The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild Wii U / Switch

[Retro_Link]

Zelda worlds are like giant constructed puzzles. Much like Metroid, the environment is designed to be interacted with both directly (hookshot onto certain points, cut down vines, climb up cliff faces, blow up walls etc) and in-directly ("How the hell do I get up to that upper path?" "There's a path hidden below this bridge, how do I get down!?" "I can't get this thing yet, I have to remember to come back later on when I get a new item"). Even the enemies are basically glorified puzzles in a sense!

 

Those other games you mention simply aren't built in the same way. The world of Witcher 3 for example is basically just a pretty backdrop; you can't really interact with it in any meaningful way. With Assassin's Creed, you can parkour up things, but that's about it; there's no puzzles to solve or anything like in Zelda. Zelda's environments are shall we say, "designed", while the environments in those other games are basically naturalistic environments that you don't really interact with outside of just running and jumping through them really. I don't mean that as an insult, just that Zelda games are unique in that regard (God of War is closer to Zelda in terms of its environment design than any of the other games you mentioned).

 

As such, there's a design process that happens with Zelda's environments that takes a really frickin' long time. And to attempt making a Zelda game on this scale is actually probably complete lunacy.

 

In fact, it's such lunacy that I don't think it's gonna work out that well in the end. The best Zelda games are the ones that exchange scale for density of design (see Majora's Mask and Skyward Sword VS OoT and Twilight Princess for what I mean). I reckon this new game will feel a bit like butter being scraped over too much bread.

I get where you're coming from, but again I don't really agree, sorry. I would say if that's the way you think about Zelda compared some other games, then you haven't played enough games/played them properly.

 

Infamous is a fantastic example of fun ways to traverse an environment using continually evolving skills. Dark Souls has all the 'how to I reach that/how do I overcome this' that you just described about Zelda, and more so in terms of challenge and learning the world. MGSV is one large scale tactical mission, it's settlements and NPC's are every bit as much puzzles that an be completed in various ways. I'm sure I'm forgetting numerous other examples. Zelda's temples is still an incredible fine example of level design, but that's not to say it can't be found elsewhere... heck even an old game like Shadow of the Colossus makes puzzles of its enemies.

[Retro_Link]

I disagree about Quantum Break. I don't consider what they did creativity. It's no different to the FMVs of yesteryear and it's not gaming.

 

The industry is obsessed with pushing a/trying to recreate a cinematic experience, and that is a worrying trend. Gaming is not just that.

I'm not one for wasting my time making lists, but Quantum Break was one example.

 

Dreams is an example of revolutionary controller input, world building, creativity and even implementing future thinking technologies such as VR and 3D printing.

 

I could find examples for pretty much any area of the industry you claim developers outside of Nintendo and indies aren't supporting.

[Kav]

...Miyamoto has said nothing wrong.

Nothing he has said is of any form of concern.

He's not outright making bad games.

He's not making bad decisions.

He's just not making games for you.

 

Yes he has.

Yes it is.

Yes he is and has.

Yes he is and has.

Because of this, the above apply.

[Zechs Merquise]

And how many F-Zero games have we had in that time?

 

TA-DA!

 

Don't be a dick.

 

You've never run a business, or been in charge of a department that makes huge decisions that affect a business. If you had, you might have more appreciation for the fact that you can't always please everyone.

 

If you had the choice of pouring millions into the development of a game that would sell 20 million copies or pouring millions into the development of a game that would sell 200,000 copies, you'd be a fool to opt for the later.

 

Futuristic racing games aren't hot items any more. Wipeout, F-Zero and Extreme G used to be big names, they're not anymore. Nintendo is a business and they are obviously going to produce games that they believe will sell well.

 

Why do Activision have three studios working on Call of Duty, yet they're not pumping out Guitar Hero anymore? Because one is good business and one is bad business.

 

Nintendo don't exist to please a minority on forums like this, they exist to make a profit, which they currently do.

[Serebii]

I'm not one for wasting my time making lists, but Quantum Break was one example.

 

Dreams is an example of revolutionary controller input, world building, creativity and even implementing future thinking technologies such as VR and 3D printing.

 

I could find examples for pretty much any area of the industry you claim developers outside of Nintendo and indies aren't supporting.

Sorry but I disagree. Dreams is the outlier, it's not an example of a trend. Other developers are trying to iterate and improve the cinematic approach, not evolve gaming in general, just the corner of it that cinematic games are.

