Pre-Release The Legend of Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom Pre-Release Discussion Thread

[TheCongressman]

A feel of lot of arguments defending durability is hypothetical and doesn't work that well in practice. For example, the argument that durability encourages good resource management sounds good on paper. That is until you realize the world gives so many weapons that its impossible to run out. Even people defending durability makes arguments like "The game gave me so many weapons, running out of weapons wasn't a problem!" implying that running out of resources was rarely an issue. How can the game encourage good resource management when players aren't afraid of running out of weapons? Resource management was alright in Eventide, Master Trials, and Great Plateau but that's 5% of the game. A system that is only good for 5% of the game is not a good system. There is a lot more I could criticize about weapons durability, as I have a counter for every argument I've heard but it might turn into a durability discussion so I won't continue.

It's not hard to understand. Of course they don't run out of weapons completely. That's like saying a shooter's ammo system is bad since you can pick up ammo for some of your weapons.

All of the weapons offer something different, a moveset, their powerlevel, elemental power, strength against certain materials. With your inventory constantly changing, you have to decide what to use and when. Often you'll find you don't have exactly what you needed, and need to improvise.

 

[Chaos Theory]

So are we approaching a circular timeline, that is, will this game be a prequel to Skyward Sword?

 

[Dardan Sandiego]

Who knew that preemptively complaining about durability discussion would start another durability discussion?






I did. I knew.

 

[Chaos Theory]

I liked the weapon durability but maybe they should integrate weapon-repair into TotK's crafting system?

 

[Dark Cloud]

So are we approaching a circular timeline, that is, will this game be a prequel to Skyward Sword?

You finally figured it out. This game is ending and Skyward Sword is beginning.

 

[balgajo]

It's not hard to understand. Of course they don't run out of weapons completely. That's like saying a shooter's ammo system is bad since you can pick up ammo for some of your weapons.

All of the weapons offer something different, a moveset, their powerlevel, elemental power, strength against certain materials. With your inventory constantly changing, you have to decide what to use and when. Often you'll find you don't have exactly what you needed, and need to improvise.

In this sense BOTW durability mechanic is even more aggresive than shooters as a bow breaking is analogue to a shotgun breaking.

 

[Deleted member 341]

Am I the only one who can't wait for the sequel to Breath of the Wild?

I am talking about Tears of the Kingdom.

 

[Dardan Sandiego]

 

[NabiscoFelt]

One thing I realized after playing Elden Ring is that weapon durability really helps making weapon rewards more meaningful. Because of the mechanic, a weapon reward is useful so long as it's stronger than your weakest weapon (or if you have a weapon that's about to break, or an open inventory slot). Which is a much less stringent requirement than games where a weapon reward is only useful if it fits your playstyle and is better than your currently equipped weapon.

In general, I prefer BoTW-type design philosophy where you get can reliably get some minimal reward for tasks than something like Elden Ring, where you occasionally get something really useful but mostly get useless stuff.

Using ER as an example since it's the most recent open world game I've played and one where I had pretty significant problems with the reward structure

 

[HockeyBird]

The Tears of the Kingdom name has grown on me. It sounds weird at first but so do many other Zelda titles. I think it's because you don't often see the word "tears" in any title. But once you understand that the title is invoking the same naming as Breath of the Wild, Tears of the Kingdom, it starts to make more sense.

 

[TheSpaceBetween]

I'm really hoping there isn't a large underground cave system, even though it's probably futile to expect there won't be at this point. It was by far the worst part of Elden Ring, and it just makes the world unnecessarily large. BotW was already far bigger than it needed to be, and now we have the sky on top of that. Less is more. But I suppose that's kind of the antithesis of open world design. More is always more, sadly.

 

[Deleted member 2181]

Bodily emission of the intangible concept

 

[Hosermess]

So are we approaching a circular timeline, that is, will this game be a prequel to Skyward Sword?

and vice versa?

 

[Rubbersoul]

I'm really hoping there isn't a large underground cave system, even though it's probably futile to expect there won't be at this point. It was by far the worst part of Elden Ring, and it just makes the world unnecessarily large. BotW was already far bigger than it needed to be, and now we have the sky on top of that. Less is more. But I suppose that's kind of the antithesis of open world design. More is always more, sadly.

I see it as the map getting more depth rather than it getting “bigger.” Especially since you can seamlessly move in between them

 

[TheSpaceBetween]

I see it as the map getting more depth rather than it getting “bigger.” Especially since you can seamlessly move in between them

It's still more area to cover. But yeah, in the end it will come down to how it's designed and integrated into the rest of the game. Caves tend to be boring and drab visually too, that's another thing I'm worried about. We'll see...

 

[Awesomegames23]

If we can merge some kind of magic blade to the partially dissolved master sword blade, maybe we can make Zonai weapons that run on magic and are made of magic.

 

[NabiscoFelt]

You know, even beyond what else the devs may be hiding, I really like the idea of climbing up through Sky Islands, especially after seeing some of the larger ones in the recent teaser. If there is just that sort of constant upward movement it could be a really unique and interesting take on an open world.

I mean, climbing mountains was already one of my favorite things to do in BoTW so just taking that and blowing it up to an insane level sounds pretty neat.

But I am also on team "caves kinda suck honestly" so I'm hoping if there is underground stuff it's more interesting than that. You can do cool underground environments (I'm pretty particular to bioluminescent stuff), but most of the time it's just dark caves with the occasional splash of ruins

 

[Dardan Sandiego]

One thing I realized after playing Elden Ring is that weapon durability really helps making weapon rewards more meaningful. Because of the mechanic, a weapon reward is useful so long as it's stronger than your weakest weapon (or if you have a weapon that's about to break, or an open inventory slot). Which is a much less stringent requirement than games where a weapon reward is only useful if it fits your playstyle and is better than your currently equipped weapon.

