I found a very interesting read, and on one hand, it seems very plausible, and on the other, it doesn't. But first, take a look. [url=http://boards.ign.com/nintendo_wii_lobby/b8270/165626165/p1]The supposed interview[/url] says everything, but here's the basic outlines.
-A new Zelda game.
-Set where everybody WANTED TP to be, in the time of the Great Flood.
-Main character not Link. Sounds terrible at first, but if you read about it, it's actually quite interesting.
-A more fleshed out story, with voice acting.
-"Steampunk" influence, indicating a higher advance of technology in Hyrule.
Honestly, I think it sounds amazing. But obviously, there's a 90, nay, 99% chance it's false, but through doing some reading, I've found some evidence that indicates that this COULD be true.
-Obviously, Nintendo is hiding something huge for E3. Of all its renowned first party games, Zelda is the only one that hasn't had a recent release. (TP, yes, but that was supposed to come out for the Gamecube years ago)
-Nintendo Power's "next issue" section says that next month's issue will have a massive cover story on a super secret project. A silhouette of a sword is on the page. Sure, it looks nothing like the Master Sword, and sure, they say it's "Fit for a King" which probably means it's something else, but you never know.
-One of the strongest reasons it has a chance: The person who posted the interview is the one who leaked the full Brawl roster months before it came out (although nobody believed him), and has apparently leaked several Wii titles long before they were announced.
-A new Zelda game has indeed been in development for a long, time now. About a year ago, Nintendo had already confirmed a new Zelda had been in the works for a year. That would mark two years for this one. I WON'T find a source right now, because I can only remember that it was indeed from a reliable source, and there were tons of others that read it too.
-Amidst my obsessive tracking of MGS4, Ryan Payton (One of the people working very closely with the game, the producer or promotional manager or something) did weekly podcasts about the game. I suppose in one of the podcasts, they were talking about western influence in the game. In that podcast, they mentioned how Nintendo is doing the same thing with the new Zelda they were developing, aiming to give it a more Western influence since Zelda was losing it's appeal in Japan. My friend told me about this, and I listened to the podcast myself. It was definitely legit. Makes sense, since Kojima and Miyamoto are close friends. Anyhow, a western influence would definitely make sense, as this character they speak of, a more developed story, and steampunk mood all tie into that.
SO, just my thoughts. I still think that this is probably, most definitely a fake, which sucks, because this is definitely my wetdream for a Zelda game, and I'm sure most other fans' as well. (Except possibly the exclusion of Link, but a good plot makes up for that) It probably IS a fake, but this leaker's track record at least gives me SOME confidence that this thing could be real.
[quote=maian;861179]
-A more fleshed out story, with voice acting.
-"Steampunk" influence, indicating a higher advance of technology in Hyrule.
hahahahahahahahaha fake already
[quote=maian"]
-Nintendo Power's "next issue" section says that next month's issue will have a massive cover story on a super secret project. A silhouette of a sword is on the page. Sure, it looks nothing like the Master Sword, and sure, they say it's "Fit for a King" which probably means it's something else, but you never know.
That's a teaser for Kingdom Hearts DS.
Pretty sure /v/ made that.
It's a shame it's not real, since Nintendo likes to create gameplay ideas first, and then bastardize the story and world to fit around it. ;o
TWILIGHT PRINCESS LOL
Utter bull****.
Saw it a couple of days ago and found no reason to post it.
Sounds like the bullshit direction they wanna go in.
I'd rather they cut the storyline crap and make it a pure fairytale, like SotC or Majora's Mask. I've pretty much lost hope for the franchise.
I didn't mind the lack of story bad in Majora's Mask since the atmosphere of the entire world in that game is STILL way ahead of any games today. There was something magical about MM's world.
TP just sucked as far as 3D Zeldas go. =/ It was an amazing game, and still really fun. But in my opinion, it just didn't feel at all like the others. It just lacked something. Not to mention they made NO effort to connect it to the other games, it was just "and then some new link saved the world again lol".
I thought they were going to go somewhere with the flood, but every new Zelda game I see just confirms by belief that instead of saying, "Wouldn't it be cool if Hyrule flooded", they designers said "ZELDA ON WATER LOL IT'D BE COOL now writers make a story that works for it lol", and TP must've been "TWILIGHT WORLD AND A WOLF THAT'D BE COOL k write a story lol"
[quote=maian;861205]I didn't mind the lack of story bad in Majora's MaskMajora's Mask probably had the most interesting story of any Zelda, huh?
