You know, the random caves and grottos could be randomly generated. I mean, they're always minor and lacking in major gimmicks (outside of the Pit of 100 Trials/Cave of Ordeals stuff), so you could have them change every time you play, and their locations randomly decided as well.
Q1: Has Nintendo ever randomly generated a 3D environment
Q2: Do randomly generated environments usually turn out well? Are they worse than handcrafted environments.
I'm all for keeping random generation miles away from Zelda, especially for the world. Seriously, randomly generated environments are always more forgettable than handcrafted ones, even for caves. Plus you know you'd end up with that one glitchy cave atop a tree or some such.
Off the top of my head, Animal Crossing, Mario Kart 8, and Pikmin 2 all utilize some degree of randomly generated 3D environments in mostly succesful ways, but let's dismiss the first two was they're very different from a Zelda game.
In Pikmin 2, most non-boss floors of dungeons are randomly generated. The enemy placement, hazard placement, item placement, and actual environment is different every time, but within limitations. The environments are generated from a number of smaller handcrafted areas, each rotated and randomly arranged into the greater configuration of the environment. So, while the floor as a whole is random, each individual segment of the floor is handcrafted. Similarly, the enemies, hazards, and items are not placed at any possible location. Each handcrafted area has predetermined points at which any element is allowed to spawn. While these possibilities are multiple, they are not infinite. This approach is, for the most part, pretty successful in Pikmin 2.
I could see Nintendo using this technique pretty easily in a Zelda game. At this point, there is no evidence of it in this Zelda game, but in theory, it could work. The terrain of the over-world itself would be very difficult to generate randomly, but it wouldn't be so hard to pull of with individual elements and underground environments. Puzzles, for example, might gain a lot with a similar technique. Really though, the only advantage to random generation is in replays.
An interesting, well thought out villain. Ganon might be cool, but if it's a new guy... make them have a personality. The DS games and Skyward Sword had a problem with generic doomsday villains that were all power and no personality (as TV Tropes would put it). Bellum, Malladus, Demise... all rather lacking on the personality front.
Yuga was better (and the secondary villains from the DS and Wii games, like Ghirahim, Cole and Byrne were pretty good as well), but... we need a major villain who feels more like an interesting character and less like a random force of evil or expy of Ganon.
As for the combat... well, it should be more active if anything. Too many recent Zelda games have enemies that spend half the time blocking attacks and less time actually trying to kill you. Is it 'smart' to defend constantly? Maybe, but it's more fun to have aggressive enemies who put realism aside to keep you terrified.
Then again, it's arguably not realistic to have enemies act like in Skyward Sword. Normal animals (and average joes in a street fight) don't give a toss about being stylish or defending or fighting in a 'smart' way, they just attack non stop til they or the other guy/thing/whatever stops moving. And they certainly don't come in small groups. We need more Zelda enemies that attack Link a good ten or twenty at a time, not one or two waiting around and blocking every other attack.
An interesting, well thought out villain. Ganon might be cool, but if it's a new guy... make them have a personality. The DS games and Skyward Sword had a problem with generic doomsday villains that were all power and no personality (as TV Tropes would put it). Bellum, Malladus, Demise... all rather lacking on the personality front.
Yuga was better (and the secondary villains from the DS and Wii games, like Ghirahim, Cole and Byrne were pretty good as well), but... we need a major villain who feels more like an interesting character and less like a random force of evil or expy of Ganon.
As for the combat... well, it should be more active if anything. Too many recent Zelda games have enemies that spend half the time blocking attacks and less time actually trying to kill you. Is it 'smart' to defend constantly? Maybe, but it's more fun to have aggressive enemies who put realism aside to keep you terrified.
Then again, it's arguably not realistic to have enemies act like in Skyward Sword. Normal animals (and average joes in a street fight) don't give a toss about being stylish or defending or fighting in a 'smart' way, they just attack non stop til they or the other guy/thing/whatever stops moving. And they certainly don't come in small groups. We need more Zelda enemies that attack Link a good ten or twenty at a time, not one or two waiting around and blocking every other attack.
Ghirahim didn't have enough personality for you?
The Harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. When the going gets tough, the tough gets going.
