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

[Phendrift]

I suspect that Nintendo's first priority is to get mainline 3D Zelda out faster (like... every 4 years rather than 6), then to get 2D games out at a semi-regular pace. And once they've done that they might start thinking about "traditional" OoT-style Zeldas again. Gaps between new releases they will continue to fill with spinoffs like Hyrule Warriors, remakes and remasters primarily done by outside studios.

Listening to the new Kit & Krysta it sounds like the bigger barrier to more traditional 3D Zelda elements might be Aonuma himself not wanting them in these games anymore, which is something I suspected as well. Maybe once Fujibayashi inevitably takes over his producer duties and someone else hops into the director's chair there might be some changes but I somehow doubt it.

At this point it seems that people looking for that OoT feeling are more likely going to get it from something like Metroid Prime.

Yeah, I could see speeding up the development process being a huge priority for Nintendo - for both 3D Mario and Zelda.

I know great games take time, but TotK taking as long as it did was probably way less than ideal for Nintendo.

Hopefully with no covid, as well as even more familiarity with the style of game they’re making now, we get the next one a couple years earlier.

 

[meatbag]

Games are just very overengineered nowadays, for lack of a better term. You can very easily dissect the gameplay loop of a modern game, this includes open world games in general, it’s just way more predictable to know what to expect

This sounds incredibly pretentious. And also wrong because retro games tend to have simpler gameplay loops, thus they're easier to dissect. Come on, now.

One of the many ways older games can be better is how they weren’t as clean-cut in terms of structure or genres

I mean, yeah, it's cool when the gameplay structure or genre isn't clear-cut, but that's hardly limited to older games. Plenty of new games are experimenting with mechanics all the time.

that a lot of modern, critically acclaimed games understand this part of game design, that’s how they managed to be successful and have fans that are like “just play it, go blind, it’s hard to explain what makes it good”

Open world games, TOTK included, just don’t really have this quality to them

Gee, I guess all the people getting surprised by the stuff they can do in TotK weren't really surprised, then

I just don’t think that modern open world Zelda that sells over 20 million and the qualities of older Zelda are mutually exclusive

Of course not, because open world Zelda explicitly incorporates qualities of older Zelda titles. Aonuma said as much.

they are still isolated to the main story and they can still feel like a repurposed version of existing content (caves, sky islands, Divine Beasts). You need to follow the main quest and meet your partner to access them… They feel more like “set pieces” rather than dungeons, I thought an appeal of non linear Zelda would be to actually stumble upon dungeons outside of the main quest

Okay, now I'm confused. You criticize open world Zelda for being open world, yet your proposed solution is something an open world could implement, anyway.

Open world Zelda has you collect a bunch of resources, you spent a lot more time in menus compared to any other Zelda. This is just grindy, what if the next Zelda actually gave you new permanent abilities that don’t have you spend as much time in menus, that has always been a huge advantage that Zelda had.

One man's grind is another man's content. But your idea would work in a Zelda game that wasn't open world. But not in the context of BotW/TotK.

This could introduce hard locks?

Basically the lock-and-key design of classic Zelda, and yes that could work.

 

[Dizzle]

This got bumped several times so might as well clarify some things


I know it’s impossible to say this without sounding like a snob but I mean, it’s to support the fact that my opinion is educated. It’s not exactly an appeal to authority because I’m not one. Now, a fallacy that has been throughout the last few posts is the appeal to majority, everyone bringing up BOTW sales numbers to disregard any criticism of design issues


Bringing up sales numbers is the same logic that execs have when they just want more GAAS games or whatever makes the most money. Nintendo has the most passionate fans in the industry because they are one of the few non-indie companies that respect videogames as an art form. If they were like EA or Activision or whatever, they wouldn’t even bother with most of their series and would settle on making bullshit like Pokemon MMO, Animal Crossing NFTs and Fortnite Mario. Zelda is one of the most influential series out there, I think there can be a discussion about its design decisions without completely disregarding the majority of the series.

I don’t think forum posts are all that irrelevant when you consider stuff like NOA skipping on the Tingle games due to stupid memes, or how Paper Mario Sticker Star was a reaction to Club Nintendo surveys. That’s why I always get triggered when people speculate about the most predictable worst case scenario outcomes

You misunderstood my point about games not being surprising anymore, it’s not even about TOTK (tbh it’s easier for that game to surprise people when basically everything that makes it differ from BOTW was treated as a spoiler and not really shown in trailers). I’m not even talking about the Internet and leaks killing mysteries in games either. Games are just very overengineered nowadays, for lack of a better term. You can very easily dissect the gameplay loop of a modern game, this includes open world games in general, it’s just way more predictable to know what to expect. One of the many ways older games can be better is how they weren’t as clean-cut in terms of structure or genres. That’s a whole other topic that deserves its own essay but basically the point here is that a lot of modern, critically acclaimed games understand this part of game design, that’s how they managed to be successful and have fans that are like “just play it, go blind, it’s hard to explain what makes it good”. Games like I dunno, Nier Automata come into mind, that’s a good precedent for games and that’s what I mean when I talk about games surprising you.