I mean in the sense of every Zelda game that a story is not very present in Zelda games, relative to other games. Yes, MM had one of the most compelling and interesting stories of the series, but it still wasn't too developed. It was essentially "You've found yourself in a strange land that's doomed to be destroyed, save it." MM, as with the other Zelda games had some very interesting backstory as well. But as far as the real time story going on with the character, there's no character at all, pretty much.
I guess I mean that Zelda games give you the story, and you're fighting the main conflict. But that's it. There's hardly anything throughout the general quest that do a whole lot to propel the story. It's just...simple.
I don't get why everyone dislikes TP.
I strongly prefer TP to MM, and even more strongly do I prefer OoT over any of the others.
Except AlttP.
I loved Twilight Princess as well, despite my hatred for the word "twilight" that the .hack anime instilled in me.
Anyway, I too snort with derision at this Zelda fanfic.
I'm gonna to go out and say that I believe it, just so I can mock all of you if it turns out to be real. :cookie:
Shade, you cleaver dog you.
I don't know if I'd trust Shade with a cleaver or not.
I don't dislike Twilight Princess by any means. It's a very fun, good lengthed, enjoyable game. But, it just lacks...something...that all the others seem to have. I can't put my finger on it.
You already said it. Too "hey link #37 go save the world".
No Link as main character?
Auto-Fake.
There go my hopes of a Zelda game that people will acknowledge with Zelda as the main character.
Everytime someones cares about the overall storyline in Zelda, a fanboy somewhere is born.
After the diabolical ****fest that was TP Nintendo better pull something sweet out their hat because I'm not spending any more more money on the same game going to the same dungeon doing the same ****.
TP was great.
Anywho, IGN boards = false.
Eh, as much as TP sucked I did enjoy the storyline. It was definately the best in terms of plot and relation to the other games.
But that's not what fairytales are about, and they shouldn't forget that that's where Zelda has it's roots. If they keep this up they'll end up turning it into some weird fantasy epic, I don't think the lore and gameplay has the capacity to keep up with something like that without them becoming corrupted.
[quote=ExoXile;861219]I don't get why everyone dislikes TP.
Here's a few fairly objective reasons:
1) The dungeon design wasn't in the least bit challenging. They were designed so you'd be led through, never get lost and never have to stop to figure anything out. On several occaisions you would be given a key before you had ever seen a locked door. They merely existed to occupy your time (funny that they went on an on about how long the game was), not to offer any kind of challenge.
2) Every Zelda game has had a moment where after the crap at the beginning you're suddenly free to roam a vast landscape. In OoT it was when you come out onto Hyrule Field for the first time, in Wind Waker it's when you first have control of the direction of the wind, in the original it's when you turn the machine on. Every Zelda game except for Twilight Princess. After 8 hours (fucking eight!) you finally get into the field and you have only one direction to go in before you're a wolf again. Then the game handfeeds you the rest of the world peice by peice.
Can't say I found point 2 such a big problem. Hyrule never had that much to do in it anyways besides find a few heart pieces and the like, not to mention the land is always fairly bland. It's not some Oblivion where the world feels fairly alive with tons of caves to explore anyways.
It's really only point 1 that was a problem, imo. The dungeons didn't feel half as "epic" or fun to be in, but even then I wasn't really complaining about it when I played it.
It depends on the player with how much of a problem either one could be, but no one could really argue that those differences exist. I can imagine some people even preferring point 1, a lot of Zelda fans just want EPIC STORYLINE to compete with God of War or some insane crap, and the mindless gameplay to go with it.
Yeah... can't say I exactly want a challenge in my Zelda games. I don't mind never dying, I don't exactly want to sit there for an hour or two trying to figure out what to do... Zelda just never really seemed like that type of game to me. Then again, a better balance would be welcomed, something akin to the majority of MM and less like, let's say, the Water Temple in OoT. But I'd rather take WW/TP difficulty over frustration.
I think the fact that areas were actually dark was one of my favorite new features. Cave exploration was pretty cool, too, but the caves could have been more... exciting? If I kept reminding myself how far I had actually traveled into the ground by foot, it was more fun.