[Kav]

@Zechs Merquise, we don't know if they're not hot items anymore, at least not on Nintendo consoles... because Nintendo won't sodding make one unless there's some gimmick of some sort.

 

How well do Kart games sell on other consoles? They don't! Yet MK8 sold well.

Given the WiiU catalogue, both the number of titles available and the number of quality titles available, as well as general attach rate for Nintendo WiiU games, I certainly do believe an F-Zero game would've sold well.

Edited May 3, 2016 by Kav

[Hero-of-Time]

Given the WiiU catalogue, both the number of titles available and the number of quality titles available, as well as general attach rate for Nintendo WiiU games, I certainly do believe an F-Zero game would've sold well.

 

Maybe we'll get a HD version of GX before the end of the year. They sure as hell gotta release something for the holiday season.

[Hogge]

That's bullshit and you know it.

 

Star Fox Guard is ridiculously fun. Star Fox is a good game and doesn't have "poor design choices". You may not like the controls, granted, but that doesn't mean the game has poor design. Come on.

Guard feels too much like an indie game or something second year students at my university would churn out during a group project.

 

Sorry, but it does. The Gyrowing has been universally panned, the game's way to short and the controls are wonky at best. Atless you're an absolute completionist, there is pretty much zero reason to continue playing

 

These games have nothing on Dark Souls III or Quantum Break.

 

Compare that to the late 90's, when Lylat Wars had a very impressive, cinematic feel and Ocarina of Time basically wiped the floor with any other game on the market.

 

Mostly because Miyamoto's position has changed to supervisory rather than making the stuff himself. He is in charge of essentially all projects at Nintendo.

 

If a game has been made by Nintendo since the late 90s, he has had a heavy hand in it.

 

That hardly speaks in his favor. Nintendo games were already old fashioned by the time the Gamecube came out. Seriously, this company thought 1080 Avalanche was going to do well, even though the SSX franchise had so much more to offer.

[Retro_Link]

Sorry but I disagree. Dreams is the outlier, it's not an example of a trend. Other developers are trying to iterate and improve the cinematic approach, not evolve gaming in general, just the corner of it that cinematic games are.

I do agree with you that on the whole games have trended towards being more cinematic over recent years. One cannot simply wrap storytelling up in that however. Many developers have been able to tell greater stories without becoming overtly cinematic. Also, you have to say it's a trend within popular culture as a whole and not just video games.

 

Also as @Hogge just pointed out, there was a time when Nintendo games themselves felt very cinematic on the N64.

 

I'd also point out that Nintendo have been on a worrying trend of their own with the Wii U, and this is Japanese culture. It's inherit in their history, but by it's design it doesn't appeal to the rest of the world. Outside of its multiplayer I found zero appeal in the design and art style of Super Mario 3D World.

 

Nintendo don't exist to please a minority on forums like this, they exist to make a profit, which they currently do.

The entire message behind the Wii U was that it was a console for gamers like us who exist on forums. Whilst Wii had gone after everyone, U was meant to be for us. *cringe*

[Fierce_LiNk]

Hopefully he hasn't had much input into this.

 

@Blade & @Fierce_LiNk how large is The Witcher 3? I'm just looking at some of the details for the game for comparisons sake and see that The Witcher 3 was announced in 2013, released in 2015, released on multiple formats, has fully voiced dialogue and motion capture, has had free DLC and two big expansions, and all of this has arrived before Zelda has even had a proper viewing. Baffling.

 

The world in The Witcher 3 is biiiig. But, to solely judge it on its size would be to do it a disservice. It's how the world is connected and how everything is put together that makes the world feel even bigger.

 

The world of The Witcher 3 feels large because everything is connected. It's woven by the main storylines and awesome sidequests, which should set the new standard for future open world games, including Zelda. Novigrad, for example, genuinely feels like a living and breathing city. Characters will reference events that are taking place or have taken place either there or elsewhere. It's one of these things that you just have to appreciate for yourself because, to me, no words that I can say will really do it justice.

 

The new Zelda has a LOT to live up to. The size isn't the be all and end all. It's what you do within these areas and making the world feel alive...that's why we play games in the first place. Skyward Sword's world building was absolutely pathetic and a huge bummer. There were no pieces that you could put together, no background information or lore that you could become engrossed in. It's as shallow as they come. You can't have a map and see several landmasses and call them "a world". You could get away with that in the past, but everything has changed and evolved now. Now it's about how you interact with characters, or how a simple conversation may result in something happening further down the line, even the death of a character.

