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

Forums - Gaming - What conventions would you like to see changed in Zelda U?

Miyamotoo on 17 December 2014

I only want Hero mode from begining like a Zelda WW HD, less notifications or complete off options and no more need to back part of game that we been, Skyward Sword was affaul for both that things.



Around the Network
DanneSandin on 17 December 2014
spemanig said:
DanneSandin said:

But it doesnt have to be like that though. Puzzles can be intimidating if you know that IF you screw up, you might be attacked or set off some traps. Both of which would test your skills. Its really no difference from entering a room to fight a mini boss so that you can get a key. Whats the mini boss for? Testing your skills and halting your progress. Puzzles would test your WITS, and if youre not careful enough those puzzles would set of traps to test your skills.


There's a huge difference. Fighting a miniboss is an active experience. Solving a puzzle is not. You're confronted by a miniboss. You're presented with a puzzle. It's not like if you lose a miniboss fight, you have to solve a puzzle before you can challenge it again. That would be frustrating and ruin the pacing of the dungeon. The opposite that you suggest would be just as, if not more, frustrating. It isn't the puzzle that's intimidating. It's the punishment for failure. In a miniboss fight, the miniboss himself is intimidating. The idea that enemies are needed to make the naturally not intimidating process of solving a puzzle more intimidating is proof enough that they don't work in that way. The miniboss halts your progress by adding to the intimidating atmosphere of the dungeon. A puzzle halts your progress by evaporating that atmosphere.

Seems like we've reached a dead end :) I dont mind puzzles quite as much as you do, but I dont want them take out of the experience. I wouldnt mind if they changed somewhat, or if theres less of them, but I do enjoy them. I think ALBW had quite a few that were pretty good and most of them revolved around the painting gimmick



I'm on Twitter @DanneSandin!

Furthermore, I think VGChartz should add a "Like"-button.

TheLastStarFighter on 17 December 2014
Samus Aran said:
TheLastStarFighter said:

The truth is, you would never know if you have captured the perspective of a medieval person, because there are none around.  You can only think like you think they would think, which is very different.

I'm telling you - as someone who experienced the event of popping in that magical gold cartridge for the first time - that you have failed in your attempt to understand the perspective of Zelda 1.  You are calling it a broken game, weak, etc, and I'm advising you that you are quite simply wrong.  In my youth Zelda was the talk of the playground, the pinacle of gaming.  Not one person said it was too hard, or impossible without a guide, or any of that.  It was viewed as a challenging title, one a step above contemporaries like SMB.  Killing Ganon was the pinacle of playground gaming cred, one step above Mother Brain.  No one felt it was random or a grind.  It was a game where anything is possible so try anything.  That's a fundamental aspect your missing of the experience.

You're calling me an elitist, but you are the one saying you have an understanding of something that you didn't experience, and debating it with someone who did. Using your Holocaust example, it would be like me telling a survivor that it really wasn't that horrible and a modern genocide is actually much worse because I've read about it and imagined what it's like.  You should try to learn from those who actually experienced something.  It's a rare treat as a historian.

Your post is again all wrong. You do realize medieval persons have left us with sources that can learn us plenty? There are a lot of medieval diaries out there, that describe personal experiences of events they deemed important. And no real historian would ever say the Holocaust wasn't horrible. So your example is pretty bad. What you're refering to is what we call negationists... They do NOT master the historical sources. They distort it. 

I can read Middle Dutch hand written sources of the 14th century. Don't tell me I can't learn from those who experienced something. 

Zelda 1 was a weak entry, but it did provide something new to the gameworld. Future Zelda games have all improved on the formula of the first game (with the exception of the second game, which is even worse). 

Super Mario Bros. is still very much playable to this day. If you want a good top down Zelda game look no further than A Link to the Past. This is the game that left the biggest impact on the franchise together with Ocarina of Time. 

We're not looking here for games that were great in 1986, we're lookg for games that can still be good in 2015 (the year Zelda U will hopefully release). 

I can read Dutch Oven, but it doesn't mean I can fully understand what it is like to feel like a dutch person in the 14th century.  My example isn't bad, because you are telling me Zelda 1 is a bad game even though you never experienced it upon release and I did.  For me, no game historian could ever call that title "bad" and have any credility.