Inspired by what Speedfreak mentioned, I think the Zelda most preferable to me lies somewhere between fairy tales and epics. You've gotta have the hugeness of enemies, difficulties, and trials, plus the "I'm a fairy kid romping around in the forest, solvin puzzles" stuff.
It's not that you didn't have to stop and think for an hour. It's that you didn't have to stop and thing AT ALL. You NEVER had to think about the entire dungeon as a whole. You did in Majora for maybe 5 minutes per dungeon, but that 5 minutes makes a whole lot of difference. It's the difference in feeling you've actually figured something out and conquered the place rather than just taken a guided tour.
EDIT: About the fairytale thing, all I really mean by that is keep it simple and have a single moral in the story. We don't need a scientific explanation for where Majora came from or what the hell the mask salesman wants with it, or why the giants stopped playing with skull kid. Leaving all of those things gives enough mystery to make you feel like you've been transported somewhere totally alien.
Neither did I.
Mr. Number's is just like Speedy, though.
Hated the easy.
[quote=Vampiro V. Empire;861368]Maybe it's because of the games I played around the time I played TP... I honestly didn't mind that.
Yeah but come on though, keys before locks? That's seriously fucked up, man.
You'd prefer 6 Water Temples?
Twilight Princess seems to sour a lot of memories because it totally ran out of steam towards the end. Started off kinda dull, got HOLY **** during the Epona/King Buble/Death Mountain section, then slowly got less and less developed when you done **** like the Air Temple. The final Ganondorf duel just wasn't as great as Wind Waker's.
Come on... other games on the Wii? Stupid ****ing question.
We all made the mistake of buying Rayman on launch. We're only human.
I didn't have a Wii at launch, so problem solved I guess.
So what exactly was your problem with TP, Bebop? The gameplay was pretty much the same as every other Zelda.
[quote=The X;861427]You'd prefer 6 Water Temples?
Well no, obviously not. The Water Temple wasn't actually that challenging, it's just the camera being messed around by the closed spaces, corridors and swimming that caused players to miss a lot of stuff. Every time I missed a key it was because I didn't see it the first time I was in the room. Raising and lowering the water was a pretty good mechanic for the dungeon, otherwise.
Ideally I'd want more Snowhead Temples, Stone Tower Temples and Eagle's Towers. And just for kicks, more stuff like the Temple of the Ocean king. Just more dungeons where the differences amount to more than the colour of the walls and what item the puzzles revolve around.
And that's the problem. The forumale was pushing it with Wind Waker but it made up for it with it's new travel and art direction and some interesting dungeons. TP was OoT watered down with **** water. I'd seen it all before except years ago when I did? Yeh it was better. Weakest dungeons of all the 3D Zelda titles, worst items, not fun to explore, no atmosphere (OoT had me saving like 16 people and a dog from Gannon but that felt more of an emergency than saving TPs unneccessary amounts of barely interactve NPCs because I actually got to grow an attachment to them.), and no Tingle.
Because it was ****ing stupid and you're in the vast minority. It's the series' low point by far.
Also, I liked the bosses in TP. Sure I rarely got a full heart taken away, but they looked cool and was less about SMASH THIS FAGGOT IN THE FACE THREE TIMES and more HEY THIS IS A MOVING PUZZLE which was awwight with me.
People who hate TP really have no reason.
They hate just because.
[IMG]http://vgchat.com/images/icons/icon8.gif[/IMG]
And yeah, the water temple was fine.
Annoying as hell though.
That doesn't make it fine.
The water temple was fun to me cause it was a challenge.
Which made it good.
What made it fine was that it was too annoying at some points.
Also, ruto boobs.
It wasn't challenging, just designed poorly. There's a difference.
Are we talking about Water Temple OoT or Water Temple TP here?
I was talking OoT.
[quote=#061402;861523]Don't forget the bosses. The only one that was "difficult" was Zant, and that 'cause you didn't know what the hell to do to harm him. At least at first.
And I don't know why people dislike the Water Temple. I ****ing love that place.
All Zelda bosses bar one in Majora's mask and a few in oracle of Seasons have been terrible. It's, like, the series staple.
[quote=ExoXile;861527]People who hate TP really have no reason.
They hate just because.
I outlined 2 reasons in great detail you stupid faggot.
