By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Shin Megami Tensei X Fire Emblem still in development!!

Wyrdness on 30 January 2015
RolStoppable said:

From the reports I've seen, Zelda 2 was actually well received at the time of its release. Its sidescrolling gameplay makes it an outlier in the series, but that doesn't mean that there aren't many people who like the game. Zelda's combat only got clunkier when the series moved to 3D. What you are saying is like claiming that Mario's platforming got more advanced with Super Mario 64; sure, there were more button combinations to do stuff, but the basics didn't feel as good as in the 2D games. Hence why Nintendo shifted the focus away from platforming in Super Mario 64, so a lot of the time is spent on running around and looking for stuff.

Nobody misses puzzles in Hyrule Warriors. That's the point.

@bigtakilla: That's not how people play classic Zelda though. Killing monsters nets rupees, and rupees allow you to buy stuff that give you more combat options or reduce the damage you take.


The 2d games combat was far clunkier sorry, I say that having played all the games since the original, the 2d games was literally just walk up to an enemy and slash in the limited 2d plain while in the 3d games a lock on system that became instrumental for 3d combat in all games was introduced to deal wth the more advanced enemies you were dealing with, an example is the Stalfos, Lizalfos and Wolfos enemies put up far greater fights then any standard enemy in the 2D games did.

Tbh I don't fully get the angle you're trying to come from as when looking at design and execution combat not only became more advance in Zelda in 3D but using your own example platforming became more advance in Mario in 3D as look at the level designs that dictate platforming in Galaxy it's far more advance then any 2d platformer, you're merely looking at jumping as platforming which is only one aspect I'm looking at the whole set up which is what I'm also doing in regards to Zelda.  SM64 would obviously have more exploration it was the first foray into 3D and no one knew how genres would translate into 3d, what SM64 did was that it focus on building a full 3D world to play around in, the fruits of this would later be shown in games like Galax.y

Nobody misses puzzles in HW because nobody sees HW as a new Zelda installment and as a spin off instead, nobody misses platforming in Mario Kart as well, why? Because nobody is buying Mario Kart for platforming that's a very bizarre statement to even make and doesn't prove nothing at all.



Around the Network
Wyrdness on 31 January 2015
RolStoppable said:

Oh yeah, the enemies in 3D Zelda games are very threatening. A room full of wizzrobes or darknuts in the original Zelda has nothing on the encounters you face in 3D Zelda.

The point is that if the combat in 3D Zelda were good, then the games could be built around it. Instead there are countless distractions to, well, distract from the combat. The same goes for the platforming in 3D Mario. On the other hand, Hyrule Warriors has good enough combat for the game to be built around it. It's always the same thing, yet people keep investing more hours into it.


Combat was never sole purpose of Zelda to begin with I guanrantee you that if HW was a new installment it'll be pegged as one of the worst of the franchise if not the worst, HW is a Musou game so of course it's built around combat what has helped HW is the Zelda lore and good DLC.



bigtakilla on 31 January 2015
RolStoppable said:
Wyrdness said:

Sorry but I disagree, Zelda has always been about the adventure first and foremost not kicking ass as you put it this is why overhauling the combat in Zelda 2 didn't lead to the game being well recieved and is still seen as one of the franchise's black sheep, combat encounters in Zelda got more advance when the jump to 3d was made, puzzles and everything else were just given as equal focus as anything else in the series.

HW works because Zelda's lore synergizes well with the Musou series not because people crave more action in Zelda, the series has a flexible and interesting lore while Musou has a simple broad approach that could fully utilize it. I play a lot of action titles like DMC and Bayonetta 2 and can say the combat in HW is simply just adequate and for a game were combat is a primary focus it falls quite short compared to other combat based games, in fact single player alone is average what carries the game are the co-op feature and the map challenges which ironically is HW's adventure style mode.