In general, I prefer BoTW-type design philosophy where you get can reliably get some minimal reward for tasks than something like Elden Ring, where you occasionally get something really useful but mostly get useless stuff.

Using ER as an example since it's the most recent open world game I've played and one where I had pretty significant problems with the reward structure

I think both BotW and ER are two extremes on opposite ends that don't always work perfectly. ER was frustrating when you went out of your way to get something and ended up with useless loot but the sheer amount of unique weapons (just like in all Souls games) made up for it to some degree.

TotK most likely won't have such a heavy focus on combat so it won't have nearly as many weapons but I think they could find a good middle ground that makes both sides of the debate happy.

 

[takriel]

Aaaaand it's finished:




/threadhijack

Amazing, thank you so much for this!

Now how can we as a community land you a job at Nintendo?

 

[Rubbersoul]

I’ve been thinking about the overworld in totk, how it could change from botw and why we haven’t seen major changes to it as of yet. With the sky world, and presumably the underworld, I think there’s an opportunity to utilize the existing overworld as a canvas of sorts. What I mean by this is that changes to the overworld would be done through player action taken in the other layers. This could explain why the teasers show minimal changes to the overworld, it’s effectively a spoiler. At the end of the day, Zelda is a magical fantasy game so the sky’s the limit (literally).

 

[Rubbersoul]

You know, even beyond what else the devs may be hiding, I really like the idea of climbing up through Sky Islands, especially after seeing some of the larger ones in the recent teaser. If there is just that sort of constant upward movement it could be a really unique and interesting take on an open world.

I mean, climbing mountains was already one of my favorite things to do in BoTW so just taking that and blowing it up to an insane level sounds pretty neat.

But I am also on team "caves kinda suck honestly" so I'm hoping if there is underground stuff it's more interesting than that. You can do cool underground environments (I'm pretty particular to bioluminescent stuff), but most of the time it's just dark caves with the occasional splash of ruins

Something that could make caves special in totk would be how limiting they are. In botw you have so much mobility that enemies are rarely, truly, a threat, you can always just run away. The exceptions are guardians, lynels, and horse bokos. This is impossible in a closed off environment, however. Could make for some fun gameplay challenges.

 

[Serif]

If we can merge some kind of magic blade to the partially dissolved master sword blade, maybe we can make Zonai weapons that run on magic and are made of magic.

I'm counting on it. The dragon head attachment had green energy within (can't find a good screenshot ):

Would be cool to also get swords, staffs, axes, etc. that use spirit energy.

This could explain why the teasers show minimal changes to the overworld, it’s effectively a spoiler.

Yeah I don't think any of the teasers are a reliable indicator of what's changed in the overworld, what hasn't changed, etc. They're all inconsistent with which Islands are visible.

One major change is that the Deku Tree appears to be gone, and you're right, it'd be a spoiler to explicitly show that and explain why. Even when we get our next blowout of this game they're going to hide a lot.

 

[NabiscoFelt]

I think both BotW and ER are two extremes on opposite ends that don't always work perfectly. ER was frustrating when you went out of your way to get something and ended up with useless loot but the sheer amount of unique weapons (just like in all Souls games) made up for it to some degree.

TotK most likely won't have such a heavy focus on combat so it won't have nearly as many weapons but I think they could find a good middle ground that makes both sides of the debate happy.

Hm yeah more unique weapons would still help, obviously. The dragon head shield is a good start I think

Something that could make caves special in totk would be how limiting they are. In botw you have so much mobility that enemies are rarely, truly, a threat, you can always just run away. The exceptions are guardians, lynels, and horse bokos. This is impossible in a closed off environment, however. Could make for some fun gameplay challenges.

Actually this is a pretty good point, I've seen it mentioned before but it keeps slipping my mind. BoTW's combat design is actually pretty awesome in limited scenarios (Eventide, Trial of the Sword) so caves do provide a good opportunity to flex those chops. Hopefully the devs take full advantage of that if caves are going to be a big part of the game

 

[UndercoverSheikah]

It's not hard to understand. Of course they don't run out of weapons completely. That's like saying a shooter's ammo system is bad since you can pick up ammo for some of your weapons.

All of the weapons offer something different, a moveset, their powerlevel, elemental power, strength against certain materials. With your inventory constantly changing, you have to decide what to use and when. Often you'll find you don't have exactly what you needed, and need to improvise.

Its not about running out. Its the stress of the possibility of running out and needing to make use of what you have. I've seen the shooter comparison come up and I have issues with it. For most shooters you are only allowed to have 2 weapons at a time. This means you can't hoard and must pick and choose weapons to continue with. BotW on the other hand allows you to expand your inventory to hoard weapons which means you can have whatever weapons you want and then some. This means picking what weapon to use was rarely a meaningful decision.

I heavily disagree with your second statement as well. There are only 3 weapon types and each doesn't provide enough depth. I feel you can pretty much use any weapon vs any enemy have defeat them with a similar amount of ease (not that there was that many enemies to begin with). I don't consider small stats differences like more damage or more durability as a meaningful difference. I'm need each weapon type to completely change the way you fight enemy.

Zelda isn't an stylish action game tho. There are so many mechanics and interactivities at play.

The A button is used for so many things in the game like looting and activating stuff its no wonder its only used when you put the shield up. Sounds like a disaster waiting to happen mid fight.

I get that people want deeper melee combat but its just not the focus of BotW and thats totally fine imo.

Just because I mentioned DMC, doesn't have to be stylish or complicated. Remember vertical, horizontal, and thrust combos were a thing in previous Zelda games and they were very basic. Even if it was for the sake of some variety, I think having new combos would be a good addition.

If the A button can be used for a shield parry in BotW, it can be used for a different attack. Make A the interact button while sheathed and a secondary attack button while weapon is drawn. Plenty of games do this.