[quote=Speedfreak;861544]you stupid faggot.
No need to hurt my feelings. :(
lern2speedfreak
YOU IGNORED MY WELL THOUGHT-OUT, HANDWRITTEN POSTS. AFTER I QUOTED YOU, TOO! WHAT ABOUT MY FEELINGS?
[quote=Bebop;861552]It was challenging. Frustratingly so. But I was young when I played it the first time so it took me over 9000 hours. I've forgotten everything about that dungeon other than you can rise and lower the water. If I go back and play it now I'm sure I could breeze it. Even on Master Quest.
I wouldn't be so sure. I mean you might, but the odds are the camera will cause you to miss something and you'll spend a billion hours looking in every room other than the one "you know you've looked in".
Things weren't badly hidden in the temple, and the map showed doors. Sounds like a bet to me.
[quote=Bebop;861552]I've forgotten everything about that dungeon other than you can rise and lower the water.
Ruto boobs.
Haha, oh man. Link's expression at that point. What age was he supposed to be in the future? 16? 18?
[quote=#061402;861564]Now you know how I feel about the bosses in TP!If you didn't find that giant fire guy, Stallord, the dragon, Zant, or Ganondorf pretty awesome, you're a big fat fag.
Bosses should be hard, to a certain point. So stupidly hard that it takes forever and EVER, and requires meticulous memorizing of their every movement to beat them? No. Never.
This occured to me when I played through the MGS games on European Extreme. Granted, I was asking for it by playing on that difficulty, but wow. Several of the bosses are absurd on EE. Took HOURS to beat some of them. It was ridiculous. Totally ruined that section of the gameplay, and just left me frustrated even when I beat them.
Meanwhile, ridiculously easy bosses, such as those in WW and TP, can be awesome, but leave a feeling of "wasn't that supposed to be a boss?"
I think the best balance between these was achieved in Majora's Mask. Each boss gave a sufficient time figuring out how to beat the boss, and when you did, it was still at least a little bit challenging. If I don't play my cards right, Gyorg will still take several hearts out of me. And if they weren't challenging, they were ridiculously fun, like Goht. And, Majora was a pretty challenging battle without Fierce Deity. Just enough.
Eh, guess our opinions differ on that point, then. I've always enjoyed boss fights, because if they're hard I get such a feeling of satisfaction afterward that it keeps me going.
I think everyone gets the same feeling of satisfaction... it's just the feeling beforehand. It's either "ugh, here we go again" or "oh ***, not a boss." Doesn't help I've played far too many games that decide to toss multiple boss fights at you with no chance to heal or save. Really sours the whole boss experience in general.
Now that I think about it, Zelda would be awesome if its boss battles were like Shadow of the Colossus. The bosses aren't all that different, besides Ganondorf.
It'd also be better if characters got more important roles and weren't only a nuisance. Midna definitely made TP more fun.
[quote=Vampiro V. Empire;861619]I don't understand this logic at all. I've personally always dreaded bosses. Not because they're hard, but because they're a stupid concept.
They're a difficulty spike. That's it. A curveball thrown at the player to keep them on their toes, to keep them in check should they ever feel like they're totally dominating a game. Buffing the rest of the game basically makes the game an even climb, which eventually gets boring. You want your slower, easier parts mixed in with your more challenging parts, it's called pacing.
SotC didn't really have bosses, the Collossi were really the game's levels. To be bosses they'd have to be a difficulty spike amongst less challenging gameplay, but there was basically nothing between them unless you count the aimless wandering.
You can buff certain parts of a dungeon or one specific dungeon every so often. It's not that hard to keep a great pacing without bosses. Not to mention bosses are very, very rarely hard these days.
I have no problem with what form difficulty spikes take as long as they're there. I don't see what's so bad about fighting one big bad dude, though.
I wouldn't mind so much if the boss was less pointless or more interesting to combat. Often that's far from the case. I just think the boss concept could be better suited to some other form.
Or, you know, maybe Zelda could stop having such shitty and predictable bosses.
[quote=Speedfreak;861786]Or, you know, maybe Zelda could stop having such sh[COLOR=lightgreen]i[/COLOR]tty and predictable bosses.
I didn't predict a single one?
'Cept Ganondorf.
THERE'S ONE AT THE END OF EACH DUNGEON. YOU KILL THEM WITH THE ITEM YOU JUST GOT.
