Forums - Nintendo Discussion - What Zelda and Metroid for the 3DS should be

-



Around the Network
Khuutra said:

I don't see the point in focusing on difficulty in combat in particular when, in theory, it should come about as a natural result of the design of the 2-D games. If you shoot specifically for difficult combat you run the risk of overshooting in terms of what you're presenting the player. Metroid and Zelda (the original games) have just as much of their difficulty drawn from overcoming the environment as they do from combat - I never completed the first Metroid, but I am absolutely certain of my convinction when it comes to the original Zelda. You have to find a balance. Lengthening the game by focusing on combat changes the difficulty balance of the original games as much as focusing too much on the environment would (or did). It's one thing to say, "All right, they should be about somewhere between LttP and LoZ, and then Metroid and Super Metroid, respectively," but combat-focus as a sticking point is just as misguided as puzzle-focus in terms of capturing the spirit of the original games.

And yes, I realize you're presenting it as a contrast to the DS games, and it doesn't matter, because you failed to properly contextualize your point.

Christ, Super Metroid and Link to the Past had perfect difficulty balance, why would you want to change those?

More, I think you're being willingly obtuse - or, worse, obfuscating - when it comes to the question of the role of "puzzles" in the body of Zelda games, both of the traditional and the 3D design schools. This isn't some BioWare-style Tower of Hanoi ridiculousness, nor is it a reliance on the sort of environmental trickery that the DS games were so fond of. Most puzzles in Zelda games are about exploring your environment and activating triggers of various sorts - I've only beaten three dungeons in Skyward Sword, but the "puzzles" located therein have more to do with seeking a way through the environment than they do going "Okay now how can I move all of these pancakes from one plate to another".

There's absolutely no need to move more than eight directions in a 2-D game, and if we give Link the ability to swing/face in more than eight (or even four) then it presents the problem of overcomplicating the combat again by adding too many possible dimensions by which an enemy can be attacked. The rule of 2-D combat is to keep it simple, which is part of what made LttP's combat great: 8 directions to move but only 4 facings allowed for a more focused enemy design, especially in terms of defenses.

And why would I want more item upgrades than in LttP? If you mean dungeoneering items - like some kind of upgraded Ice Rod, I guess? - then I'd rather have more unique items to use, and each of them be potent enough to use on their own. If you mean thigns like your sword and your armor, that degree of power creep is not that essential to Zelda. Yes it makes sense to get stronger weapons so you can defeat difficult enemies more easily, yes it makes sense to increase one's survivability with armor, but once you increase it past the (divine) level of LttP or LoZ you start to lose focus on the narrow band in which meaningful combat can take place. This is Zelda, not Monster Hunter.

If you have any focus whatsoever on the story in Metroid, you need to get your head out of that mode of thinking altogether. People need to say "Where can this fit on the timeline," and one need to get the impression that the designers have no idea what that even means. Fuck the Metroid timeline, it can roll into a pit and die, and any focus is too much focus. Fusion Suit, Power Suit, whatever: they're just aesthetic niceties which embody the shit I actually care about.

And how many areas in a Metroid game??? When you say "areas" do you mean areas the size of Norfair and Crateria? You want a game three times bigger than Super Metroid? Why would you want that? The complexity of exploring (and building) an environment in the Metroid style doesn't scale linearly, you realize - the bigger it gets the more complex exploring it becomes, which is part of what necessitates the dreaded hint system. No! Metroid needs to be between small and medium-sized in terms of game maps, allowing the natural complexity of maneuvering through the environment, the density of ways one can move from place to place, to expand the experience of traveling through the world. More is better up to a point, but a game three times Super Metroid's size is ridiculous.

And you want how many collectible items? Boring! Boring boring boring boring boring! We need density of content, and one doesn't accomplish that by making each individual upgrade less substantial.

The map thing is the last of it, I guess. My first reaction is to say "Why bother including the feature?" Just make people draw their own maps. Much more fun that way and lets me have more save files.

The other part of the problem with your map idea - specifically the square-block-filling-in thing - is that it necessitates that the game be divided into neat square chunks. That works all right for Zelda (sometimes - again, it's a question of density), but Metroid is at its best with expansive and potentially seamless organically-shaped environments. Limiting it to a collection of squares makes it more tedious to maneuver, harder to design meaningful shortcuts into, too easy to draw out - on and on.

