399 replies to this topic

[Koh]

Well, with the earlier Zeldas....

 

Zelda 1, with the exception of Gohma, nothing ever glowed or stood out in any real fashion, since it was only early NES 8-bit.  The first thing you'd try is the sword, since its the primary weapon.  Most of the time it works, so there's nothing more to it than that..  But with things like Gohma, you hear the clank sound, and assume to try some other weapons.

 

Zelda 2....well this is a unique beast, so I wouldn't base my judgements on this good, but terribly flawed game.

 

Zelda 3, with the exception of the boss in Turtle Rock, nothing was ever really in your face obvious.  You try the sword first like usual, and most of the time it works.  Then you try greater damaging weapons like the bow, and lo and behold, they work too.  The first time I played this, for example, I had no idea the Armos Knights could be killed in just three shots of the arrow, since the sword also worked.  The sword just made it take a lot longer.

 

Zelda 4 is when they started to announce the boss weaknesses.  Moldorm's Tail, the clown that doesn't shut up about his vase, and the Angler Fish's glowing face.

 

Zelda 1 gave hints about the boss weaknesses through NPCs, but they were somewhat riddleish, to get the player to think. It wasn't "HIT HIM IN THE FACE," but more like "Strike that upon which the eyes gaze."  I'd be fine with reverting to something like this, rather than having  so-obvious-it-hurts weaknesses.

Edited by Koh, 04 February 2015 - 08:00 PM.

[Limebeer]

Well, with the earlier Zeldas....

 

Zelda 1, with the exception of Gohma, nothing ever glowed or stood out in any real fashion, since it was only early NES 8-bit.  The first thing you'd try is the sword, since its the primary weapon.  Most of the time it works, so there's nothing more to it than that..  But with things like Gohma, you hear the clank sound, and assume to try some other weapons.

 

Zelda 2....well this is a unique beast, so I wouldn't base my judgements on this good, but terribly flawed game.

 

Zelda 3, with the exception of the boss in Turtle Rock, nothing was ever really in your face obvious.  You try the sword first like usual, and most of the time it works.  Then you try greater damaging weapons like the bow, and lo and behold, they work too.  The first time I played this, for example, I had no idea the Armos Knights could be killed in just three shots of the arrow, since the sword also worked.  The sword just made it take a lot longer.

 

Zelda 4 is when they started to announce the boss weaknesses.  Moldorm's Tail, the clown that doesn't shut up about his vase, and the Angler Fish's glowing face.

 

Zelda 1 gave hints about the boss weaknesses through NPCs, but they were somewhat riddleish, to get the player to think. It wasn't "HIT HIM IN THE FACE," but more like "Strike that upon which the eyes gaze."  I'd be fine with reverting to something like this, rather than having  so-obvious-it-hurts weaknesses.

 

I dunno... that horn on Aquamentus's head... that was pretty stand out there
But yes, with the earlier games(Z1), it was hard to make them with spots that stood out. As for the Zelda 3 and onwards... the sword is basically all you needed. If not, it was obvious that you knew to use something else.

I do think though that it shouldn't matter how obvious the weakspot is. it may take quite alot of intense fighting just to get him to reveal that weak spot, especially later on in the fight. We won't know until it comes out and we can play it. You never know, you may end up liking the fight to where you can forgive what you don't like. It all depends on the execution of the fight rather than the looks, in the end.

[Haylee]

Idk what you're talking about, Koh, excluding Digdogger, all of Zelda 1's boss have pretty obvious weaknesses.

[Shane]

The truth is however, there was obvious weak spots in Zelda 1, A Link to the Past and so forth. The big difference is that we are comparing apples and oranges. The old Zelda games handled weak spots differently compared to modern Zelda games.

 

In the old Zeldas, there was the fact that the weak spots were always available for attack. Once you figure out their pattern, it's an easy fight. In modern Zelda games, there is the fact that while the weak spots are obvious in most cases, you have to fight for it to be revealed. Take the gameplay video recently posted; you still have a challenge. It's meant to be obvious where to hit, but how do you get to the weak point? That adds a new layer to the challenge IMO.

 

When we play games and grow up in general, we evolve our thinking and problem solving skills, and soon enough we no longer see most challenges that games introduce. We know most of the logic and rules in gaming by adulthood (depending on how well you sharpen your skills). I mean I easily floored the first half of Zelda 1 simply because I got used to playing modern Zelda games as a kid. And people told me it was hard to figure out. I thought they were joking.

 

(Edit: Also I am aware that there are a lot of challenging games that can still be a challenge even if you have great problem solving and thinking skills. But I am mostly talking about the Zelda series naturally.)

 

I digress, I find it simply hilarious that most people who wanted and demanded a remake are blaming the new people for what Majora's Mask 3D is shaping up to be. I see it everywhere now. 

Edited by Shane, 04 February 2015 - 11:40 PM.

[LinktheMaster]

The eye does make sense in a story context, since the bosses were, as mentioned above, under Majora's control, and the spirits themselves I believed were not evil, just possessed. So it adds that layer to the gameplay as well, although admittedly I wonder how it changes the Goht fight. If a big eye pops out of its face and you have to attack that after tripping up Goht... I'd probably be a little annoyed at the fight. Unless the eye is in the back, in which case that's fine I guess.