Open world games, TOTK included, just don’t really have this quality to them because there is so much repetition that you already know what to expect. Sky Islands are neat, they are basically outdoor dungeons, but how many of them are just another crystal Shrine puzzle. The Shrines have good puzzles but even then, it’s the same aesthetic, same template at times, a lot of them are basically the puzzle equivalent of Mario boss fight, you get a concept, you do a puzzle three times with a chest somewhere in between. You get the idea. I just don’t think that modern open world Zelda that sells over 20 million and the qualities of older Zelda are mutually exclusive. I enjoy TOTK’s dungeons, I think so far they are actually above average compared to other dungeons in the series (wouldn’t say the same about Divine Beasts) but it’s still sad how despite them getting some hype in the marketing, they are still isolated to the main story and they can still feel like a repurposed version of existing content (caves, sky islands, Divine Beasts). You need to follow the main quest and meet your partner to access them… They feel more like “set pieces” rather than dungeons, I thought an appeal of non linear Zelda would be to actually stumble upon dungeons outside of the main quest. Open world Zelda has you collect a bunch of resources, you spent a lot more time in menus compared to any other Zelda. This is just grindy, what if the next Zelda actually gave you new permanent abilities that don’t have you spend as much time in menus, that has always been a huge advantage that Zelda had. This doesn’t conflict with having the option of “DIY” the solution to a puzzle. This could introduce hard locks? I don’t think it’s a problem either, especially considering both games force you to get all your abilities in the tutorial before really starting the game, TOTK even restricts you further as you’re basically forced to follow the main quest for a while after finishing the tutorial. It’s just not a good precedent to settle on “expanding upon TOTK” because that’s just making another bigger game. You already see how TOTK has basically overridden BOTW in gaming discussion, that’s not ideal. Zelda is much more than that, it has always managed to make entries that stand out from each other. With post-Wii hardware they can finally expand upon various concepts from past games, a theorical “traditional HD 3D Zelda” wouldn’t have stuff like the “padding” in TP or SS in the first place. Having another huge open world game with bite-sized challenges and no permanent upgrades would just be tired at this point, like the most memorable parts in TOTK clearly lean on what older 3D Zelda offers but it just doesn’t commit to it

The suggestion of an OOT remake is sad as hell, this won’t happen since Nintendo actually knows which of their games stood the test of time. They re-released Mario 64 with no changes. They may be old but they are still perfectly playable today, and that’s fine. It’s just not comparable to the other hits of that gen getting full remakes, because in those cases you have games with fixed camera angles getting remade with modern controls so that their audience that have no interest in retro games can get what the fuss is about. OOT just doesn’t need a remake, there’s a million directions the series can go, ideas to expand before settling on “OOT remake with BOTW engine”

Zelda games have always been pretty formulaic in that they are built around a core set of mechanics that are introduced early and then don't really change much throughout. The series has never been surprising.

The key difference between old and new Zelda is the genre has shifted to incorporate elements of the immersive sim. If you don't like that, you're gonna notice the seams and get bored. If you do like that, you won't mind. Everything you don't like about the game, I find fun. I don't know what else to say.

 

[Lozjam]

Yeah, I could see speeding up the development process being a huge priority for Nintendo - for both 3D Mario and Zelda.

I know great games take time, but TotK taking as long as it did was probably way less than ideal for Nintendo.

Hopefully with no covid, as well as even more familiarity with the style of game they’re making now, we get the next one a couple years earlier.

Probably not though.

It used to be, that games would sell for like the first 2 Years, and then sales would drop off of a cliff. Unless there was a reprint at a cheaper price point, that was it.

But BotW has been a consistent evergreen seller, which meant consistent revenue for Nintendo. So there really wasn't a rush at all. I mean, BotW outsold SS's total sales on Wii in it's final year. And that was it's 6th year in the market. That is like Twilight Princess outselling Skyward Sword.

Tears of the Kingdom will do the same.

I am sure that Nintendo wants to take more it's time with Games in the future, not making things more fast and rushed.

 

[Mekanos]

Yeah I'm gonna have to raise my hand at the idea that the Zelda series was ever this very surprising and experimental set of games. The fact that it was so beholden to its formula was a major issue for the series for a decade and change! Zelda games have always been blockbuster games, perhaps ones with more prestige than typical, but rarely straying from its own setups and formula.

I said this in another thread but AAA games are very expensive and time consuming to make, the team is not going to rock the boat and create an experience that is a shocking swerve from what players expect. You're not getting a Majora's Mask or Link's Awakening type of game when the games take 5+ years to make and have 1000+ people working on them. That's just the sheer reality of modern game development.

Just one thing I want to touch on, in relation to that:

Nintendo has the most passionate fans in the industry because they are one of the few non-indie companies that respect videogames as an art form.