 

Here is what both of these games need:

1. Simplicity of design. When in doubt, simplify, and then simplify further to be sure. Simplicity and elegance go hand-in-hand, and if we want to recapture the spirit of NES games then we need to get into that same design spirit, where creativity is a consequence of working around constraints rather than breaking free of them. The first Legend of Zelda, the first Mario Bros. - those games are more perfect than any of their sequels because they are simple in concept, with complexity arising as a sum of their parts.

2. Simplicity of playstyles. This explains itself. LttP and Super Metroid are about as complex as it needs to get.

3. Non-polygonal graphics. This goes for if they make 2D Zelda, Metroid, or Mario on the Wii U, too. Everything needs to be hand-drawn. Every animation, every environment, every character, every spell. The 3DS's screen is perfect for this, and polygonal environments are a waste in that context. More, hand-drawn environments and assets, while time-consuming and resource-intensive for the processor, are absolutely gorgeous and would lend themselves easily to conveying the artstyles of the games in a way polygonal graphics wouldn't (especially on a handheld).

4. Gigantic. Motherchristing. Bosses.

5. When in doubt, look to Super Metroid and Link to the Past (or LoZ) for inspiration.

That's it.

I'm not against the idea of traditionalist games in these series - quite the opposite, I would revel in them - but a lot of your ideas betray a focus that is off-center.

Now that's more like it.

Many of your complaints are based in your interpretation of my words which weren't overly detailed to keep the length of the OP within reason. Because once you get past a certain point, people simply won't bother to read any of it. I know you will be reading this, so there's no harm done in approaching a similar length as your post above.

Difficulty: In Zelda's case, the one thing I wanted to make sure is that people understand that it should be more like ALttP than the handheld Zelda games made by Capcom, because those titles (especially The MInish Cap) were influenced by the design of modern Zelda. Dungeons weren't particularly dangerous and they were quite linear, rather than more maze-like. You know, in ALttP you didn't need to visit each and every room and you also didn't need to find all keys. The dungeons were also designed in a way that you could carry more than one key at a time, something that has gone completely missing in the Zelda games of the last decade.

As for Metroid, I didn't mean a level of difficulty that makes you smack your handheld against the wall. All I am asking for in both games is a level of difficulty that makes the player take the game seriously, instead of giving an impression that the game will be beaten no matter what.

Puzzles: It's a matter of fact that in modern Zelda you spend more time with investigating the environment than with battling enemies. That's something that should be avoided and it's a serious problem, because as mentioned before, this type of gameplay already made it's way into the more recent handheld games.

Directions: Since we are talking about the 3DS, the slide pad is the natural control method, because the d-pad sits in an awkward position. Might as well allow Link to move into more than eight directions then and that's all I said. If I meant that to apply to sword stabs/swings as well, I would have added it.

Upgrades: Mostly in the sense of more swords. I think it would be neat, if there were different kinds, each with their own upgrades. The base swords would differ in their length and the speed at which they can be swung, this would allow the player to find their prefered style. There wouldn't be more than a dozen swords (including upgrades) in the game. As for the other items, they don't need more than one or two upgrades. Like silver arrows, magic boomerang or rods having an addition effect upon impact (like in the original Zelda).

Metroid timeline: Some people care about that and I guess I need to respect that. That's all there is to it.

Size/collectibles: Metroid is quite short of a game, so it was an idea to make it longer. I guess you are right though, but another option would be to ship such a game with two chapters. As in, two separate games which are both only slightly bigger than Super Metroid, each with their own 100 items. Two different planets, two different missions for Samus Aran.

Maps: The cool thing about the DS/3DS is that you always have that map with you when you play the game. It's more convenient than the pen and paper method. Nintendo could also be more generous with the amount of rewritable storage on the game card which would completely negate the potential loss of the third save file.

The square-block-filling is no problem at all, because Super Metroid's as well as ALttP's maps were all made of squares. A square on the map screen doesn't mean that the environment has to be fully rectangular too.

Your ideas: You really aren't saying much here at all. Most of this just means natural evolution of the SNES classics. About the only reason why I suggested polygon graphics is because I am sure that Nintendo wants to toy around with stereoscopic 3D. Not that I would complain, if those games didn't use 3D at all.