But anyways I'm going back to lurker mode. Just commented because I feel weapon durability needed some push back here. Weapon durability is critisized even more than dungeons and story so I'd be surprised if it wasn't at least modified.

 

[Deleted member 341]

Its not about running out. Its the stress of the possibility of running out and needing to make use of what you have. I've seen the shooter comparison come up and I have issues with it. For most shooters you are only allowed to have 2 weapons at a time. This means you can't hoard and must pick and choose weapons to continue with. BotW on the other hand allows you to expand your inventory to hoard weapons which means you can have whatever weapons you want and then some. This means picking what weapon to use was rarely a meaningful decision.

I heavily disagree with your second statement as well. There are only 3 weapon types and each doesn't provide enough depth. I feel you can pretty much use any weapon vs any enemy have defeat them with a similar amount of ease (not that there was that many enemies to begin with). I don't consider small stats differences like more damage or more durability as a meaningful difference. I'm need each weapon type to completely change the way you fight enemy.


Just because I mentioned DMC, doesn't have to be stylish or complicated. Remember vertical, horizontal, and thrust combos were a thing in previous Zelda games and they were very basic. Even if it was for the sake of some variety, I think having new combos would be a good addition.

If the A button can be used for a shield parry in BotW, it can be used for a different attack. Make A the interact button while sheathed and a secondary attack button while weapon is drawn. Plenty of games do this.

But anyways I'm going back to lurker mode. Just commented because I feel weapon durability needed some push back here. Weapon durability is critisized even more than dungeons and story so I'd be surprised if it wasn't at least modified.

I think you don't understand that A is literally the loot button. And there is tons of stuff lying around in BotW.

When you use a shield you literally can't move when you hold it up and parry. Thats why its no problem with the shield. you can't accidentally do something unintended. And the walking speed with the shield up is still slower then usual.

 

[WestEgg]

Congrats folks, as of this post, this thread has now surpassed the original version of this thread back on the old site!

 

[Dardan Sandiego]

For most shooters you are only allowed to have 2 weapons at a time.

 

[balgajo]

Congrats folks, as of this post, this thread has now surpassed the original version of this thread back on the old site!

Zelda discussion was too scattered on the other site. A lot of discussions about the same thing in different threads and the main thread wasn't visited.
I'm glad we are centralizing the discussion on this one. Even the name reveal thread died faster than this one.

 

[chocolate_supra]

Caves tend to be boring and drab visually too, that's another thing I'm worried about.

 

[ZeldaPY]

You know, even beyond what else the devs may be hiding, I really like the idea of climbing up through Sky Islands, especially after seeing some of the larger ones in the recent teaser. If there is just that sort of constant upward movement it could be a really unique and interesting take on an open world.

I mean, climbing mountains was already one of my favorite things to do in BoTW so just taking that and blowing it up to an insane level sounds pretty neat.

But I am also on team "caves kinda suck honestly" so I'm hoping if there is underground stuff it's more interesting than that. You can do cool underground environments (I'm pretty particular to bioluminescent stuff), but most of the time it's just dark caves with the occasional splash of ruins

When I think of caves in Zelda it’s more or less referencing Dungeons which have always been more aesthetically pleasing with a few enemies mixed in and more of a focus on puzzling. It’s what really makes Zelda dungeons different from the rest of genres. I don’t necessarily enjoy caves either in games because they are usually a hack and slash, in your face intense battles type thing that just isn’t appealing to me.
I think Nintendo only showing the phasing through the island in the outer world in the 2nd trailer as a mis-direction and it will be used primarily underground which has the potential for great level designs and puzzling through a cave system.
I also see them doing Malice mixed in everywhere underground with potential different properties of fire, frost, water etc. Given that we think it’s originating under the Castle and has made its way to coming out the top of Death mountain.

 

[Psyborg]

Trying to wrap my head around how the map is going to look/function in this with all the verticality going on. Its going to be interesting for sure.

 

[TheCongressman]

Its not about running out. Its the stress of the possibility of running out and needing to make use of what you have. I've seen the shooter comparison come up and I have issues with it. For most shooters you are only allowed to have 2 weapons at a time. This means you can't hoard and must pick and choose weapons to continue with. BotW on the other hand allows you to expand your inventory to hoard weapons which means you can have whatever weapons you want and then some. This means picking what weapon to use was rarely a meaningful decision.

I heavily disagree with your second statement as well. There are only 3 weapon types and each doesn't provide enough depth. I feel you can pretty much use any weapon vs any enemy have defeat them with a similar amount of ease (not that there was that many enemies to begin with). I don't consider small stats differences like more damage or more durability as a meaningful difference. I'm need each weapon type to completely change the way you fight enemy.

The point isn't botw is the same as a shooter, it's obviously not. The point is, shooters impose ammo so you swap up your gameplay. Botw does a similar thing with durability. Botw's equipment are also tools, they aren't just used for combat. It's like packing for camping.

Only 3 weapon types is just completely false. One hand, two hand, spear, boomerang, wand. Blunt and sharp work differently, as does element type. Certain weapons have way better resistance and efficiency for mining ore and chopping trees. Again, they aren't just weapons they're tools. Using them extends way outside of combat.

But anyways I'm going back to lurker mode. Just commented because I feel weapon durability needed some push back here. Weapon durability is critisized even more than dungeons and story so I'd be surprised if it wasn't at least modified.

Nah, I see way more support for durability pretty much everywhere.

I've always said that durability could be refined, and I think they will tweak it in Totk. But I absolutely do not see them removing it, it's core to the gameplay loop. What I'd suggest is lowering the amount of stuff you can ultimately carry. Maybe make some weapons take up multiple slots. And then slightly raise durability across the board. But that's it.