That's essentially every game with bosses. Thus my problem with bosses.
In Metroid there's not much of a hint unless you can see a huge room ahead on the map with a skull in it. Usually it's like WHOA CRAP BOSS.
Metroid does well with boss battles.
Indeed, I enjoy boss battles to be more spontaneous, rather than "lol end of the dungeon use the item you got" or "lol check it out here's where you get your item miniboss lol"
Take, say, MGS1 (lol). The boss battles there were very well placed. You're just walking through Moses with Meryl, and you have to cross through an underground tunnel. You walk a little bit, and then OH SNAP MERYL IS SHOT TWICE WITH A SNIPER RIFLE. Suddenly, you find yourself in an intense sniper battle with Sniper Wolf. Or in Metal Gear Solid 3, you're making your way to a certain cave to get to a certain area. You arrive at the chasm, and to your surprise, OCELOT IS WAITING FOR YOU OHSHI. Suddenly, you're in this epic gunfight on two sides of a chasm.
Boss battles are very thrilling to me when they take me by surprise. It feels so much more part of the game then a routine, predictable boss fight. Instead of the boss fights being "boss fight here, progress, boss fight here, progress" etc, it feels seamlessly woven into the whole experience instead of having designated points where bosses should be.
Making the appearance of a boss unexpected does very little to solve the problem of bosses.
Though I gotta agree with the MGS1 thing for the most part. The sniper duel was pretty excellent and stood out to me. The rest... not so much. But hell, you could take the whole torture scene/prison break idea and completely replace that instead of a ****ty boss. Something like that where maybe it's more of a puzzle (without it being blatantly a puzzle (hurr push blocks to open door) important to the story. Or even MGS3 and the boss battle against The End. I thought it was pretty clever in the number of ways to defeat him: kill him before the encounter, set the clock forward on the PS2, use his parrot etc etc. Something more than UNLOAD BULLETS INTO HIS FACE
If it's a full fleged Zelda title being made by Nintendo then there's no way I wouldn't buy that game. /didn't read thread
YEAH NICE JOB ANT, WE WERE ACTUALLY TALKING ABOUT THE VALUE BOSSES HAVE ON GAMEPLAY, AND HOW STRATEGICALLY PLACING THEM GREATLY ALTERS THAT.
validates me not reading the thread even more. :cool:
Come to think of it, knowing of a boss beforehand also has it's benefits. In many a game I've enjoyed the calm before I open the final door to the boss room, or the preperation that goes towards fighting them. It heightens the feeling of the ultimate showdown between myself and my opponent.
Amazingly Zelda manages to avoid that too. You hardly ever know what the boss is until you enter the door, and you often aren't all that sure of when you'll face him, it just comes at the end of a string of puzzle rooms. There's no drama, tension or build-up, it's just "oh, a boss now".
Still don't really get what you don't like about them though, Vamp.
Play a Treasure game, none of those criticisms are exist in their games. Or at least a lot of them aren't.
I'm still not getting it, though. With a few tweaks I could say that ordinary enemies are boring, even more predictable, even more irrelevent to the story, hardly ever do anything new, mostly force you to kill them by the hundred and serve no other purpose other than as filler between other gameplay elements.
I'm not trying to say you're wrong or anything, I'm just interested. I'm wondering if I could find a game with bosses you'd enjoy.
Enemies are irrelevant, in a different sense of the word. They take so little effort to put away and the time spent doesn't detract from any other experience (exceptions exist, but those games tend to get tedious quick anyways.) So in that case it's a tad different for me. It doesn't help that a whole dungeon is usually dedicated to getting to the boss and that's it. The items you pick up, the keys you collect, the path you take all lead to a irrelevant boss that almost cheapens the whole experience. This, of course, is different for the final boss or twist bosses (friends that become enemies) but those are usually two bosses out of the 20 you face.
Plus, enemies tend to break up the tedium or are integrated into the puzzles themselves so they're often just another obstacle along the way rather than a main focus and a culminating point. Again, there are instances where enemies are tedious and become the main focus, and that's bad, but that's overcome often with a fun combo system (DMC) or intelligent, relentless enemies (Ninja Gaiden.) *** of War sits right on the edge for me between semi-fun and boring and tedious because it lacks intelligent enemies and a fun combo system.