drahkon Posted July 11, 2016 Posted July 11, 2016 (edited) 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
Rummy Posted July 12, 2016 Posted July 12, 2016 I think Zelda's always followed that safe formula to make it 'easier' for the player so they don't get too stuck/tripped up on Boss Battles, and usually the items have then added further open world advantage that leads to progression. I've personally, generally, always found the approach quite satisfying and rewarding when the world is riddled with uses for my items. Boss battles for me, though, have mostly just been a thing that needed to be done to finish off a dungeon, which I'd have found generally more interesting(again it's using the items though, as you say, and some in combination but not always a lot). MM did things slightly differently in essentially giving you move/mechanic variance for bosses via the characters rather than items, but still it's almost the same coin. However despite all this I can absolutely take on board what you're saying - and I think if ever there's a game for it to be realised it's a game like BotW. Being open-world with lots of optionals, it's the perfect setting to put in bosses that require a bit more thought or combination of item use to tackle. It'd be nice if we saw it, but I don't hold out the hopes on it right now. (Caveat: I've not played Furi yet for full context, maybe will later this evening)
Rummy Posted July 12, 2016 Posted July 12, 2016 I think Zelda's always followed that safe formula to make it 'easier' for the player so they don't get too stuck/tripped up on Boss Battles, and usually the items have then added further open world advantage that leads to progression. I've personally, generally, always found the approach quite satisfying and rewarding when the world is riddled with uses for my items. Boss battles for me, though, have mostly just been a thing that needed to be done to finish off a dungeon, which I'd have found generally more interesting(again it's using the items though, as you say, and some in combination but not always a lot). MM did things slightly differently in essentially giving you move/mechanic variance for bosses via the characters rather than items, but still it's almost the same coin. However despite all this I can absolutely take on board what you're saying - and I think if ever there's a game for it to be realised it's a game like BotW. Being open-world with lots of optionals, it's the perfect setting to put in bosses that require a bit more thought or combination of item use to tackle. It'd be nice if we saw it, but I don't hold out the hopes on it right now. (Caveat: I've not played Furi yet for full context, maybe will later this evening)
drahkon Posted July 13, 2016 Posted July 13, 2016 I went grocery shopping just now and trying out Pokémon Go! It's good fun A bit buggy and my phone might be too slow to handle it properly but the appeal is there. Now what did the first 20 minutes do to my current indifference to the main Pokémon series? Nothing. Pokémon Go! just plays with my nostalgia for the first Gen and it does a good job. It doesn't, however, make me excited for Sun/Moon. Just like Zelda gets its "reinvention" (via returning to its core roots) I think Pokémon needs one, too. And there is soooooo much potential. There were lots of discussions about a console entry and I think Pokémon Go! could give some inspiration for it. I can imagine a huge world were you wander around (not AR, this is the hypothetical console game) and Pokémon are flying, running, gathering in groups, swimming, diving, fighting each other, etc. and I enter the fray, throw my Pokéball and let my Pikachu fight a Seel so I can catch it. This experience combined with everything the main series has to offer (battles, gyms, stats, towns, caves, etc etc) in a big 3D world...that's the dream. Online optional, but preferred. When I think of Nintendo in recent years it always comes down to "wasted potential". I find this really sad. They have so many great IPs... Hopefully Pokémon Go!'s success (their first big adventure with mobile gaming) and the reception BotW has gotten will spark a fire within the company and bring back greatness.