It has nothing to do with "art." Nintendo is a business and they are no stranger to chasing trends in order to maximize their profits. Linear Zelda was selling less and open world Zelda sells magnitudes more than any Zelda game before it. Their image of being a family friendly company is cultivated largely because they know, like Disney, they can leverage multiple generations' worth of nostalgia to continue to buy their products. If anything I would argue the opposite - in an age where so many developers are trying to make games that are "art" (aka appealing to the 17-35 demographic with pseudo-cinematic presentation), Nintendo makes games that are still, essentially, electronic toys. And they know by making these games, they will attract kids who will be loyal customers well into their adulthood.

Arguments about whether or not video games are art is an inane and uninteresting one to me and ultimately irrelevant to the discussion here. I love Nintendo games, if I made a top 10 list I would imagine it would be at least half Nintendo games, they're the whole reason I play video games at all to begin with. But let's not be too precious about the business reality of it, Nintendo is not our family or friend, they are a business and when you're making games like this, the business aspect is simply too big to ignore. Nintendo also understands the important in cultivating talent that will be loyal to the company, and one of the ways they've done this is trusting Aonuma and co. to deliver these games, with Aonuma straight up saying these are the games he wants to make.

This isn't a value judgment either, or some pro-capitalism stint. I'm a communist, but I recognize the simple reality of how these companies function: they have to assure stockholders that they will grow year over year. Nintendo does that by producing highly demanded software. We can sit here and offer suggestions and criticism, there's plenty to be had - but when you're starting your argument with "sales don't matter," it's a losing one.

 

[AtomicZach]

Having another huge open world game with bite-sized challenges and no permanent upgrades would just be tired at this point, like the most memorable parts in TOTK clearly lean on what older 3D Zelda offers but it just doesn’t commit to it

It's funny because my most memorable part of TotK was finding a cave and digging and digging and digging and digging through nearly every type of rock and finding a hot spring. And the minute that I do, some random Hylian comes bursting in celebrating that he found the "secret Goron hotspring" and the two of us getting in and boiling eggs inside. I don't remember that being a part of the old Zelda games.

Maybe others find memorable moments in things that aren't tied to the old games. Maybe my best moments are the points where it allows me to wild stuff like create a rocket fueled Korok delivery service, accidentally crash my intricately built plane into a wall, or doing stuff not found in other games.

Also I find it funny how the two new games are old and stale and the solution to doing a truly innovated thing...is to fall back into the same old formula since Link to the Past.

 

[balgajo]

Okay, now I'm confused. You criticize open world Zelda for being open world, yet your proposed solution is something an open world could implement, anyway.

Not sure if that's his opinion but for some people, myself included, open world is not the problem. The problem is the current open world industry standard where in order to be big you need to create a set of activities that are easy to create variations and will repeat from start to end. So usually those games have a really good start, during the discovery phase, and after some hours in you start noticing the patterns and at some point you realize you can't expect nothing new from it.

Imo it's not an open world Zelda only problem. I felt the same with Elden Ring, RDR2, GOT. So I just want them to be as big as possible for developers to create unique content. There are some games that I didn't feel like that and are shorter. For example, Shadow of Colossus, ALBW, A Short Hike.

 

[meatbag]

The problem is the current open world industry standard where in order to be big you need to create a set of activities that are easy to create variations and will repeat from start to end

It would be great if we could get an open world that had like little to no repetition, but you and I know that's unfeasible. Not saying that the Zelda team can't improve on this-- there's certainly too many Sky Island shrines where you have to ferry the crystal-- but having a repeatable set of activities is bound to happen.

So usually those games have a really good start, during the discovery phase, and after some hours in you start noticing the patterns and at some point you realize you can't expect nothing new from it

I highly disagree with this because I'm still having fun with TotK like, 130 hours in. I'm still not bored of making Rube Goldberg machines to carry those silly overpacked Koroks to their friends.

Furthermore, linear games can suffer from this, too. Hell, I dropped Twilight Princess at the midway point when I first played it, precisely because I felt like I was going through the motions. Go to dungeon, get item, use item to activate stuff, yadda yadda.

Imo it's not an open world Zelda only problem. I felt the same with Elden Ring, RDR2, GOT

It's fine to prefer less open games with more directed gameplay and unique content. You've already said that in other threads and I have no problem with your opinion. It's quite another to state that open world games are inherently inferior game design as the poster I quoted is suggesting.

Maybe others find memorable moments in things that aren't tied to the old games. Maybe my best moments are the points where it allows me to wild stuff like create a rocket fueled Korok delivery service, accidentally crash my intricately built plane into a wall, or doing stuff not found in other games

Exactly. Moments like this, fueled by emergent gameplay mechanics, are just as memorable as whatever counts as "unique content" in other, non open-world games.

 

[BowserIsMyFather]

I hope my dream of 99 Swords on NSO hasn't died with this revelation.