And indeed, there are things that Zelda 1 did better than any of its decendants.  In particular, the complete open world, lack of hand-holding, action focus, sense of danger, upgraded outfits, proper beam sword.  Zelda III improved on many elements but took some minor steps back, too, and these are things that Zelda U will hopefully reach all the way back to re-discover.  For me ALttP has a world that is too "structured".  Everything in it has a purpose... but that loses the effect of mystery when you can ask "does this area have a purpose?"  It makes the world feel smaller, less interesting, have less potential... and less like real life.

The 3D Zeldas also have added many things but also took many steps back.  They lost a lot of the action focus.  They repeat a lot of things and re-use assets game-to-game.  They also tend to be somewhat linear and structured and have far too many hints.  The items are also less fun and useful.

If Zelda U can borrow the fast action, open world and sense of mystery and reduce the handholding like in Zelda 1, the series will be better for it.



Frogger on 17 December 2014
DanneSandin said:

Seems like we've reached a dead end :) I dont mind puzzles quite as much as you do, but I dont want them take out of the experience. I wouldnt mind if they changed somewhat, or if theres less of them, but I do enjoy them. I think ALBW had quite a few that were pretty good and most of them revolved around the painting gimmick


Like I said, if they were completely separate from the dungeons and didn't depend on item gimmicks, then I'd be fine with them being in as an optional side thing. Three temples with sprawling and complex puzzles through out, topped off by a boss fight. Few enemies to interrupt the puzzle solving at all.

But they ruin the feel of dungeons when they're included.



Samus Aran on 17 December 2014
TheLastStarFighter said:
Samus Aran said:
TheLastStarFighter said:

The truth is, you would never know if you have captured the perspective of a medieval person, because there are none around.  You can only think like you think they would think, which is very different.

I'm telling you - as someone who experienced the event of popping in that magical gold cartridge for the first time - that you have failed in your attempt to understand the perspective of Zelda 1.  You are calling it a broken game, weak, etc, and I'm advising you that you are quite simply wrong.  In my youth Zelda was the talk of the playground, the pinacle of gaming.  Not one person said it was too hard, or impossible without a guide, or any of that.  It was viewed as a challenging title, one a step above contemporaries like SMB.  Killing Ganon was the pinacle of playground gaming cred, one step above Mother Brain.  No one felt it was random or a grind.  It was a game where anything is possible so try anything.  That's a fundamental aspect your missing of the experience.

You're calling me an elitist, but you are the one saying you have an understanding of something that you didn't experience, and debating it with someone who did. Using your Holocaust example, it would be like me telling a survivor that it really wasn't that horrible and a modern genocide is actually much worse because I've read about it and imagined what it's like.  You should try to learn from those who actually experienced something.  It's a rare treat as a historian.

Your post is again all wrong. You do realize medieval persons have left us with sources that can learn us plenty? There are a lot of medieval diaries out there, that describe personal experiences of events they deemed important. And no real historian would ever say the Holocaust wasn't horrible. So your example is pretty bad. What you're refering to is what we call negationists... They do NOT master the historical sources. They distort it. 

I can read Middle Dutch hand written sources of the 14th century. Don't tell me I can't learn from those who experienced something. 

Zelda 1 was a weak entry, but it did provide something new to the gameworld. Future Zelda games have all improved on the formula of the first game (with the exception of the second game, which is even worse). 

Super Mario Bros. is still very much playable to this day. If you want a good top down Zelda game look no further than A Link to the Past. This is the game that left the biggest impact on the franchise together with Ocarina of Time. 

We're not looking here for games that were great in 1986, we're lookg for games that can still be good in 2015 (the year Zelda U will hopefully release). 

I can read Dutch Oven, but it doesn't mean I can fully understand what it is like to feel like a dutch person in the 14th century.  My example isn't bad, because you are telling me Zelda 1 is a bad game even though you never experienced it upon release and I did.  For me, no game historian could ever call that title "bad" and have any credility.

 

Because you haven't studied medieval history like some people have. You're insulting great historians like Carlo Ginzburg now. 

Zelda 1 made a lot of very poor gameplay decisions that weren't caused by weak hardware. Games like Super Mario Bros. are still good today, despite being rather short, but that's easily forgiven. It speaks volume that to this day Mario >>>> Zelda.