• Hey everyone, staff have documented a list of banned content and subject matter that we feel are not consistent with site values, and don't make sense to host discussion of on Famiboards. This list (and the relevant reasoning per item) is viewable here.
  • Do you have audio editing experience and want to help out with the Famiboards Discussion Club Podcast? If so, we're looking for help and would love to have you on the team! Just let us know in the Podcast Thread if you are interested!

Discussion Eiji Aonuma confirms BOTW/TOTK will be the template for Zelda going forward

The destination is beating Ganondorf

This argument is honestly pretty hilarious, every time a game has too much empty space people have that on speed dial as if it’s the perfect gotcha there is. Since when “going up a mountain” is impressive in a videogame. When you hike and touch grass irl, when you travel irl, it feels good because you’re doing it irl, you’re experiencing headfirst the result of thousands of years of nature and human history. Making big, pretty and realistic 3D worlds in a game isn’t impressive. Therefore you need something to break the monotony, that’s where the unique stuff comes in. Challenges, towns, dungeons, you name it. Having more monochrome puzzle rooms than any other type of more scenarized content simply hurts the game’s world as a whole. If you truly feel like the core gameplay loop of the whole game is rather about “getting there” it’s a pretty weak excuse honestly. Sure, both open air games add a lot of options in terms of gameplay but at it’s core, you were already doing stuff like fighting enemies, using abilities and going from point A to point B in other games. Sure you can go anywhere, you can climb anywhere, you got some new interactions, but at the end of the day if the world itself is uneven and rarely reaches the highs of past games it’s just not a fair trade.

Again, complaining about the game’s structure doesn’t mean I or anyone else that prefer other Zeldas just wants “TP all over again” or “oh so you just want another checklist gamey theme park open world”, that’s not the case at all. The current structure of the open air games simply brings design and pacing issues that were never present in past games, therefore it’s something that they can improve on. Even if you personally don’t mind it, saying that I’m missing the point is just deflecting

Sorry if any of that sounded blunt but that’s simply how it is, dunno what else to say
Repeatedly assuming you’re the authority of gaming and what we want is why so many are taking your words with annoyance.

Also, as someone who actually hikes up mountains irl, I found just as much joy climbing up structures in this game. In fact, some of my favorite moments in TotK have been just exploring with no reward in sight.
 
The destination is beating Ganondorf

This argument is honestly pretty hilarious, every time a game has too much empty space people have that on speed dial as if it’s the perfect gotcha there is. Since when “going up a mountain” is impressive in a videogame. When you hike and touch grass irl, when you travel irl, it feels good because you’re doing it irl, you’re experiencing headfirst the result of thousands of years of nature and human history. Making big, pretty and realistic 3D worlds in a game isn’t impressive. Therefore you need something to break the monotony, that’s where the unique stuff comes in. Challenges, towns, dungeons, you name it. Having more monochrome puzzle rooms than any other type of more scenarized content simply hurts the game’s world as a whole. If you truly feel like the core gameplay loop of the whole game is rather about “getting there” it’s a pretty weak excuse honestly. Sure, both open air games add a lot of options in terms of gameplay but at it’s core, you were already doing stuff like fighting enemies, using abilities and going from point A to point B in other games. Sure you can go anywhere, you can climb anywhere, you got some new interactions, but at the end of the day if the world itself is uneven and rarely reaches the highs of past games it’s just not a fair trade.

Again, complaining about the game’s structure doesn’t mean I or anyone else that prefer other Zeldas just wants “TP all over again” or “oh so you just want another checklist gamey theme park open world”, that’s not the case at all. The current structure of the open air games simply brings design and pacing issues that were never present in past games, therefore it’s something that they can improve on. Even if you personally don’t mind it, saying that I’m missing the point is just deflecting

Sorry if any of that sounded blunt but that’s simply how it is, dunno what else to say
I think it's more appropriate to judge the Open-Air games according to what the goals of the developers are than past entries. The goals are giving every player a different experience (non-linearity), keeping them engaged for a long time (open-world) and making them feel like they have accomplished someting even if they play in short bursts (koroks, shrines). I believe they accomplished these goals. But if I compare the new and trad style games, the trad games don't come out of that comparison as obviously better.

The shrines may look monochrome but so did the levels in its inspiration NES TLOZ in the end what you're doing is not to dissimilar to what you did in the traditional games. When viewed together the Sky Islands+Shrines+Temples offer way more "dungeon" content than previous games. There may be no unique items, but compared to ultrahand+fuse the items are very one-note. And the lack of enemy variety is evened out by impressive AI.
 
bro ganondorf isn't real
Fwb8oQbakAAGYop
 
It’s a grind in the sense that the game itself is grindy, that was simply never a problem in Zelda. I don’t even mention “story” in the sense of plot progression, I’m talking about how many of the content has some kind of scenario about them, how many of them have a distinct purpose.