You know, the random caves and grottos could be randomly generated. I mean, they're always minor and lacking in major gimmicks (outside of the Pit of 100 Trials/Cave of Ordeals stuff), so you could have them change every time you play, and their locations randomly decided as well.
Q1: Has Nintendo ever randomly generated a 3D environment
Q2: Do randomly generated environments usually turn out well? Are they worse than handcrafted environments.
I'm all for keeping random generation miles away from Zelda, especially for the world. Seriously, randomly generated environments are always more forgettable than handcrafted ones, even for caves. Plus you know you'd end up with that one glitchy cave atop a tree or some such.
Off the top of my head, Animal Crossing, Mario Kart 8, and Pikmin 2 all utilize some degree of randomly generated 3D environments in mostly succesful ways, but let's dismiss the first two was they're very different from a Zelda game.
In Pikmin 2, most non-boss floors of dungeons are randomly generated. The enemy placement, hazard placement, item placement, and actual environment is different every time, but within limitations. The environments are generated from a number of smaller handcrafted areas, each rotated and randomly arranged into the greater configuration of the environment. So, while the floor as a whole is random, each individual segment of the floor is handcrafted. Similarly, the enemies, hazards, and items are not placed at any possible location. Each handcrafted area has predetermined points at which any element is allowed to spawn. While these possibilities are multiple, they are not infinite. This approach is, for the most part, pretty successful in Pikmin 2.
I could see Nintendo using this technique pretty easily in a Zelda game. At this point, there is no evidence of it in this Zelda game, but in theory, it could work. The terrain of the over-world itself would be very difficult to generate randomly, but it wouldn't be so hard to pull of with individual elements and underground environments. Puzzles, for example, might gain a lot with a similar technique. Really though, the only advantage to random generation is in replays.
The thing about random generation, or random arrangement, is that you end up with a jigsaw puzzle layout without any greater theming with regards to meta structure. That and neither Pikmin 2, Animal Crossing, or the Excitebike DLC in Mario Kart have any meaningful verticality. I can't see actually good randomly arranged Zelda dungeons existing until I literally see it. Even if they do this the dungeons will probably include the same components as before within an hour. I'd rather they just spend all this effort creating real, normal dungeons that I can play through and enjoy than messing about with randomness.
A couple of things:
-I think playing the Wii version of Twilight Princess could have colored some people's opinions of the combat, which is really excellent on gamecube.
-Skyward Sword technically did have run 'n slash, but it required waggling and looked real dumb, so it wasn't as good as in GCN TP where you could just mash B.
-Malladus, Yuga, Cole, Bryne, Bellum, Girahim, and Demise all lacked personality. They could have done Bellum like an eldritch horror (Majora-esque), but they didn't, so whatever. Demise I'm inclined to forgive because of the cool origin story associated with the one scene you actually see him in (not counting those three, awful boss fights).
But Girahim I just can't abide by. I mean what is his character!?! He's evil, sure, but then you should be creeped out by him because... he's gay? Is that it!?! This was before all that Tomodachi Life awfulness, even. I'm sorry, but if your main antagonist for about 40 hours' only defining characteristic is that he dresses flamboyantly and that he sorta licked the protagonist's ear, then you're doing it wrong, actual bigotry or no. I did quite like the final boss fight with Girahim, though (if not the first 2).
While I'm not a big fan of Ghirahim's motivations (he's basically hardcoded to do what he's doing in the game, he doesn't have any personal motives for doing it), I thought he had a ton of personality (which made the reveal of what he really was a big let down). It wasn't that he was flamboyant. It was that he was completely insane, alternated between cool/collected and violent/aggressive, and just a little bit creepy.
SS didn't have Run and slash, the second you swung your sword, Link stopped moving.
While options are always nice, I understand why they limited it to motion controls only. They wanted to really get everyone to give it a shot. And IMO, TP for the Wii's controls worked wonderfully. I'd even argue they were more enjoyable than Skyward Sword's, because they were used purely to further immerse and engage the player, rather than to dramatically alter combat into something far more slow and puzzle-like.