PS: Was it really necessary to create an alt account that agrees with your ideas?



Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV (360+PS3) would outsell SSBB. I was wrong.

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Gamers Club

Well 3D may not be necessary in any games but it adds emphasis and I tend to play it with it on full nearly all the time. especially on the wire.



Buying in 2015: Captain toad: treasure tracker,

mario maker

new 3ds

yoshi woolly world

zelda U

majora's mask 3d

Metroid could be quite cool with FaceRaiders controls, what do you think? It could even be a great hit commercially

of course it would have to be done correctly, and with alternative controls, something like Ocarina of Time arrow or chain targetting



RolStoppable said:
Khuutra said:

I don't see the point in focusing on difficulty in combat in particular when, in theory, it should come about as a natural result of the design of the 2-D games. If you shoot specifically for difficult combat you run the risk of overshooting in terms of what you're presenting the player. Metroid and Zelda (the original games) have just as much of their difficulty drawn from overcoming the environment as they do from combat - I never completed the first Metroid, but I am absolutely certain of my convinction when it comes to the original Zelda. You have to find a balance. Lengthening the game by focusing on combat changes the difficulty balance of the original games as much as focusing too much on the environment would (or did). It's one thing to say, "All right, they should be about somewhere between LttP and LoZ, and then Metroid and Super Metroid, respectively," but combat-focus as a sticking point is just as misguided as puzzle-focus in terms of capturing the spirit of the original games.

And yes, I realize you're presenting it as a contrast to the DS games, and it doesn't matter, because you failed to properly contextualize your point.

Christ, Super Metroid and Link to the Past had perfect difficulty balance, why would you want to change those?

More, I think you're being willingly obtuse - or, worse, obfuscating - when it comes to the question of the role of "puzzles" in the body of Zelda games, both of the traditional and the 3D design schools. This isn't some BioWare-style Tower of Hanoi ridiculousness, nor is it a reliance on the sort of environmental trickery that the DS games were so fond of. Most puzzles in Zelda games are about exploring your environment and activating triggers of various sorts - I've only beaten three dungeons in Skyward Sword, but the "puzzles" located therein have more to do with seeking a way through the environment than they do going "Okay now how can I move all of these pancakes from one plate to another".

There's absolutely no need to move more than eight directions in a 2-D game, and if we give Link the ability to swing/face in more than eight (or even four) then it presents the problem of overcomplicating the combat again by adding too many possible dimensions by which an enemy can be attacked. The rule of 2-D combat is to keep it simple, which is part of what made LttP's combat great: 8 directions to move but only 4 facings allowed for a more focused enemy design, especially in terms of defenses.

And why would I want more item upgrades than in LttP? If you mean dungeoneering items - like some kind of upgraded Ice Rod, I guess? - then I'd rather have more unique items to use, and each of them be potent enough to use on their own. If you mean thigns like your sword and your armor, that degree of power creep is not that essential to Zelda. Yes it makes sense to get stronger weapons so you can defeat difficult enemies more easily, yes it makes sense to increase one's survivability with armor, but once you increase it past the (divine) level of LttP or LoZ you start to lose focus on the narrow band in which meaningful combat can take place. This is Zelda, not Monster Hunter.

If you have any focus whatsoever on the story in Metroid, you need to get your head out of that mode of thinking altogether. People need to say "Where can this fit on the timeline," and one need to get the impression that the designers have no idea what that even means. Fuck the Metroid timeline, it can roll into a pit and die, and any focus is too much focus. Fusion Suit, Power Suit, whatever: they're just aesthetic niceties which embody the shit I actually care about.

And how many areas in a Metroid game??? When you say "areas" do you mean areas the size of Norfair and Crateria? You want a game three times bigger than Super Metroid? Why would you want that? The complexity of exploring (and building) an environment in the Metroid style doesn't scale linearly, you realize - the bigger it gets the more complex exploring it becomes, which is part of what necessitates the dreaded hint system. No! Metroid needs to be between small and medium-sized in terms of game maps, allowing the natural complexity of maneuvering through the environment, the density of ways one can move from place to place, to expand the experience of traveling through the world. More is better up to a point, but a game three times Super Metroid's size is ridiculous.

And you want how many collectible items? Boring! Boring boring boring boring boring! We need density of content, and one doesn't accomplish that by making each individual upgrade less substantial.