The only real frustration I had with durability is the UX, not the weapon breaking. Your weapon breaks, then you're standing there with no weapon. You then have to open the menu, or use the dpad to swap weapons, which completely halts the flow of the game. If you could swap weapons in real time, or if you automatically pulled out the next weapon, this would feel so much better. That's what I actually want to see changed.

Just because I mentioned DMC, doesn't have to be stylish or complicated. Remember vertical, horizontal, and thrust combos were a thing in previous Zelda games and they were very basic. Even if it was for the sake of some variety, I think having new combos would be a good addition.

This, I agree with. The core combat in Botw is a bit lacking, even compared to previous Zelda games. In Botw you only have a set combo for each weapon type. Whereas in previous games you had control over the direction of the attack depending on how you tilt the stick when you attack: horizontal, vertical, and stab.

Where the combat in Botw shines is all of the physics systems surrounding it. So, they could give a bit more depth to just swinging the sword, and make it even better.

 

[manfromthedam]

Now how can we as a community land you a job at Nintendo?

Oh my God, any kind of recognition from Nintendo would make me jump around like a toddler. <3

Honestly if I ever got to score a game like Tunic I'd be stoked. That's just about as high as I dare to dream!

 

[Aether]

So many unimaginative takes...

Actually, i want them to get brave and start doing real remixes and kinda official romhacks.
The base framework for those old zelda games stands, back then they had a fraction of developers for them, keep the graphics simple, and have smaller teams take turns in making "majora style" games, reusing a ton, and just goign wild with experiments and narative and dungeon design. I know, does not work with their current philosophy.

One thing I realized after playing Elden Ring is that weapon durability really helps making weapon rewards more meaningful. Because of the mechanic, a weapon reward is useful so long as it's stronger than your weakest weapon (or if you have a weapon that's about to break, or an open inventory slot). Which is a much less stringent requirement than games where a weapon reward is only useful if it fits your playstyle and is better than your currently equipped weapon.

In general, I prefer BoTW-type design philosophy where you get can reliably get some minimal reward for tasks than something like Elden Ring, where you occasionally get something really useful but mostly get useless stuff.

Using ER as an example since it's the most recent open world game I've played and one where I had pretty significant problems with the reward structure

Im mostly with you. I dont understand those that think the weapon durability is a bad system or pointless...but i get that it needs refinement. While it was cool that the weapons differed... after about 3 hours it was clear that it does not mather that much. Its not as if some enemies are weak or strong against specific weapons (ignoring elements), or that the speed/wind up etc are that big of a factor with how lenient the battle system is. Managing to replicate the effect the system had at the beginning of the game or eventide over the whole runtime would be good. And for those that hate it having some late game weapons that are really unbreakable (kinda like the master sword) would be a good thing. Maybe make them magic weapons that you can enchant to repair them or something. In the end game it does not make that much of a difference, but for some it would be a goal to work towards, to have "permanent weapons".

Then make different weapons have really different attributes that make a difference in battle...but also in the overworld.
Best example: Axe. Axes are great for chopping wood. But... it was mostly not worth it having one, since they are generally weak weapons, and bombs/every other weapon can do it to. And if you really needed some, almost every staple had one lying around...so i usually did not bother with axes. Staffs? i like them, but damage output was usually pretty bad, the increased distance did not really add anything in combat (dodge...).
Boomerangs? kinda the same as swords, but if you throw them they come back. Sounds neat. Is more hassle then its worth it, not because of catching them, but because to often they hit something and you have to gather, and just bashing the enemies is usually more effective. I tried using it against keys, but they are to often near some rocks or walls.
Staffs? cool. but with the time they need to be used, the low damage output, not agreat offensive weapon, and more used for some situational coverage (making a fire in a field of grass, etc)
having unique patterns and stuff for them where they cant just be replicated if needed by arrows is a step in the right direction. like needing to activate 3 crystals with fire at the same time. just fire arrows wont work, so having either the rod or a tripple arrow bow would make both of those have more value.

And i could write for hours. we already have seen a handaxe kinda thing, i hope we get a good bunch of new weapon types, and increased atribute diversity for the old ones.

I'm really hoping there isn't a large underground cave system, even though it's probably futile to expect there won't be at this point. It was by far the worst part of Elden Ring, and it just makes the world unnecessarily large. BotW was already far bigger than it needed to be, and now we have the sky on top of that. Less is more. But I suppose that's kind of the antithesis of open world design. More is always more, sadly.

Is the size of the world an inherent problem? I have to say, i was really happy with BotWs world and what it had. There where some areas that where definitely underused, but overall i fellt it had a solid balance, but also because traversal itself was fun. A game with such a world with more stiff movement/interactivity (like say witcher 3) would be horror for me, but the act of looking around, geting distracted, and then climbing somewhere to glide over was a fun loop and could not have worked as well with a smaller world i feel.

As long as its full of cool stuff, the more the better i would say. i know that we get to a point where they just cant fill it with meaningfull content. And traversal is always an imortant part to nake it tedious.

But in regards to cave systems...:

• havingt a big crystal cave with an underground lake
• ruins and temples
• underground lava / vulcano
• a city?
• some strange fungal forrest, maybe florescent, with neon colors when you use specific magic or stuff.

-an...open world biom in a big cave? so that not all cave exploration is claustrophobic

• a malice/dark horror / demon themed area
• one or 2 other shekah structures with blue light all over

And last but not least: we already have examples of underground exploration:
it would remind me of the gameplay of probably the best dungeon in the game: hyrule castle.
That was already a prototype for a cave system, interconnected tunnels, filled with enemies, loot, lore. And that part was eloved by most i think. Have link mag out the underground area, and build a 3d mak as the one for the castle was, but only fill in the places where you already where. Then we have the temple filled with guardians, we have the mazes, we have the cave where that leviathan is found. Those where some of the most memorable places to explore.