Personally, I'd like to see Zelda do another stealth quest. Zelda always seems to do interspersed stealth quests like Forsaken Fortress pretty well. Also, if they can pull of another escort dungeon like the Earth Temple, I'd be giddy as a school girl (though the record for escort quests is far weaker 1/4 was good)
Currently Playing: Steamworld Heist, The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask, Tales of Graces F
Wii Zelda fans getting all uppity in this thread lol. Isn't the general consensus that the Wii Zelda titles were the worst in the franchise?
I don't agree with that. Twilight Princess and Skyward Sword were both fantastic. The first two games in the series are actually my least favorite. I don't think Zelda quite found its winning formula until Link to the Past. I do like all of the games in the series though.
But I think the general consensus is that the DS games are the weakest in the series.
So Anakin kneels before Monster Mash and pledges his loyalty to the graveyard smash.
While I'm not a big fan of Ghirahim's motivations (he's basically hardcoded to do what he's doing in the game, he doesn't have any personal motives for doing it), I thought he had a ton of personality (which made the reveal of what he really was a big let down). It wasn't that he was flamboyant. It was that he was completely insane, alternated between cool/collected and violent/aggressive, and just a little bit creepy.
SS didn't have Run and slash, the second you swung your sword, Link stopped moving.
While options are always nice, I understand why they limited it to motion controls only. They wanted to really get everyone to give it a shot. And IMO, TP for the Wii's controls worked wonderfully. I'd even argue they were more enjoyable than Skyward Sword's, because they were used purely to further immerse and engage the player, rather than to dramatically alter combat into something far more slow and puzzle-like.
Personally, I'd like to see Zelda do another stealth quest. Zelda always seems to do interspersed stealth quests like Forsaken Fortress pretty well. Also, if they can pull of another escort dungeon like the Earth Temple, I'd be giddy as a school girl (though the record for escort quests is far weaker 1/4 was good)
It just seemed to me that Nintendo's first and only concern when developing Girahim as a character was to 'make him weird' and then from there they thought to make him effeminate and vaguely creeping on Link in a sexual sense. I didn't like his being born a literal evil demon thing either, though being an evil weapon was kinda cool. Though, to do that they made his whole theme the lame diamond-shaped particle effects (like the sword's pommel stone), which only serves to remind me of this:
I think you're implying a Nintendo character needs a ton of backstory and deep motivation. Which is false and a bad idea sometimes tbh. Ghirahim simply exists to make you love to hate him essentially (well that and to be used as a sign of your improving abilities, which was actually a highlight for me on my first playthrough) and that's all he really has to do. And he succeeds more than most characters in games. Outside of certain JRPGs, it's hard for me to think of characters who so consistently appear just to make you want to kill them.
He's also clearly a response to how disappointed people were by Zant's personality change in Twilight Princess, so they made sure you knew this guy was odd upfront.
I think you're implying a Nintendo character needs a ton of backstory and deep motivation. Which is false and a bad idea sometimes tbh. Ghirahim simply exists to make you love to hate him essentially (well that and to be used as a sign of your improving abilities, which was actually a highlight for me on my first playthrough) and that's all he really has to do. And he succeeds more than most characters in games. Outside of certain JRPGs, it's hard for me to think of characters who so consistently appear just to make you want to kill them.
He's also clearly a response to how disappointed people were by Zant's personality change in Twilight Princess, so they made sure you knew this guy was odd upfront.
Oh, where to begin? Well! To start my opinion is not 'false' or 'wrong' because opinions are subjective things incapable of being either wrong or right, false or true.
Now onto the gooey, subjective parts! Nintendo is not some special butterfly exempt from all modern narrative criticism. Super Mario Bros. can be as intellectually dead as Minecraft and Paper Mario as narratively thrilling as The Last of Us. Historically Nintendo doesn't have many 'deep' characters (except standouts like Midna), but, again, not a special butterfly.
I can understand the perspective that Girahim doesn't have to have a 'deep' personally, but, for people such as myself who crave a 'deeper' narrative with antagonists who have actual motivations, that doesn't make Girahim any less spectacularly boring through 90% of the game! I find that Girahim and Zant are inverses; Zant was imposing and mysterious for 90% of the game and then seeming went crazy for the last 10% of the game (though his backstory and appearance in the Ganondorf boss fight were still pretty good to great, I find). Girahim was the exact opposite, wacky and odd for 90% of the game, then he became serious at the end. The visual transition and symbolism of his being the 'dark master sword' was well done, however silly the whole thing was.