drahkon Posted July 13, 2016 Posted July 13, 2016 I went grocery shopping just now and trying out Pokémon Go! It's good fun A bit buggy and my phone might be too slow to handle it properly but the appeal is there. Now what did the first 20 minutes do to my current indifference to the main Pokémon series? Nothing. Pokémon Go! just plays with my nostalgia for the first Gen and it does a good job. It doesn't, however, make me excited for Sun/Moon. Just like Zelda gets its "reinvention" (via returning to its core roots) I think Pokémon needs one, too. And there is soooooo much potential. There were lots of discussions about a console entry and I think Pokémon Go! could give some inspiration for it. I can imagine a huge world were you wander around (not AR, this is the hypothetical console game) and Pokémon are flying, running, gathering in groups, swimming, diving, fighting each other, etc. and I enter the fray, throw my Pokéball and let my Pikachu fight a Seel so I can catch it. This experience combined with everything the main series has to offer (battles, gyms, stats, towns, caves, etc etc) in a big 3D world...that's the dream. Online optional, but preferred. When I think of Nintendo in recent years it always comes down to "wasted potential". I find this really sad. They have so many great IPs... Hopefully Pokémon Go!'s success (their first big adventure with mobile gaming) and the reception BotW has gotten will spark a fire within the company and bring back greatness.
Happenstance Posted July 13, 2016 Posted July 13, 2016 This is the problem I tend to have with Pokemon. Im always chasing that original great memory of playing Pokemon Blue when it first came out but no Pokemon game since has really managed to keep my interest. The games are just way too similar that if I dont have the hook of wanting to get the next load of new Pokemon (which just seem to have lazier and lazier names/designs) then it doesnt feel like there is a point in playing. I would love to be able to play a massive home console RPG for Pokemon. As many people have said many times, Ni No Kuni would be the perfect game to look to for inspiration.
Happenstance Posted July 13, 2016 Posted July 13, 2016 This is the problem I tend to have with Pokemon. Im always chasing that original great memory of playing Pokemon Blue when it first came out but no Pokemon game since has really managed to keep my interest. The games are just way too similar that if I dont have the hook of wanting to get the next load of new Pokemon (which just seem to have lazier and lazier names/designs) then it doesnt feel like there is a point in playing. I would love to be able to play a massive home console RPG for Pokemon. As many people have said many times, Ni No Kuni would be the perfect game to look to for inspiration.
Shorty Posted July 18, 2016 Posted July 18, 2016 I don't think Pokemon Go needs to raise your excitement for Sun/Moon. It's probably made more money and put the Nintendo and Pokemon names back in more minds and more homes and more parents' wallets than any instalment in the main series has since Red/Blue. It put Nintendo's market value up nearly $8bn, in the first week. It is the single most talked about video game I have experienced in my life, which I have spent every conscious moment of as a gamer. Everyone in my office has tried it. I can spot people playing it every single time I go outside. The initial buzz will die of soon but... It has already succeeded.
drahkon Posted July 18, 2016 Posted July 18, 2016 I don't think Pokemon Go needs to raise your excitement for Sun/Moon. I know, I just thought it could. It is the single most talked about video game I have experienced in my life Yeah, it's incredible. That's the power of Pokémon and mobile gaming combined. Candy Crush has been a huge game over here for months after it first came out. Not sure if Pokémon Go! can last that long, though.
Rummy Posted July 20, 2016 Posted July 20, 2016 This is the problem I tend to have with Pokemon. Im always chasing that original great memory of playing Pokemon Blue when it first came out but no Pokemon game since has really managed to keep my interest. The games are just way too similar that if I dont have the hook of wanting to get the next load of new Pokemon (which just seem to have lazier and lazier names/designs) then it doesnt feel like there is a point in playing. I would love to be able to play a massive home console RPG for Pokemon. As many people have said many times, Ni No Kuni would be the perfect game to look to for inspiration. I'd be interested in a home console pokemon either way, especially with handheld interaction somehow(even if it's just Pokewalker-esque); maybe utilising mobile devices for variety. What I'd especially like though - if you didn't necessarily have to be a trainer. What about a snapper, or a breeder, or...well, I don't know what other opportunities there might be(pokemarter?) - with maybe some almost MMO/persistant/large-world aspect to it.
drahkon Posted July 20, 2016 Posted July 20, 2016 What about a snapper, or a breeder, or... ...a butcher.