 

With The Witcher 3, I wanted to learn absolutely everything about that world, because the world that they had built was very intricate, dangerous, full of secrets and magic. I couldn't wait to shelve the last Zelda. I'm not even excited about the next one because Nintendo have yet to convince me that they really know how to craft these complex worlds in this modern way. Talk is cheap. I want to see something to get me excited and I hope that they have something at E3 that will do that.

[Ronnie]

I still think it's unfair comparing Witcher and Zelda. Unless Witcher has double clawshots to let you traverse a temple in the sky, transformation masks that totally alter the gameplay, dominion rods that have you controlling giant statues and the like. Zelda is far more action orientated, compared to Witcher's far simpler RPG gameplay.

 

I don't understand the uproar over the game's delay, surely better than them rushing it out. In any case it's obviously done to coincide with NX. Plus, it feels like every big game these days gets delayed from its original release date. I would have thought everyone was used to this by now.

Edited May 3, 2016 by Ronnie

[Eddage]

I still think it's unfair comparing Witcher and Zelda. Unless Witcher has double clawshots to let you traverse a temple in the sky, transformation masks that totally alter the gameplay, dominion rods that have you controlling giant statues and the like. Zelda is far more action orientated, compared to Witcher's far simpler RPG gameplay.

 

I don't understand the uproar over the game's delay, surely better than them rushing it out. In any case it's obviously done to coincide with NX. Plus, it feels like every big game these days gets delayed from its original release date. I would have thought everyone was used to this by now.

 

@Fierce_LiNk made no reference to gameplay. He was talking about story telling and world building and everything he said was spot on.

 

The new Zelda has a lot to live up to in this regard and Nintendo have given no indication in the past that they are up to such a task so I'm not surprised he is a little worried, I am too!

[Kav]

The stars of the Zelda games has always been the dungeons for me and so the story was as important, but the fact of the matter is that a cohesive, well written and pieces together story would only enhance Zelda!

 

The land of Hyrule is ripe for a story driven game, still with the main emphasis on dungeons, there's no reason it can't be done and in this day and age it's what I want from Nintendo! They need to bring Hyrule to life and really engage me like never before!

[Ronnie]

@Fierce_LiNk made no reference to gameplay. He was talking about story telling and world building and everything he said was spot on.

 

I wasn't referencing his post, merely the continued comparisons to Witcher 3's giant overworld full of quests. If Zelda were stripped down to Witcher 3's gameplay then I suspect it would be far easier to make a game as enormous in scope, but the beauty of Zelda is that it's far more tightly designed and action-focused. Not saying one is better than the other.

[Falcon_BlizZACK]

Lest we forget, wasn't it 13 years today the WW was released?

 

I remember that rainy day and trip to Oxford Street's Game, taking a day off College to get me the Bonus Disc Master Quest set...

 

This was one year into the GCs life (and already with classics such as: Luigi's Mansion, Wave Race, Pikmin, Smash Bros, Mario Sunshine, REmake) ... Good times.

Edited May 3, 2016 by King_V

[Retro_Link]

I wasn't referencing his post, merely the continued comparisons to Witcher 3's giant overworld full of quests. If Zelda were stripped down to Witcher 3's gameplay then I suspect it would be far easier to make a game as enormous in scope, but the beauty of Zelda is that it's far more tightly designed and action-focused. Not saying one is better than the other.

I think this overemphasises Zelda's design in the same way @Dcubed did it's interactivity.

 

You bring up things like being able to double clawshot around a temple in the sky, using a dominion rod to lift giant statues, making them sound far grander experiences than in reality they are.

 

The vast majority of Zelda's mechanics are confined to dungeons, and defined areas within those dungeons. You can't clawshot your way around a temple, but you can target specific points to move between. It's a far departure from Batman's grappling hook and freedom of movement in the Arkham games. Likewise the dominion rod is used primarily to guide one statue along an obstacle filled route. It's not like you're manipulating and moving environments.

[Ronnie]

I think this overemphasises Zelda's design in the same way @Dcubed did it's interactivity.

 

I think you're undervaluing the quality of Zelda's gameplay, holding it up against openworld games that do one thing very well, but the lack the diversity of a Zelda game.

 

You bring up things like being able to double clawshot around a temple in the sky, using a dominion rod to lift giant statues, making them sound far grander experiences than in reality they are.