.... reading through it, i simply described Hollow Knight xD
There is so much you can do, and since its a cave system, you dont need to fill the space in between somehow to make it seem big, so less filler. I could see it as a huge win for the game. But i also just love exploration and getting lost in a map and trying to find my way, and not being able to see everything helps with that somewhat.

IF its just long boring earthy caves with some ruins...yeah, then thats pointless and boring.
And i hope that the sea and desert get expanded as well, simply to have a diverse option on new places. add 2-3 islands of differing sizes, and a fruitfull oasis/jungle at the edge of the dessert. While i loved the world in BotW, it lacked really fantastical places. Some Xenoblade designes i have seen come to mind. I wnat a place thats bursting of color.

And also way more use of the "dark" mechanic that was used for a handfull of shrines and some sword trials.
But for that the mechanics need to be slightly tweaked. the way light bounced feelt like it gets swallowed by the darkness.

 

[chocolate_supra]

Trying to wrap my head around how the map is going to look/function in this with all the verticality going on. Its going to be interesting for sure.

I genuinely expect them to do like LTTP's dungeon maps, where there's a different map for each floor and you page through them, and even as you page through them it shows where you are in relation to each floor.

So basically a three-floor map: underground, on-ground, sky. For the whole of Hyrule.

 

[Aether]

I will blatantly double post since the last one was already that big...

Only 3 weapon types is just completely false. One hand, two hand, spear, boomerang, wand. Blunt and sharp work differently, as does element type. Certain weapons have way better resistance and efficiency for mining ore and chopping trees. Again, they aren't just weapons they're tools. Using them extends way outside of combat.

Yeah... while you technically are true, and in subsequent runns i really tried to use the weapons for their intended purpose and use them in unique ways...the balancing is off, it falls back that in most cases one handed sword type weapons and two handed weapons are the most usefull. There just is not enough differentiation, but thats something that they can refine big time in the sequell. Or just go all out and have a ton of weapons a-la-card so that you can chose which ones to ignore...
Battles in botw just did not justify optimizing for the subtle differences in how some weapons workedin some situations.

The only real frustration I had with durability is the UX, not the weapon breaking. Your weapon breaks, then you're standing there with no weapon. You then have to open the menu, or use the dpad to swap weapons, which completely halts the flow of the game. If you could swap weapons in real time, or if you automatically pulled out the next weapon, this would feel so much better. That's what I actually want to see changed.

hm... was the switching via dpad that big of a deal? the other way around i would automatically switch to a weapon i dont want to use and maybe accidentally break it since i would not realize in time that i swaped. or that its the version of that weapon with the modifier i wanted to keep. you could rectify that by having that as an option in the menue (i would be fine with that, "automatic next weapon equip", but for me it would be the way worse option. If i dont care, i can just select the next weapon in a fraction of a second, and if i care, i scroll through the list. The weapon broke in a blue burst, that already is a big enough distractor for the flow of battle.

This, I agree with. The core gameplay in Botw is a bit lacking, even compared to previous Zelda games. In Botw you only have a set combo for each weapon type. Whereas in previous games you had control over the direction of the attack depending on how you tilt the stick when you attack: horizontal, vertical, and stab.

Where the combat in Botw shines is all of the physics systems surrounding it. So, they could give a bit more depth to just swinging the sword, and make it even better.

100% true. The battle system wont change, and i dont even belive it will get a lot of refinement. some, shure, after so many years im confident. but i feel like going to far out with it would not work with the systems theyve buildt around it. And a complex battle system could be seen by them as not accessible, since it implies that you cant just try anything ant it will somehow work.

Skyward sword had the best sword battling. there, i sad it. And i really dont like that game much. but the sword controlks (when they worked) where great, even if they to often made the combat into a "wait for a specific opening and match the direction", so less dynamic. after that... probably Wind waker for me. it fellt more fluent, less stiff then TP even if that had way more (unnececary) options. BotW is weird, everything outside 1:1 combat is probably better, but duels ...eh.

ALSO: i want more interesting arrow options. And the option to select an archer mode, where you can only have 2-3 essential weapons, but get more arrows in the game =D Arrows are really underaprechiated in discussions around BotW. They nailed it so well, and yet there is so much pottential (except... i knew people that hated it, because they cant aim even if their life dependet on it)

 

[karmitt]

Trying to wrap my head around how the map is going to look/function in this with all the verticality going on. Its going to be interesting for sure.

I have a feeling there’s going to be an almost unreasonable level of “what’s over there” when they add all three layers (assuming caves) together. Preparing myself for another 100-200 hours of Hyrule wanderlust :3

Edit: Just realized you mean the menu map. Do we have evidence of any island sitting directly below another island? Might just be that have three layers as I mentioned above. Otherwise they’d need a 3D map.

Cave systems not being able to be underneath themselves is a bit restrictive. Maybe they’ll have to have some sort of 3D function underground and in the skies. It’s definitely going to be a fair bit more complex that’s for sure

 

[Dardan Sandiego]

Actually, i want them to get brave and start doing real remixes and kinda official romhacks.
The base framework for those old zelda games stands, back then they had a fraction of developers for them, keep the graphics simple, and have smaller teams take turns in making "majora style" games, reusing a ton, and just goign wild with experiments and narative and dungeon design. I know, does not work with their current philosophy.

This honestly sounds like a bad experience for everyone involved.

 

[Aether]

I have a feeling there’s going to be an almost unreasonable level of “what’s over there” when they add all three layers (assuming caves) together. Preparing myself for another 100-200 hours of Hyrule wanderlust :3

Edit: Just realized you mean the menu map. Do we have evidence of any island sitting directly below another island? Might just be that have three layers as I mentioned above. Otherwise they’d need a 3D map.