Rummy Posted July 20, 2016 Posted July 20, 2016 So we want Pokemon Fantasy Life. Well not quite as basic - but imagine a proper sort of 3D world Pokemon on console. Only - why do you have to be catching them? Admittedly I was thinking mostly along lines of Trainer or Snapper, but surely there's other options? Maybe you're a Gym leader variant of a trainer so you have to get very specific pokemon to fit your gym criteria? As I said maybe you're a pokemarter and somehow there's an aspect of getting stuff to sell, maybe competing with others on prices/stock, turning it all to something I dunno. Maybe you're running poke centres or something else. I haven't given it the grandest of thought nor am I fully versed in the series at all, but I think Pokemon's such a rich world and there could be lots to try and attempt. Speculative thought really, not actual realistic hopes.
Happenstance Posted July 20, 2016 Posted July 20, 2016 I think a Pokemon RPG where all the actual Pokemon stuff is almost the backdrop would be kind of cool. You'd be in the world and doing all your usual RPG stuff and occasionally you'd keep seeing this kid who's mother has just thrown him out into the world while she has affair after affair. Your stories and travels would mirror each others so at the end while you fight the evil and save the world, the kid beats the elite four and gets all the fame, fortune and women while you come home with half your ear missing, a gammy leg and an unpaid mortgage.
Nolan Posted July 20, 2016 Posted July 20, 2016 I think a Pokemon RPG where all the actual Pokemon stuff is almost the backdrop would be kind of cool. You'd be in the world and doing all your usual RPG stuff and occasionally you'd keep seeing this kid who's mother has just thrown him out into the world while she has affair after affair. Your stories and travels would mirror each others so at the end while you fight the evil and save the world, the kid beats the elite four and gets all the fame, fortune and women while you come home with half your ear missing, a gammy leg and an unpaid mortgage. And you're that kids new dad.
drahkon Posted July 27, 2016 Posted July 27, 2016 (edited) I was talking with one of my best friends about Pokémon Go's success. He said: "This might be an indication for how successful Nintendo could be as a 3rd party developer. If they released a Mario/Zelda/whatever IP-game on Xbox/PS4/PC it would become one of the most selling game in history." I think I agree with that (yes, we both know Nintendo didn't develop Pokémon go). And depending on how the NX will turn out it might be a reasonable choice for Nintendo to go 3rd party. Think about it...60 million XboxOne + PS4 players. Let's say Nintendo would release a Super Mario Galaxy 1+2 HD collection...I dare to say it would sell 30 million copies in a month. But maybe it's just a typical "easy to say"-situation...who knows. We'll probably never know (sadly). Edited July 27, 2016 by drahkon
bob Posted July 27, 2016 Posted July 27, 2016 Why they don't just make a console as powerful as PS4 that can play all the multiplatform games as well as their exclusives.
dazzybee Posted July 27, 2016 Posted July 27, 2016 I really don't think it works like that @drahkon It might. But I really don't think so. Do you think SplatoOn would sell as much as it did on those devices? WOuld Pokken outsell Street Fighter 5 if it was on the PS4? I'am not convinced. In broad terms, in the same way Nintendo gamers don't buy COD and Assassins Creeds, I don't think PS4/XB1 would really play those types of games. Having a 'home' is what creates audiences and those audiences buy into that, Nintendo has a (too) small version of this, can't you remember the fuss when Rayman went multi platform? I bet loads of Nintendo gamers didn't buy the game? Then things like De Blob 1 selling so well and De Blob 2 went multi and didn't.... Gamers can be terretorial.
drahkon Posted July 27, 2016 Posted July 27, 2016 I was talking about big IPs like Mario, Zelda, Metroid. IPs that with their name alone can create a fuzz that can't be rivaled. Games like Splatoon and Pokken obviously don't stand a change against competitors but the big Nintendo IPs could sell so much. If 20% of the 40 million PS4 userbase (i.e. 8 million gamers) would buy a Mario game it would sell as much as Super Mario 3D World and Super Mario Maker combined. And I'm pretty sure there are at least 20% of the PS4's userbase who'd love to play a Mario game without buying another console. The problem with Nintendo's home console is the userbase. If the Wii U had sold much more, software sales would've been so much higher obviously. I doubt that the NX can create a userbase comparable to that of the PS4 in the near future which will result in relatively low software sales.