Shrines just don’t do it because you always know what to expect. Sure, the core gameplay is good, the puzzles are good, some Shrines are bigger than others, same with caves. They are still very formulaic to their core concept, why would I be content with “appreciating the journey and joy of exploration” when most of the time, the destination are Shrines. It undermines the whole thing, the game doesn’t feel as alive or memorable when the points of interest that outnumber the most interesting ones are monochrome puzzle rooms. Some have keys in them and have two chests instead of one but they are still Shrines, they don’t really expand upon their individual concepts the way that dungeons do. I just never feel like I’m reaching a climax when I clear a new Shrine, it’s like the whole game is eating potato chips but other Zeldas had full courses.

Getting health upgrades in past Zeldas was more interesting because Heart Pieces were found in a variety of contexts that were always more complex than Rupees. Sometimes it’s a secret, other times you use a new item, you help NPCs that have problems that you figure out not because they have an exclamation mark and give you a fetch quest. Sure you can refute by saying that Shrines have better puzzles or that you could never get to Heart Pieces by building spaceships but that’s not the point. The amount of truly distinct content in open air Zeldas is simply disproportionate compared to the more repetitive or formulaic stuff, that’s it. The progression system doesn’t help either because on top of never unlocking new abilities, the fact that most collectables are consumable resources just makes things grindy. You sell stuff because the game barely gives you rupees so you can buy armor, you upgrade armor, you get health/stamina upgrades. You basically get a bunch of stuff that only does something once you have enough, then you can have some kind of permanent upgrade to make your navigation easier, rinse and repeat. Meanwhile everything in past Zeldas was immediately useful, there’s a reason why the chest jingle is so iconic. If that’s not a grind idk what it is, sure it’s not explicitly grindy in the same ways than some RPGs are but it’s still a grind in the sense that you need a lot of something in order to do something. Again, past Zeldas never had this problem, even Wind Waker with the Triforce Quest wasn’t grindy because while you needed a lot of Rupees to appraise the charts, the game always gave you some near them so you never really needed to “farm” money, can’t say the same about buying armor in BOTW/TOTK. Skyward Sword item upgrades never felt grindy at all, some materials come from monsters, others are chests that are basically between Rupees and Heart Pieces in terms of complexity, getting enough gets you item upgrades which aren’t vital to complete puzzles but still very noteworthy, they are conceptually the same than something like the Longshot, which is good.

Here another example on how the game can fall flat for me and that has nothing to do with me missing the point. So in BOTW there’s Lanaryu mountain, if you can see a mountain you can climb it. I climb it early-ish game, I use warming meals, I’m engaging with the game, I avoid Lynels, it’s all good. On top there’s the sick ice dragon, if you can count it as a boss fight it would be one of the best in gaming. At the end of all that what happens? You get a Shrine of blessing with a breakable weapon, not even something like an ice weapon that recharges like the Master Sword, no just another breakable weapon. If that wasn’t anticlimactic enough, the worst part is that the other two dragons’ quests aren’t nearly as good. On top of that, the persistent effect in saving them just means that they are out there roaming again so you can catch them and shoot at specific parts to get crafting materials to dully upgrade your armors. If that doesn’t highlight how the whole structure of Shrines and crafting materials undermines the game I dunno what else to say.

Other Zeldas simply don’t have this problem, stuff like themed dungeons and new items are an easy element to mention because they completely address the issue of Shrines being too repetitive and not unique enough. MM alone is a testament on how the Zelda team has the ability of mixing things up, meaning that the other 3D games were never stuck in a corner, it was just circumstances that lead the last few ones into being more formulaic with the three dungeons -> twist -> more dungeons -> boss structure. Therefore it’s bullshit to imply stuff like “old Zelda belongs in the trash, other series can have dungeons, sales speak for themselves” (this sentiment isn’t as present here but still). Basically what I’m saying is that the people preferring older Zelda feel that way not because they miss the point of the game, it’s simply because they have a problem with certain design and pacing issues that older Zelda never had. Those are legit criticisms and not troll stuff like what certain console warriors and David Jaffe are saying. Mario can be linear or open. Metroid can be more exploration focused or more action/horror focused (still retains the core Metroid elements). Long running series can have different focuses in their design philosophies between games. But with Zelda it’s fine to settle with it borrowing concepts from other open world games that usually aren’t even in the same genre just because it hits the right notes on concepts like “exploration and freedom”? They honestly ran Shrines and story flashbacks to the ground after only two games. No matter how cool the mechanics are, this sentiment will always be present if the games don’t provide contexts that are more appealing. “Bringing dungeons back” isn’t making a step back, it’s simply looking back at a series with a very rich history to then fully expand and build on interesting concepts that didn’t have the opportunity to blossom, to evolve due to certain hardware limitations (reminder that SS was a Wii game, if it wasn’t it would have over 3 areas and be actually interconnected). That’s it
so you prefer heart peices to Shrines because...NPCs give them out sometimes, that honestly makes no sense. There is really no difference between heart pieces and shrines as reards
 