Cave systems not being able to be underneath themselves is a bit restrictive. Maybe they’ll have to have some sort of 3D function underground and in the skies. It’s definitely going to be a fair bit more complex that’s for sure

They will have to rework the map conceptually. as it was it was on a screen shown.
Link does not have a screen anymore. So there is no diegetic way to show the map...
which leads me to: magic. what can magic do? projections. I asume we will get a 2D and 3D map this time around.
comparable to the dungeon maps, but with better controlls and toggle options to keep a better overview.

 

[Aether]

This honestly sounds like a bad experience for everyone involved.

Mind to elaborate?

to be clear, im not talking about the stress the MM developers back then had.
Im not talking "push them to mass produce", more "give some developers that have ideas a low risk environment to try it.
It could not stand as its own big production zelda game, but a subseries, where expectations are set acordingly.
And i feel like there are more then enough people that wish for a more traditional zelda style game compared to BotW.
Currently the old Formula is dead. The "we now have 3 zelda style and we know people want them"... yeah, no new new zelda experience since BotW.

Im also asuming that the tools have come far enough that it should be easier and faster to prototype and develop games n the OoT/MM style.

I would naturally prefere simply more zelda teams that work with more freedome on traditional style zelda games while the main team works on the new formula, but it does not seem as if we will see such a game anymore from them.

Heck, the best chance for my idea was when Grezo remade them for 3DS,f or me it screamed "now let them make their own zelda with that engine and make it a trilogy".

 

[Kartina]

Mind to elaborate?

to be clear, im not talking about the stress the MM developers back then had.
Im not talking "push them to mass produce", more "give some developers that have ideas a low risk environment to try it.
It could not stand as its own big production zelda game, but a subseries, where expectations are set acordingly.
And i feel like there are more then enough people that wish for a more traditional zelda style game compared to BotW.
Currently the old Formula is dead. The "we now have 3 zelda style and we know people want them"... yeah, no new new zelda experience since BotW.

Im also asuming that the tools have come far enough that it should be easier and faster to prototype and develop games n the OoT/MM style.

I would naturally prefere simply more zelda teams that work with more freedome on traditional style zelda games while the main team works on the new formula, but it does not seem as if we will see such a game anymore from them.

Heck, the best chance for my idea was when Grezo remade them for 3DS,f or me it screamed "now let them make their own zelda with that engine and make it a trilogy".

I think you don't understand the amount of work that goes into a zelda game, even an OOT/MM style zelda game would still require a ton of work and peoples, it's not a game they can farm out in like 2/3 years or even make multiple between open world games. Also I don't know if a part of the team would be happy to be left out from the big new Zelda game to work on smaller and probably lesser Zelda games.

 

[Dardan Sandiego]

Mind to elaborate?

to be clear, im not talking about the stress the MM developers back then had.
Im not talking "push them to mass produce", more "give some developers that have ideas a low risk environment to try it.
It could not stand as its own big production zelda game, but a subseries, where expectations are set acordingly.
And i feel like there are more then enough people that wish for a more traditional zelda style game compared to BotW.
Currently the old Formula is dead. The "we now have 3 zelda style and we know people want them"... yeah, no new new zelda experience since BotW.

Im also asuming that the tools have come far enough that it should be easier and faster to prototype and develop games n the OoT/MM style.

I would naturally prefere simply more zelda teams that work with more freedome on traditional style zelda games while the main team works on the new formula, but it does not seem as if we will see such a game anymore from them.

Heck, the best chance for my idea was when Grezo remade them for 3DS,f or me it screamed "now let them make their own zelda with that engine and make it a trilogy".

This is a solution for a problem that doesn't really exist.

The people wanting a more "traditional" 3D Zelda aren't asking for remixes of N64 era games. Why would anyone working at Nintendo want to come up with cool stuff for what is essentially a romhack? How disappointing would it be for both players and devs to see those cool ideas implemented in a game from 1998?

And it's not like Zelda is a series that needs a "low risk environment" in the first place when even a remaster of Skyward Sword can outsell its original release on the Wii. Nintendo could easily have a concurrent 3D Zelda subseries that continues the OoT lineage, they simply choose not to.

 

[TheSpaceBetween]

So many unimaginative takes...

Actually, i want them to get brave and start doing real remixes and kinda official romhacks.
The base framework for those old zelda games stands, back then they had a fraction of developers for them, keep the graphics simple, and have smaller teams take turns in making "majora style" games, reusing a ton, and just goign wild with experiments and narative and dungeon design. I know, does not work with their current philosophy.

Im mostly with you. I dont understand those that think the weapon durability is a bad system or pointless...but i get that it needs refinement. While it was cool that the weapons differed... after about 3 hours it was clear that it does not mather that much. Its not as if some enemies are weak or strong against specific weapons (ignoring elements), or that the speed/wind up etc are that big of a factor with how lenient the battle system is. Managing to replicate the effect the system had at the beginning of the game or eventide over the whole runtime would be good. And for those that hate it having some late game weapons that are really unbreakable (kinda like the master sword) would be a good thing. Maybe make them magic weapons that you can enchant to repair them or something. In the end game it does not make that much of a difference, but for some it would be a goal to work towards, to have "permanent weapons".

Then make different weapons have really different attributes that make a difference in battle...but also in the overworld.
Best example: Axe. Axes are great for chopping wood. But... it was mostly not worth it having one, since they are generally weak weapons, and bombs/every other weapon can do it to. And if you really needed some, almost every staple had one lying around...so i usually did not bother with axes. Staffs? i like them, but damage output was usually pretty bad, the increased distance did not really add anything in combat (dodge...).
Boomerangs? kinda the same as swords, but if you throw them they come back. Sounds neat. Is more hassle then its worth it, not because of catching them, but because to often they hit something and you have to gather, and just bashing the enemies is usually more effective. I tried using it against keys, but they are to often near some rocks or walls.
Staffs? cool. but with the time they need to be used, the low damage output, not agreat offensive weapon, and more used for some situational coverage (making a fire in a field of grass, etc)
having unique patterns and stuff for them where they cant just be replicated if needed by arrows is a step in the right direction. like needing to activate 3 crystals with fire at the same time. just fire arrows wont work, so having either the rod or a tripple arrow bow would make both of those have more value.