The map thing is the last of it, I guess. My first reaction is to say "Why bother including the feature?" Just make people draw their own maps. Much more fun that way and lets me have more save files.

The other part of the problem with your map idea - specifically the square-block-filling-in thing - is that it necessitates that the game be divided into neat square chunks. That works all right for Zelda (sometimes - again, it's a question of density), but Metroid is at its best with expansive and potentially seamless organically-shaped environments. Limiting it to a collection of squares makes it more tedious to maneuver, harder to design meaningful shortcuts into, too easy to draw out - on and on.

 

Here is what both of these games need:

1. Simplicity of design. When in doubt, simplify, and then simplify further to be sure. Simplicity and elegance go hand-in-hand, and if we want to recapture the spirit of NES games then we need to get into that same design spirit, where creativity is a consequence of working around constraints rather than breaking free of them. The first Legend of Zelda, the first Mario Bros. - those games are more perfect than any of their sequels because they are simple in concept, with complexity arising as a sum of their parts.

2. Simplicity of playstyles. This explains itself. LttP and Super Metroid are about as complex as it needs to get.

3. Non-polygonal graphics. This goes for if they make 2D Zelda, Metroid, or Mario on the Wii U, too. Everything needs to be hand-drawn. Every animation, every environment, every character, every spell. The 3DS's screen is perfect for this, and polygonal environments are a waste in that context. More, hand-drawn environments and assets, while time-consuming and resource-intensive for the processor, are absolutely gorgeous and would lend themselves easily to conveying the artstyles of the games in a way polygonal graphics wouldn't (especially on a handheld).

4. Gigantic. Motherchristing. Bosses.

5. When in doubt, look to Super Metroid and Link to the Past (or LoZ) for inspiration.

That's it.

I'm not against the idea of traditionalist games in these series - quite the opposite, I would revel in them - but a lot of your ideas betray a focus that is off-center.

Now that's more like it.

Many of your complaints are based in your interpretation of my words which weren't overly detailed to keep the length of the OP within reason. Because once you get past a certain point, people simply won't bother to read any of it. I know you will be reading this, so there's no harm done in approaching a similar length as your post above.

Difficulty: In Zelda's case, the one thing I wanted to make sure is that people understand that it should be more like ALttP than the handheld Zelda games made by Capcom, because those titles (especially The MInish Cap) were influenced by the design of modern Zelda. Dungeons weren't particularly dangerous and they were quite linear, rather than more maze-like. You know, in ALttP you didn't need to visit each and every room and you also didn't need to find all keys. The dungeons were also designed in a way that you could carry more than one key at a time, something that has gone completely missing in the Zelda games of the last decade.

As for Metroid, I didn't mean a level of difficulty that makes you smack your handheld against the wall. All I am asking for in both games is a level of difficulty that makes the player take the game seriously, instead of giving an impression that the game will be beaten no matter what.

Puzzles: It's a matter of fact that in modern Zelda you spend more time with investigating the environment than with battling enemies. That's something that should be avoided and it's a serious problem, because as mentioned before, this type of gameplay already made it's way into the more recent handheld games.

Directions: Since we are talking about the 3DS, the slide pad is the natural control method, because the d-pad sits in an awkward position. Might as well allow Link to move into more than eight directions then and that's all I said. If I meant that to apply to sword stabs/swings as well, I would have added it.

Upgrades: Mostly in the sense of more swords. I think it would be neat, if there were different kinds, each with their own upgrades. The base swords would differ in their length and the speed at which they can be swung, this would allow the player to find their prefered style. There wouldn't be more than a dozen swords (including upgrades) in the game. As for the other items, they don't need more than one or two upgrades. Like silver arrows, magic boomerang or rods having an addition effect upon impact (like in the original Zelda).

Metroid timeline: Some people care about that and I guess I need to respect that. That's all there is to it.

Size/collectibles: Metroid is quite short of a game, so it was an idea to make it longer. I guess you are right though, but another option would be to ship such a game with two chapters. As in, two separate games which are both only slightly bigger than Super Metroid, each with their own 100 items. Two different planets, two different missions for Samus Aran.