This argument is honestly pretty hilarious
what’s actually hilarious is the air of condescension wafting around this reply despite it being largely unintelligible, much like the other dozen or so long ass posts you insist on shitting up every zelda thread on this board with
 
0
I love old style Zelda and I could see the argument when the new formula was only represented by Breath of the Wild but now... TotK is like my favorite game of all time and they perfected the formula to such incredible levels it really is very difficult to argue against it.
 
The destination is beating Ganondorf

This argument is honestly pretty hilarious, every time a game has too much empty space people have that on speed dial as if it’s the perfect gotcha there is. Since when “going up a mountain” is impressive in a videogame. When you hike and touch grass irl, when you travel irl, it feels good because you’re doing it irl, you’re experiencing headfirst the result of thousands of years of nature and human history. Making big, pretty and realistic 3D worlds in a game isn’t impressive. Therefore you need something to break the monotony, that’s where the unique stuff comes in. Challenges, towns, dungeons, you name it. Having more monochrome puzzle rooms than any other type of more scenarized content simply hurts the game’s world as a whole. If you truly feel like the core gameplay loop of the whole game is rather about “getting there” it’s a pretty weak excuse honestly. Sure, both open air games add a lot of options in terms of gameplay but at it’s core, you were already doing stuff like fighting enemies, using abilities and going from point A to point B in other games. Sure you can go anywhere, you can climb anywhere, you got some new interactions, but at the end of the day if the world itself is uneven and rarely reaches the highs of past games it’s just not a fair trade.

Again, complaining about the game’s structure doesn’t mean I or anyone else that prefer other Zeldas just wants “TP all over again” or “oh so you just want another checklist gamey theme park open world”, that’s not the case at all. The current structure of the open air games simply brings design and pacing issues that were never present in past games, therefore it’s something that they can improve on. Even if you personally don’t mind it, saying that I’m missing the point is just deflecting

Sorry if any of that sounded blunt but that’s simply how it is, dunno what else to say
Sorry for enjoying the game for the wrong reasons. I’ll be sure to tell the millions of people who loved BotW and TotK to ask you about what they’re allowed to enjoy about the game first, since you’re the authority and all.

I apologize for finding “hiking up a mountain” and searching for “monochrome puzzle rooms” fun. It will never happen again.
 
The destination is beating Ganondorf

This argument is honestly pretty hilarious, every time a game has too much empty space people have that on speed dial as if it’s the perfect gotcha there is. Since when “going up a mountain” is impressive in a videogame. When you hike and touch grass irl, when you travel irl, it feels good because you’re doing it irl, you’re experiencing headfirst the result of thousands of years of nature and human history. Making big, pretty and realistic 3D worlds in a game isn’t impressive. Therefore you need something to break the monotony, that’s where the unique stuff comes in. Challenges, towns, dungeons, you name it. Having more monochrome puzzle rooms than any other type of more scenarized content simply hurts the game’s world as a whole. If you truly feel like the core gameplay loop of the whole game is rather about “getting there” it’s a pretty weak excuse honestly. Sure, both open air games add a lot of options in terms of gameplay but at it’s core, you were already doing stuff like fighting enemies, using abilities and going from point A to point B in other games. Sure you can go anywhere, you can climb anywhere, you got some new interactions, but at the end of the day if the world itself is uneven and rarely reaches the highs of past games it’s just not a fair trade.

Again, complaining about the game’s structure doesn’t mean I or anyone else that prefer other Zeldas just wants “TP all over again” or “oh so you just want another checklist gamey theme park open world”, that’s not the case at all. The current structure of the open air games simply brings design and pacing issues that were never present in past games, therefore it’s something that they can improve on. Even if you personally don’t mind it, saying that I’m missing the point is just deflecting

Sorry if any of that sounded blunt but that’s simply how it is, dunno what else to say
My dude, you are not the arbiter of how to enjoy a video game.
 
I would invite you to follow along.

Let's remind ourselves that we've been waiting for 4 years for this game. Let's be grateful that we can finally play it. Let's connect with our past selves and tell them how amazing the game is going to be.
 
0
Nah, how about this? Take us OUT of Hyrule. Remove the Master Sword. Introduce a new villain. Heck, maybe don’t even include Zelda at all.