 

[Lugia667]

I wonder if we are ever going to get an indie "Not-Zelda" if these kinda of compliants from fans continue

 

[EnergyDrink]

I hope when they make a new world they scale it back a tiny bit so it doesn't take 6+ years to come out. I'm fine with the formula, but I don't want a game once every 6-7 years alongside the death of OoT and TP style Zelda.

The pandemic probably had a big influence on the production and without it the development time would be 1-2 years shorter.

In older Zelda games it was just "going through the motion". The game was telling me what to do and I could not derive from the path, it was incredible boring after a few hours.

BotW and TotK have much more freedom, without beeing tedious or overly repetitive. There are of course repetitive tasks in both games, but they are often only basically the same but require different ideas and mechanics to solve, and there are many very different tasks and every time I sit down and play TotK I discover new exciting quests. Its astonishing how much content this game has.

 

[Dardan Sandiego]

It's funny to think of BotW and TotK as "formulaic" and thus inferior to the previous games when that was a criticism directed at 3D Zelda as far back as Wind Waker. That's when the series started to get increasingly self-referential in its use of design tropes and basically just shuffled the building blocks of puzzles that were invented in Ocarina of Time around. This became especially apparent by Skyward Sword, a game that is mostly praised for its dungeons which, aside from Skyview Temple, largely involve the player following a series of familiar design cues so they can execute simple actions in one way and one way only. It's fine to like this key-and-lock design that permeates every facet of the older games (there's only one solution to a puzzle, there's only one item you can use for it etc.), I like it too! But to act like they weren't formulaic and repetitive is silly. You just prefer the older formula.

 

[Adulfzen]

I wonder if we are ever going to get an indie "Not-Zelda" if these kinda of compliants from fans continue

well there already are a decent amount of top down Zelda - likes, issue with a 3D Zelda - like is that it might take a lot more manpower and money to do for an indie studio.
Also it depends if there is an actual market for it, like people clamoring for rpg Paper Mario and then the indie variants kinda come and go without seemingly getting a huge traction from the fanbase asking for that kind of game.

 

[Mekanos]

It's funny to think of BotW and TotK as "formulaic" and thus inferior to the previous games when that was a criticism directed at 3D Zelda as far back as Wind Waker. That's when the series started to get increasingly self-referential in its use of design tropes and basically just shuffled the building blocks of puzzles that were invented in Ocarina of Time around. This became especially apparent by Skyward Sword, a game that is mostly praised for its dungeons which, aside from Skyview Temple, largely involve the player following a series of familiar design cues so they can execute simple actions in one way and one way only. It's fine to like this key-and-lock design that permeates every facet of the older games (there's only one solution to a puzzle, there's only one item you can use for it etc.), I like it too! But to act like they weren't formulaic and repetitive is silly. You just prefer the older formula.

I also can't take the claim seriously that TOTK's open world is formulaic and repetitive, at least moreso than the OOT-style games. I am still finding areas and set pieces that are surprising me over 100 hours in. I'm far from a big open world guy, most I stop playing around the 20 hour mark, but TOTK absolutely makes a case that this is the future of Zelda.

Linear Zelda is also great! Those are some of my all time favorite games. I wish we could live in a world where everyone could get the kinds of games we want all the time. We don't live in that world. Nintendo doesn't have infinite resources to make all of our dream games, but thankfully they're making ones that are still great in their own right. It's really obnoxious to be constantly told that these games actually aren't surprising and engaging us, like we're children being told a magic show isn't real. Some folks should really build a bridge and get over it - which you can do in TOTK!

 

[Dardan Sandiego]

I also can't take the claim seriously that TOTK's open world is formulaic and repetitive, at least moreso than the OOT-style games. I am still finding areas and set pieces that are surprising me over 100 hours in. I'm far from a big open world guy, most I stop playing around the 20 hour mark, but TOTK absolutely makes a case that this is the future of Zelda.

Linear Zelda is also great! Those are some of my all time favorite games. I wish we could live in a world where everyone could get the kinds of games we want all the time. We don't live in that world. Nintendo doesn't have infinite resources to make all of our dream games, but thankfully they're making ones that are still great in their own right. It's really obnoxious to be constantly told that these games actually aren't surprising and engaging us, like we're children being told a magic show isn't real. Some folks should really build a bridge and get over it - which you can do in TOTK!

Precisely. In the grand scheme of things this discourse is kinda irrelevant but I find it a bit weird to constantly see people be dismissive of the types of experiences these games deliver just because they don't follow some arbitrary rules. As if people haven't been enjoying all kinds of games with wildly different design philosophies.

 

[manfromthedam]

It's all good, as long as they keep the concept fluid - don't let the BotW style become the new template. Imagine Korok Seeds and Puzzle Bunkers still being the main destinations for exploration in Zelda 2028... Woof.

 

[Evil Lucario]

I do think it'll likely be easier for later Zelda games to still feel fresh, as long as there's different gimmicks and mechanics that work into Zelda's open ended gameplay.

