For the next Zelda: Motion Controls

#41someguy86420Posted 2/8/2013 9:29:22 PM
MooglePeru posted...
someguy86420 posted...
Wait, so you don't want to think in video games, you would play puzzle games if you did, you enjoy puzzles of the old LoZ games and you are disappointed by the decreasing difficulty of puzzles... Am I missing something here?

I don't want to think during combat in videogames.

Okay. It's just kind of funny how you used puzzle games as an example instead of strategy games.
#42Nintendoboy77Posted 2/8/2013 10:02:10 PM
MooglePeru posted...
I'll give you the story points, since as I said is a matter of opinions. But exploration?
You call getting Goddess Cubes exploration? They only padded the game and about 95% of them were in plain sight.

Again, I'll repeat: Exploration is going out of your way to discover what's waiting for you in a new area that has nothing to do with the storyline. The rewards are usually new weapons, items or upgrades.

Funny you used TP, that game used to have the worst exploration of the 3D ones, but hey, at least TP HPs were a little hard to find in optional areas, like the cave. SS has zero optional, areas that give you rewards. That's Zelda exploration.


Whether it's an optional area or not doesn't make a difference. If I'm going out of my way to find them (even in an area I've already been to) then it's still exploration. Even by your logic, if most cubes are in areas you've already been too in the game, most chests aren't. You go out of you're way in the sky to floating islands that have nothing to do with the storyline (except maybe like, 3 of them).

The exploration that you defined was the Mario 64 type, a kind that doesn't fit Zelda at all like the same way the level based SS doesn't fit the overworld.


Except it's not level based. You're acting like the 3 overworlds are the levels themselves.

If the areas were connected, MAYBE I would put SS on par of TP. But nope.


Whether they're connected or not doesn't mean ****. If an area has more than one dungeon (which each area in SS has at least two), then it's an overworld. Now if each area had just one dungeon, I would agree with you and say it's a level system. But no. It's not. And you're probably going to bring this up so I'll just say it right now, OoT, MM, WW, and TP all have one overworld with many dungeons. All SS did was increase the number of overworlds and give each overworld enough dungeons to be considered an overworld.
#43Cpt_CalamityPosted 2/9/2013 3:14:59 AM
I feel like the only people supporting SS are trolls. I honestly don't see how any person could seriously think the game was comparable to others in the series (aside from the Legend of Midna, which also had its fair share of faults).
---
"I'm Batman" ~ Batman
#44WilliamAdamsPosted 2/9/2013 5:47:14 AM
If you don't want to think during combat, then Skyward Sword or Red Steel 2 isn't for you, but that doesn't make it less of a game for people who enjoy this sort of thing. I've been waiting for a decent sword-fighting game since Swashbuckler on the Apple ][ and was quite disappointed in the Wii until Wii Sports Resort.

Nintendo should address this by providing for a button-mashing alternative, say a magic-user or transformed representation w/ simplified combat.
---
It's not paranoia if the Random Number Generator is really out to get you.
See Quote for Friend Codes and favourite games.
#45HylainEnigmaPosted 2/9/2013 7:11:06 AM
Agreed, I believe that there should be an alternative for motion control and button based gameplay. Also, I think SS had only a tiny bit of exploration, I didn't find it very fun.

Combat wise, it was cool for a while to hit enemies in certain ways to defeat them but it got old and redundant fast. I like puzzles but I don't like when almost everything is a puzzle. I like being able to go though hoards of enemies without having to think about it. I think of WW mainly when I think of when I think ideal combat, they did a good job on that. TP was good too for me!

I know Nintendo wants motion control fully, but I don't see how it would hurt to give the option to use the button based style. Also I know that they like the puzzle enemies (or in how people defend it, strategy enemies). Yes, its strategic and it requires the player to exert their skill by slashing in the correct direction but it still gets stale after a while. In my opinion, it does not beat anything previous to it in means of combat ideals.

I can only hope Nintendo improves upon these three issues.
#46MooglePeru(Topic Creator)Posted 2/9/2013 11:40:22 AM
Nintendoboy77 posted...
MooglePeru posted...
I'll give you the story points, since as I said is a matter of opinions. But exploration?
You call getting Goddess Cubes exploration? They only padded the game and about 95% of them were in plain sight.

Again, I'll repeat: Exploration is going out of your way to discover what's waiting for you in a new area that has nothing to do with the storyline. The rewards are usually new weapons, items or upgrades.

Funny you used TP, that game used to have the worst exploration of the 3D ones, but hey, at least TP HPs were a little hard to find in optional areas, like the cave. SS has zero optional, areas that give you rewards. That's Zelda exploration.


Whether it's an optional area or not doesn't make a difference. If I'm going out of my way to find them (even in an area I've already been to) then it's still exploration. Even by your logic, if most cubes are in areas you've already been too in the game, most chests aren't. You go out of you're way in the sky to floating islands that have nothing to do with the storyline (except maybe like, 3 of them).

The exploration that you defined was the Mario 64 type, a kind that doesn't fit Zelda at all like the same way the level based SS doesn't fit the overworld.


Except it's not level based. You're acting like the 3 overworlds are the levels themselves.

If the areas were connected, MAYBE I would put SS on par of TP. But nope.


Whether they're connected or not doesn't mean ****. If an area has more than one dungeon (which each area in SS has at least two), then it's an overworld. Now if each area had just one dungeon, I would agree with you and say it's a level system. But no. It's not. And you're probably going to bring this up so I'll just say it right now, OoT, MM, WW, and TP all have one overworld with many dungeons. All SS did was increase the number of overworlds and give each overworld enough dungeons to be considered an overworld.


I'm not using dungeons as the base for labeling them levels, though. I'm labeling them levels because they feel like ****ing levels. I knew that since the moment that I saw the Eldin preview from Gamespot. And what matters is what you feel like, not what it's supposed to be. For example, the Sky it's an overworld, but it sure doesn't feel an overworld and feels more like a glorified level select.
---
My Backloggery: Only fun games allowed!
http://www.backloggery.com/moogleperu
#47ImGanondorfLolPosted 2/10/2013 2:09:44 AM
Arcvalons posted...
This game wont use motion controls, completely sure of that. Nintendo loves to use their consle gimmicks in their important titles, and this console's gimmick is the tablet controller.


I sense wishful thinking. You can count on Nintendo making use of both the gamepad and wii motion plus, they've already suggested they will likely be continuing to use Wii motion plus in Zelda games.
Wii motion plus is still as relevant as it was on the Wii, Nintendo Land makes use of it in 2 of it's biggest mini-games. The primary controls for Pikmin 3 is the wii remote as seen in the E3 demo and Nintendo direct, the gamepad can be used on the side as a map.
#48Alan_00XPosted 2/10/2013 5:22:56 AM
ZvoLtx posted...
Wow.

This topic.