I love BOTW and TOTK but their insistence on Hyrule this, Hyrule that has become a bit stagnant, I really miss when Zelda games had entirely different worlds like Koholint and Termina.

Or maybe all those things except instead of not including Zelda, how bout not including Link.
 
Just use the ALTTP/OOT "old school" template into 2D Zelda.

3D Zeldas can be the big open-sandbox puzzle with heavy interaction in the overworld.
 
You seem to dominate these threads with an authoritative argument about how the games "should" be and seemingly be unable to accept that the majority of people love the games or they're somehow wrong for loving it, it's honestly pretty weird
I recommend the Block Button. It's both a friend and an act of self-care. 💕✨
 
Or maybe all those things except instead of not including Zelda, how bout not including Link.
this would be cool for a Zelda movie, but Link is the designated Link to the player

my approach would be to make Link fully androgynous and referred to as them but that might be a bit too forward for Nintendo
 
Just use the ALTTP/OOT "old school" template into 2D Zelda.

3D Zeldas can be the big open-sandbox puzzle with heavy interaction in the overworld.
Pragmatically I just want these open air Zelda games to just fully embrace doing classic style dungeons. Shrines already establish puzzle areas where you can't climb walls and have to (generally) take a more guided approach. There's no reason BotW/TotK couldn't have done that. Light TotK spoilers
The Fire Temple is really close to this, just remove the ability to climb walls and force players to use the mine cart/rail system.
 
0
You can‘t adapt 1:1 how long something takes to develop to the actual quality of the game. I often feel like people think that game development was only coding. Though what if for example the sky tutorial island needed to go through several iterations because it wasn‘t good enough from a level design perspective? Maybe the only thing they did between 2017 and early 2018 was testing out new mechanics? Or they just run into some technical problems and needed to adapt their engine or something? Or they simply couldn‘t decide on the character design of the Zonai?

I mean in the end it‘s good that they were able to take all the time they need and release when they think they are ready.
That's very true. Majora's Mask was made in less than 2 years and is the best game in the series. Development time doesn't inherently equate to quality.

It's hard to say in TOTK's case. Perhaps the extra development time used to experiment was worth it. Perhaps it wasn't and there was a lot of wasted time, or time that was devoted to ideas that went nowhere or bad ideas. Impossible to know without direct insight into the development environment.

TotK is iterative sequel?
100%. I mean iterative in a literal sense, not a bad way. It's iterating upon almost every aspect of BOTW (mechanics, code/assets, art style, story, world, etc) in the same way MM iterated upon OOT. And sequels (especially iterative ones with asset reuse, the biggest bottleneck of modern game development) historically take substantially less time to create than something wholly new. That's just a fact.

To my understanding this game uses a different engine than BOTW, on hardware that is well past it's shelf live. Both of which provide substantial challenges in themselves. This isn't a port of a WiiU game anymore, this was built from the ground up for Switch. Other than the overall surface map layout, some characters and certain weapons and loot, this is a brand new world with new mechanics, storylines and ways to interact with it.

GTA games are in themselves essentially iterative sequels by way of mechanics yet take ages to develop so that point really doesn't make much sense either.
All we know is TOTK uses Nintendo's lunchpack2 engine in some capacity. I can't find any information about what engine BOTW used, but I would be incredibly surprised if TOTK's engine was wholly originally. Even if the engines were "different" a lot of code and assets were obviously reused, which should have saved dev time. This sort of stuff only becomes a massive bottleneck when a team is creating an engine from scratch (not the case here), or creating wholly new systems (e.g. BOTW's physics systems).

Being on hardware that's "past its shelf life" doesn't mean much. TOTK started development in 2017/2018, when the Switch hardware was new. The life cycle of the hardware doesn't mean anything. Good SDK documentation and libraries mean much more for efficient game development than raw power, that's why devs bitched about the PS3's esoteric cell architecture. Like maybe you can argue the Switch is so underpowered that Zelda Team spent a lot of development time optimizing performance? Hard to say, but I doubt it was that much of a burden. If anything, Zelda team already having experience developing a Switch title should have given them a leg up on.

Getting the new Zonai abilities to work, creating the changed Hyrule.. They didn't exactly toggle the "run on Switch" button either, everyone is saying how impressive and miraclous is this game is even able to run on the Switch.

They confirmed BOTW went gold early February of 2017. That's not exactly sitting on it. Also, if you've watched the BOTW behind the scenes videos you'll learn that Fujibayashi said they started development of BOTW in January of 2013.

Making games is hard.
If BOTW started development in Jan 2013 that's only 4~ years which make's TOTK's protracted development even weirder.
 