Topping Tears of the Kingdom is going to be a tall order, though. They'll need to do something completely different and not reuse this Hyrule a third time, otherwise that would stretch it HARD.

 

[balgajo]

It would be great if we could get an open world that had like little to no repetition, but you and I know that's unfeasible. Not saying that the Zelda team can't improve on this-- there's certainly too many Sky Island shrines where you have to ferry the crystal-- but having a repeatable set of activities is bound to happen.

I understand that it's bound to happen on every or at least most of video game. But for me the difference in the amount of times you do the Great Fairy quests and the one to take the crystal to shrine is game changing.

I highly disagree with this because I'm still having fun with TotK like, 130 hours in. I'm still not bored of making Rube Goldberg machines to carry those silly overpacked Koroks to their friends.

I wasn't trying to say that this happens with everyone. Just condensed some thoughts of people that thinks like this.

Furthermore, linear games can suffer from this, too. Hell, I dropped Twilight Princess at the midway point when I first played it, precisely because I felt like I was going through the motions. Go to dungeon, get item, use item to activate stuff, yadda yadda.

Agree. There's not reason to limit yourself in a structure like this. I think how OG Zelda did this is the way to go. Sometimes the dungeon item can help killing the boss others not. Sometimes the dungeon item is the key to solve stuff inside dungeons, sometime it's not.

It's fine to prefer less open games with more directed gameplay and unique content. You've already said that in other threads and I have no problem with your opinion. It's quite another to state that open world games are inherently inferior game design as the poster I quoted is suggesting.

Imo it's not linear x open world thing. It's about the traits that the entire industry uses when they want a big open world game.
Before BOTW and TOTK my least favorite Zelda was SS and this one is as linear as it's possible for a Zelda game.

 

[Kongo B]

It's all good, as long as they keep the concept fluid - don't let the BotW style become the new template. Imagine Korok Seeds and Puzzle Bunkers still being the main destinations for exploration in Zelda 2028... Woof.

TOTK was a rare Majora's Mask exception, I don't think that will be the case.

 

[MrBones]

well there already are a decent amount of top down Zelda - likes, issue with a 3D Zelda - like is that it might take a lot more manpower and money to do for an indie studio.
Also it depends if there is an actual market for it, like people clamoring for rpg Paper Mario and then the indie variants kinda come and go without seemingly getting a huge traction from the fanbase asking for that kind of game.

Bug Fables sold really well and had a great reception from Paper Mario fans

 

[Irene]

I don't mind sticking with this formula, it has so much potential - while TotK did the right thing in building upon BotW, taking something with the same groundwork and bending it sideways could make for an absolute marvel of a game, again. (Again)

It would be interesting, though, to see how many games it would take for this formula, too, to become "stale". People seemed to be tired of the OoT template around SS, which, despite being built around a completely new gameplay premise, still stuck to a lot of tradition.

 

[Dardan Sandiego]

Bug Fables sold really well and had a great reception from Paper Mario fans

People are gonna read this post and think it's true when neither the developer nor the publisher ever shared sales numbers.

 

[meatbag]

It's about the traits that the entire industry uses when they want a big open world game

I think if what you want from an open world game is for it to be legitimately stuffed full of truly unique content, well, there’s a reason open world games are designed the way they are. Perhaps something like Prey, which is pretty open but the “world” is confined to a space station, would be more to your tastes?

People seemed to be tired of the OoT template around SS

I think there’s still a place for OoT style, but perhaps better if it’s tweaked to become wide linear.

 

[Adulfzen]

Bug Fables sold really well and had a great reception from Paper Mario fans

Where's the source ? The closest I can find right now to a number is around 3.6K steam reviews which makes it hard to extrapolate how much it sold.

 

[Hailinel]

Where's the source ? The closest I can find right now to a number is around 3.6K steam reviews which makes it hard to extrapolate how much it sold.

The source is MrBones's butt.

People are gonna read this post and think it's true when neither the developer nor the publisher ever shared sales numbers.

 

[balgajo]

I think if what you want from an open world game is for it to be legitimately stuffed full of truly unique content, well, there’s a reason open world games are designed the way they are. Perhaps something like Prey, which is pretty open but the “world” is confined to a space station, would be more to your tastes?


I think there’s still a place for OoT style, but perhaps better if it’s tweaked to become wide linear.

I thought about playing Prey once or twice. I have a few resistances like the horror and being a FPS. But as someone who enjoyed control I think I might like it.

 

[fourfourfun]

Perhaps something like Prey, which is pretty open but the “world” is confined to a space station, would be more to your tastes?

Sounds like Deus Ex:HR too.

 

[Dizzle]

Actually just listened to a podcast where the guest said that BotW was the only open world game he liked because it reminds him so much of the original Deus Ex. That's where I got the immersive sim line. I stole it from Ronan Farrow (or Simon Parkin).