And i could write for hours. we already have seen a handaxe kinda thing, i hope we get a good bunch of new weapon types, and increased atribute diversity for the old ones.

Is the size of the world an inherent problem? I have to say, i was really happy with BotWs world and what it had. There where some areas that where definitely underused, but overall i fellt it had a solid balance, but also because traversal itself was fun. A game with such a world with more stiff movement/interactivity (like say witcher 3) would be horror for me, but the act of looking around, geting distracted, and then climbing somewhere to glide over was a fun loop and could not have worked as well with a smaller world i feel.

As long as its full of cool stuff, the more the better i would say. i know that we get to a point where they just cant fill it with meaningfull content. And traversal is always an imortant part to nake it tedious.

But in regards to cave systems...:

• havingt a big crystal cave with an underground lake
• ruins and temples
• underground lava / vulcano
• a city?
• some strange fungal forrest, maybe florescent, with neon colors when you use specific magic or stuff.

-an...open world biom in a big cave? so that not all cave exploration is claustrophobic

• a malice/dark horror / demon themed area
• one or 2 other shekah structures with blue light all over

And last but not least: we already have examples of underground exploration:
it would remind me of the gameplay of probably the best dungeon in the game: hyrule castle.
That was already a prototype for a cave system, interconnected tunnels, filled with enemies, loot, lore. And that part was eloved by most i think. Have link mag out the underground area, and build a 3d mak as the one for the castle was, but only fill in the places where you already where. Then we have the temple filled with guardians, we have the mazes, we have the cave where that leviathan is found. Those where some of the most memorable places to explore.

.... reading through it, i simply described Hollow Knight xD
There is so much you can do, and since its a cave system, you dont need to fill the space in between somehow to make it seem big, so less filler. I could see it as a huge win for the game. But i also just love exploration and getting lost in a map and trying to find my way, and not being able to see everything helps with that somewhat.

IF its just long boring earthy caves with some ruins...yeah, then thats pointless and boring.
And i hope that the sea and desert get expanded as well, simply to have a diverse option on new places. add 2-3 islands of differing sizes, and a fruitfull oasis/jungle at the edge of the dessert. While i loved the world in BotW, it lacked really fantastical places. Some Xenoblade designes i have seen come to mind. I wnat a place thats bursting of color.

And also way more use of the "dark" mechanic that was used for a handfull of shrines and some sword trials.
But for that the mechanics need to be slightly tweaked. the way light bounced feelt like it gets swallowed by the darkness.

The size of the world is a problem if you can't fill it with meaningful content, and that is one of my biggest criticisms of BotW, and most open world games in general. While exploration such as climbing (that is, if it wasn't raining which it often did) and gliding were fun, but the world was peppered with open world tasks which you repeat dozens and dozens of times over. I hope this time around they focus on more unique locations and world events (ie Eventide Isle, Lost Woods, those mazes in the corners, etc.

 

[UndercoverSheikah]

Only 3 weapon types is just completely false. One hand, two hand, spear, boomerang, wand. Blunt and sharp work differently, as does element type. Certain weapons have way better resistance and efficiency for mining ore and chopping trees. Again, they aren't just weapons they're tools. Using them extends way outside of combat.

Boomerangs are one handed/two handed weapons except a different throw other wise they are exactly the same. Wand is a one handed weapon with a projectile, but I'll let that one slide since you use it differently. I'd rather have them separate tools and weapons so I don't have to feel like I'm wasting durability. But anyways I just bomb trees and ores. Its faster and doesn't use up durability.

The point isn't botw is the same as a shooter, it's obviously not. The point is, shooters impose ammo so you swap up your gameplay. Botw does a similar thing with durability. Botw's equipment are also tools, they aren't just used for combat. It's like packing for camping.

That's what I'm saying. In BotW, it feels like I'm swapping for the sake of swapping and the game is forcing me to. In shooters, they introduce enemies and scenarios where one weapon would be advantageous over the other, making the swap meaningful. In BotW, there's was never situation that was like "I wish I had this weapon right now" and most the game its more like: "oh my weapon broke, just swap to the next one". In my eyes, durability is very artificial way of making the player swap weapons. A better imo approach is to design weapons to have noticeable strengths and weaknesses and create scenarios where one is clearly better. If designed well enough, players will switch on their own even without any durability.

If the entire game was like the Master's Trials or Eventide where resources were limited, I would not be complaining about weapon durability. I actually think durability would be more suited for a more linear, restrictive game where the devs can easily predict the amount of resources the player has at any point and design each scenario.

One thing I realized after playing Elden Ring is that weapon durability really helps making weapon rewards more meaningful. Because of the mechanic, a weapon reward is useful so long as it's stronger than your weakest weapon (or if you have a weapon that's about to break, or an open inventory slot). Which is a much less stringent requirement than games where a weapon reward is only useful if it fits your playstyle and is better than your currently equipped weapon.

In general, I prefer BoTW-type design philosophy where you get can reliably get some minimal reward for tasks than something like Elden Ring, where you occasionally get something really useful but mostly get useless stuff.

Using ER as an example since it's the most recent open world game I've played and one where I had pretty significant problems with the reward structure

Opposite for me. The more common something is, the less of an exciting reward it is. BotW feels like I'm getting the same couple of weapons over and over again except with different skin and slightly different stats. The only worthwhile reward in BotW imo is the Master Sword. Weapons in BotW are rupees in previous Zelda games. They are everywhere so you're constantly full on them and make you look at a message if you open a chest when you're inventory is full.