Last edited:
this would be cool for a Zelda movie, but Link is the designated Link to the player

my approach would be to make Link fully androgynous and referred to as them but that might be a bit too forward for Nintendo

Right, but a game with Zelda as the main will finally make the LEGEND a REALITY.
 
That's very true. Majora's Mask was made in less than 2 years and is the best game in the series. Development time doesn't inherently equate to quality.

It's hard to say in TOTK's case. Perhaps the extra development time used to experiment was worth it. Perhaps it wasn't and there was a lot of wasted time, or time that was devoted to ideas that went nowhere or bad ideas. Impossible to know without direct insight into the development environment.


100%. I mean iterative in a literal sense, not a bad way. It's iterating upon almost every aspect of BOTW (mechanics, code/assets, art style, story, world, etc) in the same way MM iterated upon OOT. And sequels (especially iterative ones with asset reuse, the biggest bottleneck of modern game development) historically take substantially less time to create than something wholly new. That's just a fact.


All we know is TOTK uses Nintendo's lunchpack2 engine in some capacity. I can't find any information about what engine BOTW used, but I would be incredibly surprised if TOTK's engine was wholly originally. Even if the engines were "different" a lot of code and assets were obviously reused, which should have saved dev time. This sort of stuff only becomes a massive bottleneck when a team is creating an engine from scratch (not the case here), or creating wholly new systems (e.g. BOTW's physics systems).

Being on hardware that's "past its shelf life" doesn't mean much. TOTK started development in 2017/2018, when the Switch hardware was new. The life cycle of the hardware doesn't mean anything. Good SDK documentation and libraries mean much more for efficient game development than raw power, that's why devs bitched about the PS3's esoteric cell architecture. Like maybe you can argue the Switch is so underpowered that Zelda Team spent a lot of development time optimizing performance? Hard to say, but I doubt it was that much of a burden. If anything, Zelda team already having experience developing a Switch title should have given them a leg up on.


If BOTW started development in Jan 2013 that's only 4~ years which make's TOTK's protracted development even weirder.
I find it ludicrous that your trying to argue this game should have been released sooner to what essentially boils down to an argument of asset reuse. Like we have the latest Aonuma interview where the “non-burden” of optimization took them a year after completion. After everything that we are seeing since the launch of TOTK-I can easily see how this game took so long in development, with Covid included, in the modern game development landscape.
 
I just wanna swim underwater again

You seem to dominate these threads with an authoritative argument about how the games "should" be and seemingly be unable to accept that the majority of people love the games or they're somehow wrong for loving it, it's honestly pretty weird
Someone asked a question, I answered. If having an argument supported by well known principles in game design is “authoritative” I dunno what to say. I’m not talking out of my ass here, I actually made games before and had classes about this shit. There’s a lot of material out there that totally dissects games like OOT and point out how it’s a masterclass in game design and giving purpose to every element of the game, something that open world games in general lack. This makes for a way more nuanced and accurate argument to explain why some people prefer older Zelda rather than “they just want TP over again you’re missing the point that’s just your opinion man”

If no one says it, who will? Pretty much every negative comment about the game has been handwaved or deflected, some even consider it as trolling. I’m just putting the finger on valid design issues, not the usual tired bullshit arguments about honeymoons, belda, weapon durability, rain and graphics.

Now I know I might have killed the vibe a bit but here’s the thing, it’s just words. If you extrapolate what I said to the point that “I think people are wrong for enjoying the game” (I’m enjoying it, Zora part was awesome) or that it’s unfair that I say that the game is grindy or whatever, that’s honestly not my problem. I’m already taking the time of explaining throughly my point, if you can’t engage in good faith and quick to label me as a troll or whatever that’s on you, just either read again or just agree to disagree. Internet always expects the worst, it’s like the meme about thinking you hate waffles because you said you like pancakes

I’m not even mad, again I know it’s not the first time I’m on this topic but I just had to reiterate not only to answer the question but also because this narrative about the last few games’ successes is honestly depressing. I know recency bias got crazy since the Wii U but this is on another level. I’ve been aware of Zelda fans on the Internet for years. You never knew what to expect from the series, every game had concepts that could be potentially fleshed out in future entries. MM especially opened the floodgates on how varied Zelda could actually be in terms of structure or focus. Fast forward to now, you have two open world Zeldas, they are successful on top of being the latest games so naturally Aonuma will comment on those being the template, just like he did for every other one before. Now on forums, no one questions that they could remove Shrines or the Tutorial that gives you all abilities from the start, after a game with so many creative mechanics the best you can imagine is BOTW 3: The Way of Water? Devs read those sometimes, might as well speculate about something fun or we’ll keep getting games that don’t surprise you anymore
 
I think it's a mistake to think that this means every future 3D Zelda is going to be a big open world. Modernized physics and great exploration can be preserved in a more linear entry.
They could remake Ocarina or Twilight Princess just to show us how it could be: better movement, better combat, crafting system, classic style dungeons, smaller map... Or just reinvent themselves again and make BotW/TotK feel classic too.
 
