Zelda-formula.

Yeah I agree large dungeons are more 'Zelda', which is why I've never enjoyed a Zelda game very much.

 

But if the mini ones is true, perhaps it would sway my to trying this one.

[Kav]

Looks nice but it doesn't stack up to a few games both out already and also shown at this E3.

 

We need to see more gameplay because so far it's underwhelming.

 

This was my initial reaction after the trailer and first Treehouse section at E3.

 

Which was then followed by this:

 

The more I watch the more the game delivers! Why oh why did I worry?!

 

I'm so loving this!!!

 

Then this:

 

I've been watching tonnes of YouTube videos of people doing all sorts of amazing stuff. The game is blowing my mind!

 

I'd kill for Nintendo to release the demo that was at E3.

 

 

Given how I was underwhelmed after the first showing but have come to be piss-myself-excited for the game after more, I don't think you need worry all too much.

Edited June 28, 2016 by Kav

[Rummy]

I think they got the balance right for MM, do you really want to go through 7 - 10 dungeons while on a time limit?

 

But each was its own time limit, of sorts - is there even a 'time limit' in this? Though then I wonder...what if you can only access certain ones on certain times or during certain weather conditions? That'd be another interesting thing.

 

OoT had 8ish+ and I had no issues with that. A couple even had a 'shortcut' aspect to them iirc so that you could come back to it later and skip having to repeat too much of what you'd already done(a common Zelda feature these days, though still some work required) - I don't think I've found myself minding it too much tbh.

 

Maybe we'll still see something else though, even less conventional but equally interesting. I do find myself looking forward to the game just to see what it holds as whole experience.

[dan-likes-trees]

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:

 

 

Haha amazing. Don't know a load about Jeff but from what I do know he has a lot of integrity - (back on topic), I remember everyone kicking off when he gave Twighlight Princess an 8.8 for Gamespot way back in the day. Looking at the metacritic reviews list for that is completely laughable in hindsight. You'd hope that criticism becomes less bias or hype as the industry matures, but that doesn't really seem to be the case..

 

--

 

Anyway yeah. Think I agree with doc Bob about the dungeon size thing. Prefer more not-totally-massive ones with some excitement about finding them in the first place.

[Falcon_BlizZACK]

Its hard to understand the general pessimism for the new Zelda - I and many people here hated SS and what Nintendo have showed looks to be the complete opposite to it. Give them a chance ay?

 

Its a bit of a dilemma also when people want to see villages and NPCs and mini-games, yet ironically don't want to be spoiled.

[Fierce_LiNk]

Its hard to understand the general pessimism for the new Zelda - I and many people here hated SS and what Nintendo have showed looks to be the complete opposite to it. Give them a chance ay?

 

Its a bit of a dilemma also when people want to see villages and NPCs and mini-games, yet ironically don't want to be spoiled.

 

It's possibly/probably down to a lack of confidence that many have with Nintendo in general.

 

I don't want to see every detail of the game spoiled, but I definitely would like some sort of indication of what type of story to expect and the types of places we can see within the game. I don't think it's that unreasonable. We've seen tons of footage/previews/teasers for FFXV without being overly spoiled.

[Hero-of-Time]

Its hard to understand the general pessimism for the new Zelda - I and many people here hated SS and what Nintendo have showed looks to be the complete opposite to it. Give them a chance ay?

 

Its a bit of a dilemma also when people want to see villages and NPCs and mini-games, yet ironically don't want to be spoiled.

 

I don't want spoiled on anything but I also want to be excited for the game. I only watched the trailer and the first 20 mins of the Treehouse stuff and both didn't really do anything for me.

 

People keep saying that I should watch this or watch that but that shouldn't be the case. I shouldn't have to sit through hours upon hours of footage to get excited about Zelda. A trailer or a 10 min demo should be enough to sell me on the game.

 

Take the first gameplay trailer from The Witcher 3.

 

 

It shows busy towns and villages, fighting mechanics, different locations, gives just enough hints about the story and has an epic score playing.

 

A more recent example is the God of War reveal at this years E3. While not a trailer, this is a 10 min demo that really sells the game.

 

 

It shows gameplay, new mechanics for the series, a new world to explore, a new compassionate Kratos and hints of what the world and game will offer.

 

I think my issue has less to do with Zelda and more to do with the way Nintendo present their games at E3. I was a fan of the Treehouse presentations at first but every year since the first one I have become less and less interested. They are far too bloated and I much prefer to get a snappy trailer/gameplay demo and then leave it at that.

 

Another thing that bothers me is the snippets i've heard about how the story will be presented. I'm not a fan of a story being so open in the sense that I may miss something or bits and bobs may be told via collectables scattered across the world. I hate stuff like that and it's one of the reasons why the Metroid Prime series doesn't resonate with me. I much prefer the Kojima approach of sitting watching cutscenes for hours on end.