 

[fourfourfun]

Actually just listened to a podcast where the guest said that BotW was the only open world game he liked because it reminds him so much of the original Deus Ex. That's where I got the immersive sim line. I stole it from Ronan Farrow (or Simon Parkin).

Yeah, the wonderful freedom of immersion, where the game feels like an extension of your body. I've only had a few games like that really.

GTA3 (and subsequent)
Warhawk
Infamous
Gravity Rush
Deus EX:HR
Planetside 2

These are games I absolutely lost myself in. Not necessarily role playing, not necessarily a sim, but something where I felt a part of the world and not simply mechanically piloting an avatar.

 

[Mekanos]

Actually just listened to a podcast where the guest said that BotW was the only open world game he liked because it reminds him so much of the original Deus Ex. That's where I got the immersive sim line. I stole it from Ronan Farrow (or Simon Parkin).

I guess I should play Deus Ex then

 

[Dizzle]

I guess I should play Deus Ex then

Or read Catch and Kill.

But in all seriousness, I was tempted to make a thread about this podcast but I've only listened to one ep. It's called My Perfect Console. It's great stuff.

 

[TheWolvesDen]

Wrong thread. My bad

 

[Lozjam]

Yeah I'm gonna have to raise my hand at the idea that the Zelda series was ever this very surprising and experimental set of games. The fact that it was so beholden to its formula was a major issue for the series for a decade and change! Zelda games have always been blockbuster games, perhaps ones with more prestige than typical, but rarely straying from its own setups and formula.

I said this in another thread but AAA games are very expensive and time consuming to make, the team is not going to rock the boat and create an experience that is a shocking swerve from what players expect. You're not getting a Majora's Mask or Link's Awakening type of game when the games take 5+ years to make and have 1000+ people working on them. That's just the sheer reality of modern game development.

Just one thing I want to touch on, in relation to that:


It has nothing to do with "art." Nintendo is a business and they are no stranger to chasing trends in order to maximize their profits. Linear Zelda was selling less and open world Zelda sells magnitudes more than any Zelda game before it. Their image of being a family friendly company is cultivated largely because they know, like Disney, they can leverage multiple generations' worth of nostalgia to continue to buy their products. If anything I would argue the opposite - in an age where so many developers are trying to make games that are "art" (aka appealing to the 17-35 demographic with pseudo-cinematic presentation), Nintendo makes games that are still, essentially, electronic toys. And they know by making these games, they will attract kids who will be loyal customers well into their adulthood.

Arguments about whether or not video games are art is an inane and uninteresting one to me and ultimately irrelevant to the discussion here. I love Nintendo games, if I made a top 10 list I would imagine it would be at least half Nintendo games, they're the whole reason I play video games at all to begin with. But let's not be too precious about the business reality of it, Nintendo is not our family or friend, they are a business and when you're making games like this, the business aspect is simply too big to ignore. Nintendo also understands the important in cultivating talent that will be loyal to the company, and one of the ways they've done this is trusting Aonuma and co. to deliver these games, with Aonuma straight up saying these are the games he wants to make.

This isn't a value judgment either, or some pro-capitalism stint. I'm a communist, but I recognize the simple reality of how these companies function: they have to assure stockholders that they will grow year over year. Nintendo does that by producing highly demanded software. We can sit here and offer suggestions and criticism, there's plenty to be had - but when you're starting your argument with "sales don't matter," it's a losing one.

Even completely losing yourself from a capitalist perspective, let's say there wasn't money involved, I'd assume if developers like Nintendo existed it would be from a utilitarian perspective. Essentially, to make people happy.

Now if you were a developer like Nintendo, and your goal was to keep people engaged and happy, which one would you do? A game that reaches 9 million people at its absolute best, but more likely around 5 million? Or would you make a game that 30 million people would love and adore?

One is a lot more selfish approach than the other, even in a hypothetical world without capital.

 

[Dizzle]

It has nothing to do with "art." Nintendo is a business and they are no stranger to chasing trends in order to maximize their profits. Linear Zelda was selling less and open world Zelda sells magnitudes more than any Zelda game before it. Their image of being a family friendly company is cultivated largely because they know, like Disney, they can leverage multiple generations' worth of nostalgia to continue to buy their products. If anything I would argue the opposite - in an age where so many developers are trying to make games that are "art" (aka appealing to the 17-35 demographic with pseudo-cinematic presentation), Nintendo makes games that are still, essentially, electronic toys. And they know by making these games, they will attract kids who will be loyal customers well into their adulthood.

Arguments about whether or not video games are art is an inane and uninteresting one to me and ultimately irrelevant to the discussion here. I love Nintendo games, if I made a top 10 list I would imagine it would be at least half Nintendo games, they're the whole reason I play video games at all to begin with. But let's not be too precious about the business reality of it, Nintendo is not our family or friend, they are a business and when you're making games like this, the business aspect is simply too big to ignore. Nintendo also understands the important in cultivating talent that will be loyal to the company, and one of the ways they've done this is trusting Aonuma and co. to deliver these games, with Aonuma straight up saying these are the games he wants to make.