0
Someone asked a question, I answered. If having an argument supported by well known principles in game design is “authoritative” I dunno what to say. I’m not talking out of my ass here, I actually made games before and had classes about this shit. There’s a lot of material out there that totally dissects games like OOT and point out how it’s a masterclass in game design and giving purpose to every element of the game, something that open world games in general lack. This makes for a way more nuanced and accurate argument to explain why some people prefer older Zelda rather than “they just want TP over again you’re missing the point that’s just your opinion man”

If no one says it, who will? Pretty much every negative comment about the game has been handwaved or deflected, some even consider it as trolling. I’m just putting the finger on valid design issues, not the usual tired bullshit arguments about honeymoons, belda, weapon durability, rain and graphics.

Now I know I might have killed the vibe a bit but here’s the thing, it’s just words. If you extrapolate what I said to the point that “I think people are wrong for enjoying the game” (I’m enjoying it, Zora part was awesome) or that it’s unfair that I say that the game is grindy or whatever, that’s honestly not my problem. I’m already taking the time of explaining throughly my point, if you can’t engage in good faith and quick to label me as a troll or whatever that’s on you, just either read again or just agree to disagree. Internet always expects the worst, it’s like the meme about thinking you hate waffles because you said you like pancakes

I’m not even mad, again I know it’s not the first time I’m on this topic but I just had to reiterate not only to answer the question but also because this narrative about the last few games’ successes is honestly depressing. I know recency bias got crazy since the Wii U but this is on another level. I’ve been aware of Zelda fans on the Internet for years. You never knew what to expect from the series, every game had concepts that could be potentially fleshed out in future entries. MM especially opened the floodgates on how varied Zelda could actually be in terms of structure or focus. Fast forward to now, you have two open world Zeldas, they are successful on top of being the latest games so naturally Aonuma will comment on those being the template, just like he did for every other one before. Now on forums, no one questions that they could remove Shrines or the Tutorial that gives you all abilities from the start, after a game with so many creative mechanics the best you can imagine is BOTW 3: The Way of Water? Devs read those sometimes, might as well speculate about something fun or we’ll keep getting games that don’t surprise you anymore
This post is fucking hilarious, Yoshifan31
 
0
Someone asked a question, I answered. If having an argument supported by well known principles in game design is “authoritative” I dunno what to say. I’m not talking out of my ass here, I actually made games before and had classes about this shit. There’s a lot of material out there that totally dissects games like OOT and point out how it’s a masterclass in game design and giving purpose to every element of the game, something that open world games in general lack. This makes for a way more nuanced and accurate argument to explain why some people prefer older Zelda rather than “they just want TP over again you’re missing the point that’s just your opinion man”

If no one says it, who will? Pretty much every negative comment about the game has been handwaved or deflected, some even consider it as trolling. I’m just putting the finger on valid design issues, not the usual tired bullshit arguments about honeymoons, belda, weapon durability, rain and graphics.

Now I know I might have killed the vibe a bit but here’s the thing, it’s just words. If you extrapolate what I said to the point that “I think people are wrong for enjoying the game” (I’m enjoying it, Zora part was awesome) or that it’s unfair that I say that the game is grindy or whatever, that’s honestly not my problem. I’m already taking the time of explaining throughly my point, if you can’t engage in good faith and quick to label me as a troll or whatever that’s on you, just either read again or just agree to disagree. Internet always expects the worst, it’s like the meme about thinking you hate waffles because you said you like pancakes

I’m not even mad, again I know it’s not the first time I’m on this topic but I just had to reiterate not only to answer the question but also because this narrative about the last few games’ successes is honestly depressing. I know recency bias got crazy since the Wii U but this is on another level. I’ve been aware of Zelda fans on the Internet for years. You never knew what to expect from the series, every game had concepts that could be potentially fleshed out in future entries. MM especially opened the floodgates on how varied Zelda could actually be in terms of structure or focus. Fast forward to now, you have two open world Zeldas, they are successful on top of being the latest games so naturally Aonuma will comment on those being the template, just like he did for every other one before. Now on forums, no one questions that they could remove Shrines or the Tutorial that gives you all abilities from the start, after a game with so many creative mechanics the best you can imagine is BOTW 3: The Way of Water? Devs read those sometimes, might as well speculate about something fun or we’ll keep getting games that don’t surprise you anymore
First off, words matter, and how you use them... matters. I have never engaged with you before nor do I have a some deep seeded history of your posts on this forum. This is merely the second one I have read from you ever, having only read one prior one people kept quoting so I could gain some context.