[Kav]

I agree that Nintendo don't showcase/present their games very well... but I much prefer the Metroid Prime way of storytelling to numerate cutscenes!

 

Whilst I've been playing The Witcher I've been reading the subtitles and skipping the voice-acting as its too long-winded and drawn out for me... plus Geralt's voice annoys the hell out of me!

[Eddage]

I agree that Nintendo don't showcase/present their games very well... but I much prefer the Metroid Prime way of storytelling to numerate cutscenes!

 

Whilst I've been playing The Witcher I've been reading the subtitles and skipping the voice-acting as its too long-winded and drawn out for me... plus Geralt's voice annoys the hell out of me!

 

 

[drahkon]

I was thinking about bosses and combat in recent 3D Zelda games.

 

They basically have one formula for bosses: You get an item in a dungeon, you use that item on a big weak spot GIANT ENEMY CRAB and then slash with your sword (mostly 3 times). It's boring.

 

Playing Furi I've come to experience how awesome and more importantly varied combat can be with only a limited set of moves. Let me break it down for those who haven't played the game:

 

Move list

• Melee - either a combo or a charged slash (charge, then release and you launch at the enemy)
  
• Long range - automatic pistol; can be charged (a hit will knock the enemy down, interrupting him)
  
• Block - or rather Parry; time it right and you can deflect certain bullets and parry incoming melee attacks, the latter refills your health a bit
  
• Dodge - press to quickly dodge a short distance into any direction; hold to charge and cover more space
  
• Charge - you can charge your melee weapon to make the next hit deal more damage (only usable in a specific situation)
  

You only have a sword and that automatic pistol, no other equipment available.

 

The fights

 

There are several bosses in Furi. They all (except one optional boss) follow a similar formula:

2 Phases. One which can be either dealt with via close or ranged combat. The second phase (which you enter when dealing enough damage) is only close combat. (there are some exceptions to that formula but I don't want to spoil things).

These phases repeat for a couple of times and they increase in difficulty because bosses add or improve moves.

Then there is one final phase which almost always has you show off your greatest evation skills before landing the final hit.

 

Sounds repetitive? I thought so, too, at first but I was very wrong.

 

The enemy movesets and behaviour are what makes fights so varied. You need to adjust from phase to phase, what you may have perfected in the first phase might become almost useless in the next.

 

Example boss (spoilers, obviously):

 

This one is a sniper. You need to chase her and try to "catch" her, i.e. make her stop running away. Once you figured that out you move into the real battle.

 

What you always have to keep in mind: Her charged sniper shot will destroy one whole life bar!

 

Her movelist is (among others) comprised of: charged shot, melee attacks, stealth, summoning robots that shoot at you, building up walls (sometimes imprisoning you), shock waves, moving areas that hurt you...

 

In each phase she uses them differently, be it in a different pattern or stronger and faster versions...

 

 

It's a bit difficult to explain but if you aren't afraid of spoilers you can watch some gameplay over at YouTube. Here's a video I made, if you're interested.

 

What I'm getting at: There is a way to create lots of varied boss fights with only a limited amount of moves.

 

With the abundance of items in Zelda it should be easy to create something even more varied, but in these games variation only comes from the different items.

E.g. you get bombs. Throw bombs at a specific time on the boss (so that he might eat them, for example). Then slash away with the sword.

Or bow and arrows. You shoot a big glowy weak spot with the arrow and then it's time for your sword.

 

I know there are bosses that have a little more to them but what has stuck with me in the end is that one formula.

 

The combat outside of boss fights in my opinion is incredibly boring and easy. You may have different items at your disposable which could change up the fights but most of the time your shield and sword suffice.

I don't want to imply that every fight in Zelda should be like in Furi but as I've mentioned: Limited movesets can make diverse combat situations. To achieve that there has to be a large amount of different enemies and not just reskinned versions with one added move or more HP.

 

 

What I want from the Breath of the Wild's combat: Enemies that require thought, reflexes (not insanely difficult to pull of but challenging) and timing.

 

And what I want from bosses: A huge array of moves (both for them and for you), the possibility to beat some without the use of any recently acquired item. Some should require usage of several items.

 

I don't think that different weapon types will make the combat more interesting or varied. If anything I will probably resort to the one weapon that won't break after some fights (most likely a sword).

 

 

I realise now that it all comes down to how much potential there is for combat in Zelda games, but it's been wasted on that one forumla (how many times did I use this now?). Breath of the Wild looks to change up some things but I fear that battles might stick to what we know. For some this is ok and I accept that. For me this will most likely make me enjoy the game much less.

 

Edit: Reading through that post again it may not make any sense. It might sound like Furi does the same as Zelda and sticks to one formula that doesn't really change...but I can't explain it properly so I hope at least a little of what I want to say brings my point accross.

Edited July 11, 2016 by drahkon