This isn't a value judgment either, or some pro-capitalism stint. I'm a communist, but I recognize the simple reality of how these companies function: they have to assure stockholders that they will grow year over year. Nintendo does that by producing highly demanded software. We can sit here and offer suggestions and criticism, there's plenty to be had - but when you're starting your argument with "sales don't matter," it's a losing one.

Breath of the Wild and Tears of the Kingdom are absolutely works of art. Nintendo happens to be in that 2000s Pixar zone where they're creating family friendly commercially viable entertainment that sells like hot cakes and yet is made with real artistry.

 

[Mekanos]

Breath of the Wild and Tears of the Kingdom are absolutely works of art. Nintendo happens to be in that 2000s Pixar zone where they're creating family friendly commercially viable entertainment that sells like hot cakes and yet is made with real artistry.

I don't really disagree that there is artistry behind these games, or most games, or even most commercial products. I just think the semantics of what is art and what isn't to be a fairly banal discussion, and is typically only trotted out for a person to validate their own tastes.

 

[Dardan Sandiego]

I think there’s still a place for OoT style, but perhaps better if it’s tweaked to become wide linear.

After finishing TotK I started another save of Skyward Sword and I honestly think they weren't completely off the mark with the metroidvania-like structure. It's funny how it reminds me of Star Wars Jedi Survivor which I was playing before TotK pulled me away.

 

[Yoshifan31]

Yeah I'm gonna have to raise my hand at the idea that the Zelda series was ever this very surprising and experimental set of games. The fact that it was so beholden to its formula was a major issue for the series for a decade and change! Zelda games have always been blockbuster games, perhaps ones with more prestige than typical, but rarely straying from its own setups and formula.

I said this in another thread but AAA games are very expensive and time consuming to make, the team is not going to rock the boat and create an experience that is a shocking swerve from what players expect. You're not getting a Majora's Mask or Link's Awakening type of game when the games take 5+ years to make and have 1000+ people working on them. That's just the sheer reality of modern game development.

Just one thing I want to touch on, in relation to that:


It has nothing to do with "art." Nintendo is a business and they are no stranger to chasing trends in order to maximize their profits. Linear Zelda was selling less and open world Zelda sells magnitudes more than any Zelda game before it. Their image of being a family friendly company is cultivated largely because they know, like Disney, they can leverage multiple generations' worth of nostalgia to continue to buy their products. If anything I would argue the opposite - in an age where so many developers are trying to make games that are "art" (aka appealing to the 17-35 demographic with pseudo-cinematic presentation), Nintendo makes games that are still, essentially, electronic toys. And they know by making these games, they will attract kids who will be loyal customers well into their adulthood.

Arguments about whether or not video games are art is an inane and uninteresting one to me and ultimately irrelevant to the discussion here. I love Nintendo games, if I made a top 10 list I would imagine it would be at least half Nintendo games, they're the whole reason I play video games at all to begin with. But let's not be too precious about the business reality of it, Nintendo is not our family or friend, they are a business and when you're making games like this, the business aspect is simply too big to ignore. Nintendo also understands the important in cultivating talent that will be loyal to the company, and one of the ways they've done this is trusting Aonuma and co. to deliver these games, with Aonuma straight up saying these are the games he wants to make.

This isn't a value judgment either, or some pro-capitalism stint. I'm a communist, but I recognize the simple reality of how these companies function: they have to assure stockholders that they will grow year over year. Nintendo does that by producing highly demanded software. We can sit here and offer suggestions and criticism, there's plenty to be had - but when you're starting your argument with "sales don't matter," it's a losing one.

Forget the word art, I guess the more appropriate word would be “craft”. Basically I just think that Nintendo actually cares about videogames, game design in general and moving games forward. If they didn’t their “maximizing of profits” would be as cartoonish as something like what EA are doing. There’s a reason why Nintendo bothers giving their other series the spotlight once in a while, or how they will present a lot of technical stuff in some of their reveals like the whole making of 1-1 for Mario Maker, other companies just don’t do that. You could just say that this doesn’t mean anything because this is just part of their business model of “leveraging multiple generations’ nostalgia” to ease their stakeholders but this is a whole other topic, the point is just that there’s a huge difference between Nintendo and the companies that obviously just want to make money at all costs. In Zelda’s case I just don’t think it’s fair to disregard non-open world Zelda’s sales potential when it never really got a proper chance in a post social media world. Two out of five 3D games were hurt by requiring external peripherals, remasters just don’t count especially when it’s a fully priced Wii game

As for the other quotes this is going in circles again, I thought I was clear. Let’s try again with bullet points. Here are some things that people don’t like about open world Zelda:

• Shrines
• Korok Seeds, repetitive bite-sized content in general
• Too much menus
• Too much grinding materials
• Water Fire Wind Lightning
• Giving all new abilities in a tutorial
• Needing to follow main quests to get some important upgrades, undermining the “you can go anywhere”
• Flashbacks

How many of these conflict with the design philosophy behind open world Zelda. How many of these can be adressed by looking back on what past Zeldas did. It’s just disingenuous to suggest that looking at the older games “would be a step back because they are outdated”, they simply aren’t, they are and were some of the most acclaimed games ever. They still run circles around many games with the action-adventure tag. It just so happens that the only times they had the perfect balance between linearity and openness (in terms of possible dungeon orders, optional dungeons, optional items, etc) were in ALTTP and OOT. This style of game was never even tried with post-Wii hardware. It’s just wrong to merely consider those games as “a template to move on from”

 

[Thunder84]

Yeah I'm gonna have to raise my hand at the idea that the Zelda series was ever this very surprising and experimental set of games. The fact that it was so beholden to its formula was a major issue for the series for a decade and change! Zelda games have always been blockbuster games, perhaps ones with more prestige than typical, but rarely straying from its own setups and formula.

I've always found this point interesting, because it was always pretty clear that Nintendo wasn't trying to ever be formulaic with the franchise. The 3 day cycle, the ocean, the Twilight realm, touchscreen controls, motion controls and the sky, renting items, etc. All pretty substantial changes, and yet none of them ever really resonated as much as Nintendo was probably hoping for, because they never addressed the root of the issue. It was all just window dressing on top of the same thing, over and over again.

That's probably why Aonuma and EDP3 won't ever go back to classic Zelda. They just didn't find any more room to grow the template, while there's still loads of potential to iterate on the modern structure. Breath of the Wild was the first game since A Link to the Past to drastically change the formula and it was a smash hit, why would they ever even consider going back to the template that they had already failed to significantly evolve for over two decades?

 

[meatbag]

After finishing TotK I started another save of Skyward Sword and I honestly think they weren't completely off the mark with the metroidvania-like structure

"3D Metroidvania" would be a great way to design a linear 3D Zelda, I think.

I thought I was clear

Yes, you were clear that you think open world is inherently inferior game design. And you're wrong about that.

How many of these conflict with the design philosophy behind open world Zelda.

I would argue none of them, unless your only concept of open world is a pure sandbox.

How many of these can be adressed by looking back on what past Zeldas did.

The Zelda team already did look back at past Zeldas when they crafted BotW and TotK.

It’s just wrong to merely consider those games as “a template to move on from”

There's certainly still room for a more linear 3D Zelda.

 

[Mekanos]

I've always found this point interesting, because it was always pretty clear that Nintendo wasn't trying to ever be formulaic with the franchise. The 3 day cycle, the ocean, the Twilight realm, touchscreen controls, motion controls and the sky, renting items, etc. All pretty substantial changes, and yet none of them ever really resonated as much as Nintendo was probably hoping for, because they never addressed the root of the issue. It was all just window dressing on top of the same thing, over and over again.

That's probably why Aonuma and EDP3 won't ever go back to classic Zelda. They just didn't find any more room to grow the template, while there's still loads of potential to iterate on the modern structure. Breath of the Wild was the first game since A Link to the Past to drastically change the formula and it was a smash hit, why would they ever even consider going back to the template that they had already failed to significantly evolve for over two decades?

Yeah and to be clear it’s not necessarily a slight against them that they’re formulaic, most long running game series are, Mega Man is one of my favorite gaming series and that’s Iike the poster child for formulaic. The reality of development just didn’t bear out that this was a sustainable path. It’s totally possible in 15-20 years we will say the same thing about open world Zelda, they’re too similar to each other, less creative, etc. But as it stands, there just isn’t really an initiative to go back to the old style.

 

[AtomicZach]

As for the other quotes this is going in circles again, I thought I was clear. Let’s try again with bullet points. Here are some things that people don’t like about open world Zelda:

• Shrines
• Korok Seeds, repetitive bite-sized content in general
• Too much menus
• Too much grinding materials
• Water Fire Wind Lightning
• Giving all new abilities in a tutorial
• Needing to follow main quests to get some important upgrades, undermining the “you can go anywhere”
• Flashbacks

And I personally love these things about the new games. It’s almost as if there can be differing opinion and trying to claim with authority that these are universally disliked is rather dull.

 

[Rareware]

I honestly don’t have a problem with this. They just need to be just a little more traditional with their dungeons/temples, make the story a bigger priority, and absolutely, 100% leave Hyrule behind for the next entry. Whatever it is they decide to do, it needs to be somewhere that isn’t Hyrule.

 

[Kreese]

Sounds good to me because I think TOTK blows the doors off any of the older template Zelda's in every way imaginable.

Nintendo is now pushing the medium forward from an interactivity, physics and open world tech perspective as well and I haven't been able to say that about any of the other games in the series (other than BOTW and perhaps OOT at the time of its release).