A few things. First, you talk about your experience making games and what they taught you in school, and then you get into how OoT is a masterclass in game design and giving purpose to every element of the game, something that open world games lack.

Here is the disconnect in this argument from the jump: Ocarina of Time sold how much again? 7ish million copies in it's heyday. Forget the 30m BoTW sold or the 10m+ that ToTk sold so far. How many copies does GTA sell, another open world game? How about Minecraft? How about Skyrim? Elden Ring? I could go on and on, but maybe, just maybe, going to school and making an indie game or two isn't a great barometer for understanding what consumers actually want.

Remember, video games is an entertainment business. The goal of a game is to entertain an audience. You can do this in a wide range of ways and emotions (just like TV/Movies), and generally if something is extremely popular it is not only copied and mimicked, it's popular because it successfully entertained a much larger audience than something else did. You talked about how there is no thrill to climb a mountain or some other object in Tears of the Kingdom because it's not the same as enjoying the real world with that world's history. Yet, you had numerous replies telling you that actually, they enjoyed that aspect of the game the most, some even telling you they enjoy hiking and that made the joy of doing it in the game even more fruitful.

To you, this is boring and bad design. But yet, others are really enjoying it. You can't always take what you learn in school, learn through a couple indie projects, and think you truly understand the greater medium at all. This is true of many, many professions. I've been to school for programming. I have also had programming jobs. The jobs were so different from school, it's basically like I never went to school at all with the amount I had to learn. Been to school for journalism as well - the moment I had to be a journalist... the job was so different from what I learned in school. Same with IT, same with almost every job I have ever had that required "extra schooling". Having talked with people in other professions, they generally tend to agree.

Jobs want you to have the degree not because it shows how qualified you are, but because it shows your ability to complete something you didn't know how to do. So when they hire you, sure you have a base understanding, but you're also more likely to stick through the learning process long haul. There are also numerous people in lots of a professions that simply never went to college, they learned through experience.

Aonuma has made many comments over the years. He has only ever talked about Ocarina of Time setting the forumla for Zelda. He has never referenced any game since that one being the template. At all. That is... until today.

What we can imagine as gamers is irrelevant. The Way of Water? It's just an idea. We are not game designers. We are not game makers. We are not the ones that need to come up with game ideas - so our ideas are irrelevant.

I also can't take anyone seriously that is trying to argue Zelda games don't surprise us anymore. I am so shocked and surprised by so many elements in Tears of the Kingdom, I think the bigger disconnect is probably just your personal preferences, versus others. There is no one size fits all way to make games.
 
I really hope they overhaul or add to the combat moving forward. The weapons fuse ability is not enough. It seems like a simple, lazy, add on to deal with the complaints of the first game.
 
0
Or maybe all those things except instead of not including Zelda, how bout not including Link.
Would be 100% fine with that. Would prefer it even. Zelda should be a free-form series, like RPGs that have different protagonists each time. It would be really neat to see that in a Zelda game. Just as long as the “Link replacement” still functionally controls like Link.
 
Would be 100% fine with that. Would prefer it even. Zelda should be a free-form series, like RPGs that have different protagonists each time. It would be really neat to see that in a Zelda game. Just as long as the “Link replacement” still functionally controls like Link.
If that means, "Link in gameplay despite being a different character", nah.

Zelda should play like Zelda, not like Link in a different color of tunic.
 
0
That's sad I liked the old Zelda games better. At the very least I hope that the next Zelda game brings back the old style of music. I really dislike the direction that they have gone in with the music.
 
The advent of a new template doesn't necessarily mean abandoning the previous formula. The revolution brought by Ocarina didn't erase A Link to The Past or prevent excellent 2D Zelda from existing, and in the same way, the huge success of BOTW/TOTK won't have to erase the formula built since Ocarina. The big problem is having the development resources it requires.

But in theory, NSMBU, Odyssey and 3D World have coexisted seamlessly on Switch, so I don't see why different Zelda game proposals couldn't coexist harmoniously too.
 
The advent of a new template doesn't necessarily mean abandoning the previous formula. The revolution brought by Ocarina didn't erase A Link to The Past or prevent excellent 2D Zelda from existing, and in the same way, the huge success of BOTW/TOTK won't have to erase the formula built since Ocarina. The big problem is having the development resources it requires.

But in theory, NSMBU, Odyssey and 3D World have coexisted seamlessly on Switch, so I don't see why different Zelda game proposals couldn't coexist harmoniously too.
They can't even regularly put out new 2D Zeldas because the resource requirements for everything across the board, but especially 3D Zelda, have gone up so much in the last years. We've never been this far away from "theory".
 