 

The vast majority of Zelda's mechanics are confined to dungeons, and defined areas within those dungeons. You can't clawshot your way around a temple, but you can target specific points to move between. It's a far departure from Batman's grappling hook and freedom of movement in the Arkham games. Likewise the dominion rod is used primarily to guide one statue along an obstacle filled route. It's not like you're manipulating and moving environments.

 

I quoted three gameplay mechanics, out of dozens, per game. My point was that in my opinion, the breadth of gameplay in a Zelda title far outweighs that of, say, a Batman or Witcher. The latter have giant openworlds, full of missions but the level of interactivity inthose worlds don't compare. Unless you can use a mirror shield to bounce light around a dungeon or use a Deku leaf to blow propellers, stun enemies and float around islands, or lug around time crystals that alter the terrain around you. All I was saying is it was unfair to compare Zelda to Witcher, when they are very different types of games.

[dazzybee]

Maybe we'll get a HD version of GX before the end of the year. They sure as hell gotta release something for the holiday season.

 

It'd be my game of the year...

 

Guard feels too much like an indie game or something second year students at my university would churn out during a group project.

 

Sorry, but it does. The Gyrowing has been universally panned, the game's way to short and the controls are wonky at best. Atless you're an absolute completionist, there is pretty much zero reason to continue playing

 

And indie game of a student game? Which one? Or are you saying indie makers are as good as students? Pretty insulting.

 

And yeah, it is like an indie game, that's why it's an indie game price. It's been very well reviewed, and people on here who have played it really like it, myself included. I'm sorry, what's the problem with guard?

 

AS for star fox... Wonky controls? I've read most reviews of star fox, many have critisised the controls, haven't read one that. Says they're wonky. They work perfectly, they may not be what people like, or what star fox needs, but they're not wonky.

 

And gryowing universally panned? I like it. Not universal.

 

Just because Nintendo aren't making the Nintendo racer you've been calling out for for 15 years, I don't quite understand why you have to make mental statements.

[Retro_Link]

I think you're undervaluing the quality of Zelda's gameplay, holding it up against openworld games that do one thing very well, but the lack the diversity of a Zelda game.

 

 

 

I quoted three gameplay mechanics, out of dozens, per game. My point was that in my opinion, the breadth of gameplay in a Zelda title far outweighs that of, say, a Batman or Witcher. The latter have giant openworlds, full of missions but the level of interactivity inthose worlds don't compare. Unless you can use a mirror shield to bounce light around a dungeon or use a Deku leaf to blow propellers, stun enemies and float around islands, or lug around time crystals that alter the terrain around you. All I was saying is it was unfair to compare Zelda to Witcher, when they are very different types of games.

I haven't played many open world games I'm afraid, I have games sitting on my shelf that I'd like to be able to use as counter examples... because from gameplay streams and video reviews I've watched online, I'm pretty sure the vast majority of games like Arkham Knight, MGSV, Xenoblade do more than one thing very well, compared to Zelda's supposed multitude. I adore Zelda games, but I'm not blind to its shortcomings of late (Twilight Princess and Skyward Sword).

 

I don't understand why you are listing very series specific gameplay elements to prove Zelda's interactivity?

 

One could equally say, in Zelda you can't customise your character, attach a balloon to every item in the environment to build your own base, choose from a variety of companions to join you that will alter how scenarios play out, base jump and glide across an entire city, have meaningful conversations with every NPC you come across...

[Hogge]

And indie game of a student game? Which one? Or are you saying indie makers are as good as students? Pretty insulting.

First off, I am not making any kind of statement whether indies are better than students, vice versa or if they're equal. I'm saying that neither usually make games that can compete with AAA studios. They don't have to.

 

But comparing Guard to a student project is not exactly a stretch. Well, from my university alone, I can mention Sanctum, Magnetic and Bloodline Champions. Of course, the games that eventually were released commercially had much more content and fewer bugs, but they all were developed during an eight week course and they were both visually and gameplay wise very similar to the final games.

 

University students and indies can churn out some quite impressive stuff nowadays.

 

And yeah, it is like an indie game, that's why it's an indie game price. It's been very well reviewed, and people on here who have played it really like it, myself included. I'm sorry, what's the problem with guard?

I have no issue with Guard alone. It's mainly what it stands for that I have a beef with. Put it in the same bunch as the Wii U's over-abundant sidescrollers and minigame compilations, Captain Toad and probably more unimpressive games I've forgotten about and suddenly you have a pattern. A pattern of games which, yes, are among the most polished in the industry, but also are very unimpressive and unable to grab the spotlight from what everyone else is playing.