Maps: The cool thing about the DS/3DS is that you always have that map with you when you play the game. It's more convenient than the pen and paper method. Nintendo could also be more generous with the amount of rewritable storage on the game card which would completely negate the potential loss of the third save file.

The square-block-filling is no problem at all, because Super Metroid's as well as ALttP's maps were all made of squares. A square on the map screen doesn't mean that the environment has to be fully rectangular too.

Your ideas: You really aren't saying much here at all. Most of this just means natural evolution of the SNES classics. About the only reason why I suggested polygon graphics is because I am sure that Nintendo wants to toy around with stereoscopic 3D. Not that I would complain, if those games didn't use 3D at all.

PS: Was it really necessary to create an alt account that agrees with your ideas?

It's interesting that you want to make the player have to draw their own maps which lends itself to a need to investigate the environment but at the same time change the gameplay in a way that makes it less natural for the player to do. If you truly wanted more enemy encounters and less playing around with the environment then you would want a clear map for the player to follow so the environment was more of a way to get to more enemies.

Also I'm not sure how stopping in each square to draw the environment would be fun at all, it'd break the flow of the game quite massively. I think Nintendo already got it right with how they attacked it in the DS titles and will probably also be a feature of the 3DS and Wii U Zelda games.

 

In terms of combat, I think Nintendo are certainly on the right track with Skyward Sword where enemies roaming the land can actually take hearts off of me if I'm not concentrating. One area I'd like to see them improve is the fluff and the padding. I don't want to have to be 10 hours in before I have a smile on my face.

Certainly there is room for improvement but take off the malstrom tinted glasses, not all nostalgic ideas make sense.



 

Around the Network
RolStoppable said:

Now that's more like it.

Many of your complaints are based in your interpretation of my words which weren't overly detailed to keep the length of the OP within reason. Because once you get past a certain point, people simply won't bother to read any of it. I know you will be reading this, so there's no harm done in approaching a similar length as your post above.

Difficulty: In Zelda's case, the one thing I wanted to make sure is that people understand that it should be more like ALttP than the handheld Zelda games made by Capcom, because those titles (especially The MInish Cap) were influenced by the design of modern Zelda. Dungeons weren't particularly dangerous and they were quite linear, rather than more maze-like. You know, in ALttP you didn't need to visit each and every room and you also didn't need to find all keys. The dungeons were also designed in a way that you could carry more than one key at a time, something that has gone completely missing in the Zelda games of the last decade.

As for Metroid, I didn't mean a level of difficulty that makes you smack your handheld against the wall. All I am asking for in both games is a level of difficulty that makes the player take the game seriously, instead of giving an impression that the game will be beaten no matter what.

Puzzles: It's a matter of fact that in modern Zelda you spend more time with investigating the environment than with battling enemies. That's something that should be avoided and it's a serious problem, because as mentioned before, this type of gameplay already made it's way into the more recent handheld games.

Directions: Since we are talking about the 3DS, the slide pad is the natural control method, because the d-pad sits in an awkward position. Might as well allow Link to move into more than eight directions then and that's all I said. If I meant that to apply to sword stabs/swings as well, I would have added it.

Upgrades: Mostly in the sense of more swords. I think it would be neat, if there were different kinds, each with their own upgrades. The base swords would differ in their length and the speed at which they can be swung, this would allow the player to find their prefered style. There wouldn't be more than a dozen swords (including upgrades) in the game. As for the other items, they don't need more than one or two upgrades. Like silver arrows, magic boomerang or rods having an addition effect upon impact (like in the original Zelda).

Metroid timeline: Some people care about that and I guess I need to respect that. That's all there is to it.

Size/collectibles: Metroid is quite short of a game, so it was an idea to make it longer. I guess you are right though, but another option would be to ship such a game with two chapters. As in, two separate games which are both only slightly bigger than Super Metroid, each with their own 100 items. Two different planets, two different missions for Samus Aran.

Maps: The cool thing about the DS/3DS is that you always have that map with you when you play the game. It's more convenient than the pen and paper method. Nintendo could also be more generous with the amount of rewritable storage on the game card which would completely negate the potential loss of the third save file.

The square-block-filling is no problem at all, because Super Metroid's as well as ALttP's maps were all made of squares. A square on the map screen doesn't mean that the environment has to be fully rectangular too.