 

The bosses were never one of Majora's Mask's strong points anyway, in my opinion. Except for Majora, that fight was fantastic. 

Well, if anyone wants to know, based off of the MM footage at the Zelda concert:

 

Spoiler

When Goht collapses, the eye pops out of its back (so on top).  You then have to change out Goron mode to shoot it with a (fire?) arrow.

 

I honestly don't mind the changes myself too much, though I'll admit that visually they look weird.

[Nicholas Steel]

In-depth review of the game:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLR9TL0hKqU
 
Tell me what you think of the Ice Arrows change.

Edited by franpa, 11 February 2015 - 05:16 AM.

[Russ]

... not gonna like, I really don't like the Ice Arrow change. The way the originals worked was, in my opinion, one of the coolest item mechanics in the series, and now they arbitrarily did away with that for something that doesn't even make sense. Can't say I like the Zora swimming mechanic change either. So... I guess good job for actually making changes Nintendo, but I think you went after the wrong stuff.

Also no master quest.

[Moonbread]

I wasn't really torn up over the whole Zora Link swimming mechanics changed because while it was amazing in open areas, it was true that you'd constantly give yourself head trauma in cramped areas.  Would've been nice if you just had to hit a button to switch between fast and slow swimming, though, but no biggie.  But... wow, this is definitely a lot more streamlined, and I'm not liking it.  Especially with the bomber's notebook basically telling you exactly what to do next without you prompting it, and the change to the ice arrows.  Urgh.  Might stick with the N64 version for much longer than I thought.  I'll probably get it eventually, but not until it's having a sale on amazon or something. (Which is precisely why I got OoT 3D, because it was really cheap at one point.)

 

I can't help but feel like the purpose of ALBW was to say, "Hey, we're getting away from this sorta nonsense."  Blegh.  Now I feel like a negative nancy.

[Avaro]

Gameexplain is talking so fast. Lol. Anyways, I'm not sure about the changes of the ice arrows. I realize, I had some problems in the original game, but it was more fun too. It's not like it's a game breaking change though. I don't mind it. The game looks great!

[Limebeer]

I'll admit, a bit annoying on the Ice Arrow change, the could have added the shining spots but kept how the function of the arrows where still. But to be fair, outside the Water Temple, I mostly used Zora Link to swim where you would otherwise be able to use the Ice Arrows (They only worked if the water was deep enough, if i remember correctly)... excluding certain parts of the Goron area where I'd mess around to kill the Tektites in new and exciting ways.

[The Satellite]

... I thought you wanted to eliminate handholding in Zelda games, Aonuma? The other changes are either good or annoying but otherwise don't bug me too much, but this one is just bad. Ice Arrows were something I loved in the original, and now they're arbitrarily restricted. For what reason? I mean sure, I never used them outside Great Bay Temple, but still... Suddenly I wonder if I used Ice Arrows for any kind of "sequence breaking" and if I'm gonna lose that ability now.

[Dawnlight]

Alright! I paid off my New 3DS XL Red along with Majora's Mask 3D. I'll be all set next week!

[Beefster]

I'm loving the revamped version of this fight. Idk why people are saying this remake is going to be bad, so far, most of these design choices appear to be awesome.

It's because people generally don't like change.

 

EDIT: Having a gigantic eye that spills out onto land will certainly do a lot to make the Gyorg battle less annoying...

Ice arrows... well I'm normally pretty stingy with arrows and magic, so really the only thing we'll be missing out on is Ice Arrowing over to the Great Bay Temple mirage.

This won't change the speedrunning community. They'll stick to the original anyway.

 

I'm personally pretty open to change because it's pretty hard to tell just from what videos show and what other people say. Plus, I'm not looking for a straight port. If I wanted that I would have played the original game. What I really want is a fresh and more polished experience.

 

As far as handholding goes, I think there's a balance. On one end, you have the essentially an interactive movie where the game tells you what to do, but then on the other end is a game so obtuse it expects you to read the developer's mind.

 

A good design will fall somewhere in the middle and is usually made possible with good UI and early level design. That is, something that will introduce concepts gradually in a way that it feels the player is discovering it for himself (Braid is probably the best example of this method).

 

Still, it's better to err on the side of handholding because it produces a better overall experience. Players will quit if they're not sure what they're supposed to do. Or they'll consult a guide, thus watering down their experience.

Edited by Beefster, 05 February 2015 - 11:42 PM.

[Nicholas Steel]

The thing with Majora's Mask though is that most stuff was previously explained during Ocarina of Time's gameplay and anything that was unique to Majora's Mask was explained during Majora's Mask's gameplay without a need for the manual. In fact, I find Majora's Mask to be less obtuse/better at explaining when it came to puzzles than Ocarina of Time.

 

By the way, random question: Has there yet been any Zelda game since Majora's Mask that lets you hookshot to a chest?

Edited by franpa, 06 February 2015 - 06:03 AM.

[Limebeer]

I'm quite sure the hand helds allowed for hookshotting the chest... I'm not too sure about the consul games as they switched to the claw-shot from twilight princess for most games (from what I can recall)