As I said, it's essentially a problem of development resources, yes.

It's worth noting, however, that this isn't a totally new problem, and didn't start with HD. After all, to develop Zelda games for the Game Boy Color and then the Game Boy Advance, Nintendo had already had to go and find Capcom to co-found Flagship.
 
The advent of a new template doesn't necessarily mean abandoning the previous formula. The revolution brought by Ocarina didn't erase A Link to The Past or prevent excellent 2D Zelda from existing, and in the same way, the huge success of BOTW/TOTK won't have to erase the formula built since Ocarina. The big problem is having the development resources it requires.

But in theory, NSMBU, Odyssey and 3D World have coexisted seamlessly on Switch, so I don't see why different Zelda game proposals couldn't coexist harmoniously too.
I think this theory is hampered by the fact that 2/3 of those Mario games are Wii U ports
 
NSMBU and SM3DW weren't ports when they came out on Wii U though. And the Wii U's life cycle was unusually short.

I'm not saying that this will necessarily happen, I'm simply saying that there is a sufficient and complementary audience for each of these proposals to remain viable. Increasingly long development times can be seen as an additional opportunity to offer these variants in the meantime. That's what they're already doing by releasing Link's Awakening HD and Skyward Sword HD between two main Zelda games.


Sales of the two games have been good enough for them to eventually consider, in my opinion, creating new titles when they run out of rermasters/remakes.


Again, I don't think it will necessarily happen, because I know how much of an issue development resources are. But I also don't think it's as unlikely as we might fear.
 
0
As I said, it's essentially a problem of development resources, yes.

It's worth noting, however, that this isn't a totally new problem, and didn't start with HD. After all, to develop Zelda games for the Game Boy Color and then the Game Boy Advance, Nintendo had already had to go and find Capcom to co-found Flagship.
I don't think there's any indication that Nintendo couldn't have made the Flagship Zeldas themselves, especially since they ended up moving handheld titles back in-house when Flagship was dissolved and Fujibayashi (and others?) joined them. Based on interviews it sounds more like Okamoto approached Nintendo rather than the other way around anyway, first for a remake that then turned into different projects until they finally ended up with the Oracle games. Also, in the time Capcom/Flagship made 4 GB(A) Zelda games you'd be lucky to get out one single modern title. And it'd be much, much more expensive to boot. The two situations aren't really comparable. But I digress.

I just don't see any scenario in which Nintendo decides to put additional resources into a style of Zelda that is much less popular than the open air ones yet still prohibitively expensive (which is why nobody else is making them). Unless, of course, they scale such a title way back in terms of size and/or fidelity that we're used to from Zelda.
 
I believe traditional Zelda is more popular that people tend to think. Of course BOTW expanded the audience but I wouldn't be surprise to see a Zelda like OOT and TP selling near 20M copies in a system like Switch. 3d Zelda always sold around 70% of its 3d Mario counterpart. This time things inverted.

Also important to notice that Zelda always figured out among the best selling games of a Nintendo home console.

Both Ocarina of time and Wind Waker were the 4th best selling game of their system. Same position as BOTW right now, selling 29M.
Twilight Princess was the 13th best selling Wii game. Though Wii sold more to casuals so in this gen even Smash and Galaxy only achieved 8th and 9th.
Just for comparison, the 13th best selling Switch game has 15M copies sold.

I think the big problems were MM and SS. Both are games that took more risk, came when the systems were in decline and depends on an additional peripheral to be played.

Of course profit is in absolute number but Nintendo knows that game sales depends on a healthy platform.
 
Last edited:
Both Ocarina of time and Wind Waker were the 4th best selling game of their system. Same position as BOTW right now, selling 29M.
Twilight Princess was the 13th best selling Wii game. Though Wii sold more to casuals so in this gen even Smash and Galaxy only achieved 8th and 9th.
Just for comparison, the 13th best selling Switch game has 15M copies sold.
This is not how statistical analysis works.
 
but I wouldn't be surprise to see a Zelda like OOT and TP selling near 20M copies in a system like Switch
It would be interesting to see Nintendo pump out a more traditional, linear 3D Zelda and see how it sells. I think it's going to sell better thanks to BotW and TotK massively expanding the audience, but 20M might be a bit too out of reach.

Both Ocarina of time and Wind Waker were the 4th best selling game of their system. Same position as BOTW right now, selling 29M.
Twilight Princess was the 13th best selling Wii game. Though Wii sold more to casuals so in this gen even Smash and Galaxy only achieved 8th and 9th.
Just for comparison, the 13th best selling Switch game has 15M copies sold
Kinda iffy logic here. You can't just directly transpose sales rankings from Wii to Switch and assume stuff.
 


Back
Top Bottom