Fierce_LiNk Posted July 27, 2016 Posted July 27, 2016 Then things like De Blob 1 selling so well and De Blob 2 went multi and didn't.... Gamers can be terretorial. I think there's a bit more to it than it selling poorly purely because it's multiplatform. The first game had a cult following (I loved it) but the sequel came out much later into the generation in 2011. By then, it had too much competition and the fans who loved the first game simply moved onto something else. I definitely had my fill from the original and only picked up the game second hand years later. The first game was unique, was released at the right time when the Wii was providing new experiences and was early into a generation without too much worry from competition.
dazzybee Posted July 27, 2016 Posted July 27, 2016 I was talking about big IPs like Mario, Zelda, Metroid. IPs that with their name alone can create a fuzz that can't be rivaled.Games like Splatoon and Pokken obviously don't stand a change against competitors but the big Nintendo IPs could sell so much. If 20% of the 40 million PS4 userbase (i.e. 8 million gamers) would buy a Mario game it would sell as much as Super Mario 3D World and Super Mario Maker combined. And I'm pretty sure there are at least 20% of the PS4's userbase who'd love to play a Mario game without buying another console. The problem with Nintendo's home console is the userbase. If the Wii U had sold much more, software sales would've been so much higher obviously. I doubt that the NX can create a userbase comparable to that of the PS4 in the near future which will result in relatively low software sales. So you think a Mario game would sell better than pretty much every game on the ps4? If people loved Mario games THAT much then surely they'd buy a Nintendo console? I really don't think a Mario game would sell 8m copies on ps4. But we'll never know so both of us could be right/wrong. I still think though that nintendo's little ecosystem caters for their audience and they get solid game sales because of it - 'maybe' they'd sell more Zelda/Mario if 3rd parties, but would Yoshi, Donkey Kong, SplatoOn, Mario Maker, Smash etc all those games which have done really well sell as many? Maybe all added up, them keeping and trying to grow their little space is way better for them. I think there's a bit more to it than it selling poorly purely because it's multiplatform. The first game had a cult following (I loved it) but the sequel came out much later into the generation in 2011. By then, it had too much competition and the fans who loved the first game simply moved onto something else. I definitely had my fill from the original and only picked up the game second hand years later. The first game was unique, was released at the right time when the Wii was providing new experiences and was early into a generation without too much worry from competition. Yeah, maybe, probably. But still think it would've sold more as a Wii exclusive. I think certain games do better when affiliated with a console. Look at Shovel Knights sales, mutant mud and such like. Steam world Dig.
drahkon Posted July 27, 2016 Posted July 27, 2016 So you think a Mario game would sell better than pretty much every game on the ps4? If people loved Mario games THAT much then surely they'd buy a Nintendo console? Yes, I do and no they wouldn't. If people had the choice between paying 60€ for a Nintendo game on a PS4 or forking out another 200-300€ for a Nintendo console to play a Nintendo game...well, you get my point.
Ashley Posted July 27, 2016 Posted July 27, 2016 Out of interest, how many do you think would buy it if it was also available on PS4 as opposed to only available on PS4?
drahkon Posted July 27, 2016 Posted July 27, 2016 Out of interest, how many do you think would buy it if it was also available on PS4 as opposed to only available on PS4? Depends on what system we're talking about (i.e. Wii U or NX). If Nintendo released, let's say Super Mario 3D World on the PS4/Xbox One tomorrow I'd say the sales would be incredibly high. Most likely surpassing its sales on the Wii U eventually. I'd reckon somewhere between 10-20% of the userbase (Microsoft's and Sony's combined) is not too far-fetched. With games coming out on the NX it is an entirely different thing. Nobody knows what impact the NX will have so I can't make an assumption.
Recommended Posts