From the reports I've seen, Zelda 2 was actually well received at the time of its release. Its sidescrolling gameplay makes it an outlier in the series, but that doesn't mean that there aren't many people who like the game. Zelda's combat only got clunkier when the series moved to 3D. What you are saying is like claiming that Mario's platforming got more advanced with Super Mario 64; sure, there were more button combinations to do stuff, but the basics didn't feel as good as in the 2D games. Hence why Nintendo shifted the focus away from platforming in Super Mario 64, so a lot of the time is spent on running around and looking for stuff.

Nobody misses puzzles in Hyrule Warriors. That's the point.

@bigtakilla: That's not how people play classic Zelda though. Killing monsters nets rupees, and rupees allow you to buy stuff that give you more combat options or reduce the damage you take.

Some people play the game and don't even use a sword until Ganon. As far as rupees go, after the first one (it may be the same for the second though) isn't their other ways to gain massive amounts of rupies (like cutting grass and throwing pots). Just saying "Zelda's origins are built around combat, but that got lost with the move to 3D" isn't exactly the case. There is barely any reward for killing enemies (money and hearts), and if you don't get hit it or have a large amount of heart containers it really isn't important to kill anything beyond getting rupies. 

To put it another way, it isn't like people just couldn't wait to battle the next stalfo. Even with different swords it attacked pretty much the same way, it just took less hits to kill an enemy. On the flip side in Hyrule Warriors, when you get a new skill, you can't wait to see how much destruction it will cause. While I think in the original LoZ, it was more about finding the secrets laid around Hyrule, or what wall did you need to bomb to get to the end of the castle (and some were a bit freaking ridiculuos) or how the hell do I make it through the lost woods. 



NoirSon on 31 January 2015

I will believe it when I see it, once upon a time there was a little game known as Mother 64/Earthbound 64 that was in development as well.



Kuksenkov on 31 January 2015

I've never tried a SMT or Persona game, though 3 FES and Digital Devil Saga are on my wish list. Fire Emblem is great and I have never played a console entry. So I'd like this game a lot... Hopefully it'll happen :)



Around the Network
Pavolink on 03 February 2015
RolStoppable said:
Nuvendil said:
I personally think if they don't want to do a normal Fire Emblem game on Wii U, they should have used this opportunity to create a parallel spinoff Fire Emblem series with its own distinct gameplay and potential for successors without outside assistance. Sure the crossovers have gone well so far with Persona Q and Hyrule Warriors being well received, but they can't be franchises or series unto themselves without assistance from outside companies since one or both games aren't Nintendo's.

Persona Q is a crossover between two Atlus IPs (Persona and Etrian Odyssey), so it's not relevant to this discussion.

@Player2: Persona Q is so-so. It has a good amount of redeeming qualities (mostly from the Etrian Odyssey side), but suffers from a few braindead design choices. Once I get around to writing a review, it's going to be a 6, but I am not sure if it's going to be low, middle or high one.

@Mystro-Sama: A crossover between the greatest SRPG series and an IP that is full of mediocrity doesn't sound amazing, especially because it's completely unclear what the compromise between the two quite distinct gameplay mechanisms is going to be.

@Wyrdness: Hyrule Warriors works because people have been craving for more action in a Zelda game. Zelda's origins are built around combat, but that got lost with the move to 3D. It was a challenge to implement good combat back in the early age of 3D games, so Nintendo shifted the focus to more puzzles to make the game (Ocarina of Time) more enjoyable. Since then the mechanics haven't evolved much (because the guy in charge, Aonuma, would rather have even more puzzles), so Hyrule Warriors feels like a considerable step up. It lacks the exploration aspect of Zelda, but the combat feels so good that the reception was overwhelmingly positive. Hyrule Warriors is about kicking ass, and that's what Zelda was originally about. Killing a bunch of monsters makes you feel like a hero, pushing a block on a switch not so much.

@Pavolink: The only commitment I can see here is yours to your butthurt. Get over it.

Aw don't be mad. Both of us are talking about unwanted games, isn't it?



Proud to be the first cool Nintendo fan ever

Number ONE Zelda fan in the Universe

DKCTF didn't move consoles

Prediction: No Zelda HD for Wii U, quietly moved to the succesor

Predictions for Nintendo NX and Mobile