 

AS for star fox... Wonky controls? I've read most reviews of star fox, many have critisised the controls, haven't read one that. Says they're wonky. They work perfectly, they may not be what people like, or what star fox needs, but they're not wonky.

Granted, yes. They actually function and aren't buggy. But they detract from the overall experience. Very few people think the game benefitted from the control scheme.

And gryowing universally panned? I like it. Not universal.

Universally may of course be an exaggeration, but I don't think I've heard or read any review that hasn't had some kind of negative remark on the Gyrowing. Can't speak of any people I know as I don't know anyone who bought it.

Just because Nintendo aren't making the Nintendo racer you've been calling out for for 15 years, I don't quite understand why you have to make mental statements.

The lack of a good racing sim is just the tip of the iceberg, my friend. Nintendo aren't releasing the right games. Let's make a thought experiment.

 

What if Nintendo would never have developed Nintendoland, Game & Wario or NSMBU? And instead have invested the manpower into a proper 3D Mario game for release on launch?

 

What if Platinum were given the Starfox IP from the get go? If SF Zero was released within the Wii U's launch window instead of Wonderful 101?

 

What if Nintendo wouldn't have allowed Retro Studios to develop Tropical Freeze? And instead they would've released a new Metroid Prime during... let's say spring 2015?

 

What if Nintendo would've invested into porting F-Zero GX and given it online multiplayer instead of doing that to Wii Sports?

 

Now, be honest. Don't you think that would have improved the Wii U's sales?

[Serebii]

I'm sorry, did you just call Captain Toad unimpressive?

 

Good god, what has happened to your taste in games? :p

 

Also, did you just imply that Super Mario 3D World isn't a proper 3D Mario game?

[Ashley]

I'm working long hours at the moment so not had a chance to read all of this in great detail but just a reminder - if you disagree with something someone says by all means put your view across with an explanation as to why but if it's clear the views are not going to line up move on. For your own sake. If someone hates something or someone you love it's not a criticism or a dismissal of your view.

[bob]

I disagree.

[Cube]

Also, did you just imply that Super Mario 3D World isn't a proper 3D Mario game?

 

When people talk about "proper 3D" Mario games, they're talking about the gameplay style from SM64 to Galaxy.

 

3D World is clearly based on the 2D Mario games.

 

Also, while Captain Toad is a fun little game, I think "unimpressive" is a apt term for it.

[dazzybee]

1 I have no issue with Guard alone. It's mainly what it stands for that I have a beef with. Put it in the same bunch as the Wii U's over-abundant sidescrollers and minigame compilations, Captain Toad and probably more unimpressive games I've forgotten about and suddenly you have a pattern. A pattern of games which, yes, are among the most polished in the industry, but also are very unimpressive and unable to grab the spotlight from what everyone else is playing.

 

2The lack of a good racing sim is just the tip of the iceberg, my friend. Nintendo aren't releasing the right games. Let's make a thought experiment.

 

What if Nintendo would never have developed Nintendoland, Game & Wario or NSMBU? And instead have invested the manpower into a proper 3D Mario game for release on launch?

 

What if Platinum were given the Starfox IP from the get go? If SF Zero was released within the Wii U's launch window instead of Wonderful 101?

 

What if Nintendo wouldn't have allowed Retro Studios to develop Tropical Freeze? And instead they would've released a new Metroid Prime during... let's say spring 2015?

 

What if Nintendo would've invested into porting F-Zero GX and given it online multiplayer instead of doing that to Wii Sports?

 

Now, be honest. Don't you think that would have improved the Wii U's sales?

 

1 Captain Toad is one of my favourite games this gen across all platforms, triple A games included

 

2 I want most of these things, but then I love Nintendoland, think NSMBU is one of the best 2d platformers of the past 10 years (it was nsmb2 they should've scrapped) and Tropical Freeze, again, is incredible. So although I prefer Metroid, 3D Mario etc I don't begrudge what they do. F Zero I'd sell my one and only bollock for.

 

Would it improve Wii U sales? Maybe, but it's been proven that NSMB sells more than 3d mario, and Donkey Kong sells more than Metroid. And you can see the rationale behind Wii Sports remakes etc.

 

And like I say, I've called out for Nintendo release a sports and extreme sports label, I want nintendo to make Metroid and to get back 3rd parties etc. I just don't think having big issues with them and wanting something different should equate to a blanket hatred of everything they've released.