Your ideas: You really aren't saying much here at all. Most of this just means natural evolution of the SNES classics. About the only reason why I suggested polygon graphics is because I am sure that Nintendo wants to toy around with stereoscopic 3D. Not that I would complain, if those games didn't use 3D at all.

PS: Was it really necessary to create an alt account that agrees with your ideas?


If there's a specific section to which I do not apply then you can take it as a tacit agreement on my part.

Puzzles: It's a matter of fact that I spent more time fighting the environment than fighting enemies in both the original game and LttP, especially the latter. The balance of the series has always favored the environment, simply because it is possible to get lost. Now I agree that the overworld/dungeon divide (where it exists) should also act as a a demarcation line, where crossing into a dungeon means the challenge becomes more combat-oriented. THat's definitely true. I think a lot of modern Zeldas kind of fall flat on that point - though I have noticed that that very shift has occurred in the first three dungeons of Skyward Sword. It's unavoidable that the balance isn't going to be 50/50, and that balance has always favored the environment, but again: I do agree that dungeons should have a stronger combat focus than the overworld.

Directions: The point remains that one needs to be clear about this, because more directions LInk can face = more angles from which to attack = necessitating more complex enemy design = bad.

Upgrades: This isn't Monster Hunter. Single upgrades for items? Fine, whatever, I guess I'm cool with that if it's necessary (it isn't). Three or four separate branches for your swords? We would be better served by a single sword with identical physics in its upgrades so that enemy encounters can be designed specifically around challenging the use of that one sword. Focused design is much more important than variety.

Metroid timeline: One of Prime's biggest strengths is that Retro did not give a damn about the timeline.

Size: I agree with this, but.... you're talking about two actual, separate games. This is a pipe dream. More, it gives the game two very visibly divided linear arcs, which I don't like the idea of.

My ideas: All of it beared saying in that your ideas move away from simplicity of design or what's built into the original games. More, those ideas need to serve as the bullet points tattoo'd onto the brainpans of every developer approaching 2-D Zelda or Metroid, and they need to be reiterated over and over again, forever. In addition, there is no reason one could not use pixellated graphics with the 3DS's 3D. It would be very nice, all neat and layered.



Holy crap @ Khuutra and Rol's walls of text!

I like what you said about simplicity and elegance Khuutra :)

But I don't like the hand drawn graphics part, every time I think about it like that, I remember Braid, I didn't like the graphics in that game very much. Sprites would RULE though



miz1q2w3e said:
Holy crap @ Khuutra and Rol's walls of text!

I like what you said about simplicity and elegance Khuutra :)

But I don't like the hand drawn graphics part, every time I think about it like that, I remember Braid, I didn't like the graphics in that game very much. Sprites would RULE though


The graphcis in Braid were sprites, and all sprites are hand-drawn. Muramasa: The Demon Blade? Hand-drawn sprite graphics. Super Street Fighter HD? Hand-drawn sprites. You get the idea.



Khuutra said:
miz1q2w3e said:
Holy crap @ Khuutra and Rol's walls of text!

I like what you said about simplicity and elegance Khuutra :)

But I don't like the hand drawn graphics part, every time I think about it like that, I remember Braid, I didn't like the graphics in that game very much. Sprites would RULE though

The graphcis in Braid were sprites, and all sprites are hand-drawn. Muramasa: The Demon Blade? Hand-drawn sprite graphics. Super Street Fighter HD? Hand-drawn sprites. You get the idea.

I meant pixel sprites (like snes graphics)

Though you mentioned Muramasa, I LOVED the art in that game. Also:


^^ I'd fap to this 

^^And this



miz1q2w3e said:
Khuutra said:
miz1q2w3e said:
Holy crap @ Khuutra and Rol's walls of text!

I like what you said about simplicity and elegance Khuutra :)

But I don't like the hand drawn graphics part, every time I think about it like that, I remember Braid, I didn't like the graphics in that game very much. Sprites would RULE though

The graphcis in Braid were sprites, and all sprites are hand-drawn. Muramasa: The Demon Blade? Hand-drawn sprite graphics. Super Street Fighter HD? Hand-drawn sprites. You get the idea.

I meant pixel sprites (like snes graphics)

Though you mentioned Muramasa, I LOVED the art in that game. Also:

The graphics in Braid were sprites made of pixels! You had a problem with the art style, not the mode of graphic display.