 

[SpaceGodzilla]

Sidon

 

[Dark Cloud]

Mipha

 

[Aether]

I think you don't understand the amount of work that goes into a zelda game, even an OOT/MM style zelda game would still require a ton of work and peoples, it's not a game they can farm out in like 2/3 years or even make multiple between open world games. Also I don't know if a part of the team would be happy to be left out from the big new Zelda game to work on smaller and probably lesser Zelda games.

oh, i know that its not as easy as other more formulaic games.
But i feel like 2-3 years is reasonable, if you dont have to make a massive game like TP or BotW and can reuse assets.
(Majoras mask, wind waker also had not that much time. 3 years seems also like it was more or less the maximum development time for most 2d zeldas)
And even Majoras Mask back then, while reusing asset, did push the n64 to its limits, and used the tools from back then.
Purely from the technical perspective it should be easier.
Design wise... tahts a different question, but i also did not mean games as expansive and detailed.
I mean, would be great to get games that can rival MM, but my thought where way lower.
Wind waker created a completly new artstyle, everything new, and one of the most beloved zelda games (i know, it was technically rushed) in 2.5 years. BotW was 5 years and 300 people.
Im confident that it would be possible (depending on who) to have teams between 25 and 50 people and create those type of smaller skale zelda games in 1-2 yearsif they are more relyant on reuse.
Again, im not talking about full fledged new entries made from the ground up...
in regards to "be happy to" if nobody would want to, i am against pushing them. its more of:
you want to, you feel you can do something? shure, have at it.
There for shure are also members that would be fine having a broader reach over a smaller project to.

I feel like im not managing to convey what im thinking of well enough. oh well.

This is a solution for a problem that doesn't really exist.

The people wanting a more "traditional" 3D Zelda aren't asking for remixes of N64 era games. Why would anyone working at Nintendo want to come up with cool stuff for what is essentially a romhack? How disappointing would it be for both players and devs to see those cool ideas implemented in a game from 1998?

And it's not like Zelda is a series that needs a "low risk environment" in the first place when even a remaster of Skyward Sword can outsell its original release on the Wii. Nintendo could easily have a concurrent 3D Zelda subseries that continues the OoT lineage, they simply choose not to.

Oh, i was never talking about economic sense. They could sel remakes of OoT every 5 yers and would still sell tons of it.
But if you propose me a port of OoT 3D just in HD...or a remix that is kind of a new entry with new dungeons and stuff...yeah, the first one im 0 interested and wont buy, but the second one? for shure.

As you say, they chose not to... and why? because even tho they are "smaller" in the sense that the world is not as massive as BotW, Skyward Sword and TP where big expensive games. They cant just do them in that fashion next to BotW.

I mean in my dream they would just have more zelda teams that we dont have to wait 5 years between entries. At first it was thought that new games and remakes will fill the space between the big ones, but we had... 1 remake that was almost 1:1, and a muso spinoff and remasters.

Then theres the aspect, that they are less open to weirdness. Smaller scale projects could fill that and be a testbed for ideas before they use them fully fledged out in a big entry.

And "coming up with cool stuff thats essentially a rom hack": i compared it to those.
But i still think that a team of people being paid to do it will create more then people working on weekends in their free time.
Even a small budget is more then no budget. And they can then sell those, rom hacks cant be sold.

I am aware that this comes mostly from my wish for more zelda gameplay and experimentation with mood, narative and characters, and the big zelda games are to expensive and big in scale to do that. so the only way that would be an option is a lower budget subseries.

But then we are back at what nintendo does now: if a series is established, they are kinda skitish in regards to not mass marketable ideas. Just see how 2D mario homogenized since the DS/Wii.

Would those sell as the big ones? no, they would not sell as much as BotW. but im confident that they would be financially viable. The problem is less feasability or money, more the overall controll over branding that they want to keep tight.
I feel in that regard you can compare them to disney.

The size of the world is a problem if you can't fill it with meaningful content, and that is one of my biggest criticisms of BotW, and most open world games in general. While exploration such as climbing (that is, if it wasn't raining which it often did) and gliding were fun, but the world was peppered with open world tasks which you repeat dozens and dozens of times over. I hope this time around they focus on more unique locations and world events (ie Eventide Isle, Lost Woods, those mazes in the corners, etc.

I do hope that those unique aspects and locations are more this time around.
For BotW it worked. Its one of my favorit games, its a 10/10...but its far from perfect.
i could think of a f-ton of improvements, and that was in the first week after release.
But it made so much, and what it made was such a well crafted look for me, that it was great.
For a sequell i do hope for more refinement. The biggest hurdle could be them not wanting to
get to complex for players that are less mechanically inclined and more narative and atmosphere interested.
I just really hope they indulge in their ideas, and dont try to make them to systematic again (the 4 beasts where structurally the same,same interior design, all shrines had the same design,...).

I dont know, the rain rarely was that much of a problem. or lets say it this way: the rain was the moment where i started to dig into my resources (stamina food, stasis tech, using waterfalls and the zora armor, moving over to horse travel, realis gale), or simply searched an alcove to light afire and sleep till the next day.

 

[Serif]

Sidon

Mipha

♪ Do Re Mi Pha Zo Ra Si Don ♪

 

[WestEgg]

♪ Do Re Mi Pha Zo Ra Si Don ♪

When you realize Mipha's theme is Mi--Fa- Mi--Fa- Mi Fa Mi

 

[Dark Cloud]

What are the thoughts on the Zonai. I’ve watched videos and stuff on them. They’re said to be some kind of barbarian tribe. They’re influence is all around.

Were they really just a barbarian tribe? Or is there something more sinister at play here…hmm