Still, though, that doesn't make me miss Zant any less while playing through Skyward Sword.
Oh, where to begin? Well! To start my opinion is not 'false' or 'wrong' because opinions are subjective things incapable of being either wrong or right, false or true.
Now onto the gooey, subjective parts! Nintendo is not some special butterfly exempt from all modern narrative criticism. Super Mario Bros. can be as intellectually dead as Minecraft and Paper Mario as narratively thrilling as The Last of Us. Historically Nintendo doesn't have many 'deep' characters (except standouts like Midna), but, again, not a special butterfly.
A deeply layered narrative is sometimes a detriment to the game, or even the story. It really depends on what sort of game or story it is. Nintendo games, especially those under Miyamoto, tend to favour a more abstract and indirect form of storytelling. Take Pikmin for example. It's a series with almost no narrative at all, and yet bursting with story. You just have to let the game speak to you in different ways. The story in Zelda traditionally reveals itself through lore and invoking a sense of wonder in the player. The narrative isn't strong because the story is intended to be interactive and involve you. It's not telling you a story and isn't supposed to be.
Earlier you had mentioned environmental themes in Wind Waker. This isn't something inherent in the writing itself. It's something of your own construct that you injected into the narrative to bring more meaning and life to the story. All Zelda games work this way, if you let them.
Criticizing a game for its narrative isn't always going to be valid. Try playing Journey.
I disagree. I love complex villains but I don't want JUST complex villains. Sometimes I simply want a compelling good guy against a compelling bad guy, and Skyward Sword did it well. It doesn't NEED to do anything else. Basic and simple are not inherent negatives, especially for something that is ultimately made for fun. I love Majora's Mask but I don't want every Zelda to be Majora's Mask, at least not in terms of tone and themes. And even Majora's Mask is still a silly video game by silly Japanese Nintendo.
Like I would like to share 2 of my favorite anime. One Piece and Welcome to the NHK! If you know anything about these series, you can figure out I love them for very, very different reasons. And that is a good thing. Variety is the spice of life. This is inherently good. Without the fun and stupidity of One Piece, something like Welcome to the NHK! is just another thing to make me sad instead of a brilliant, depressing and soul-crushing look at a flawed idiot.
But I'm not against Zelda making a deep villain either. An actual one. I just doubt Nintendo wants to really put the resources in to properly do that. Too busy making a good dungeon or something. Video games.
Oh, where to begin? Well! To start my opinion is not 'false' or 'wrong' because opinions are subjective things incapable of being either wrong or right, false or true.
Now onto the gooey, subjective parts! Nintendo is not some special butterfly exempt from all modern narrative criticism. Super Mario Bros. can be as intellectually dead as Minecraft and Paper Mario as narratively thrilling as The Last of Us. Historically Nintendo doesn't have many 'deep' characters (except standouts like Midna), but, again, not a special butterfly.
A deeply layered narrative is sometimes a detriment to the game, or even the story. It really depends on what sort of game or story it is. Nintendo games, especially those under Miyamoto, tend to favour a more abstract and indirect form of storytelling. Take Pikmin for example. It's a series with almost no narrative at all, and yet bursting with story. You just have to let the game speak to you in different ways. The story in Zelda traditionally reveals itself through lore and invoking a sense of wonder in the player. The narrative isn't strong because the story is intended to be interactive and involve you. It's not telling you a story and isn't supposed to be.
Earlier you had mentioned environmental themes in Wind Waker. This isn't something inherent in the writing itself. It's something of your own construct that you injected into the narrative to bring more meaning and life to the story. All Zelda games work this way, if you let them.
Criticizing a game for its narrative isn't always going to be valid. Try playing Journey.
Criticism is rarely not valid, the thing about Journey (which I HAVE played, thank you very much) is it's so vague as to be very difficult to critique. That game much more so than Zelda has a highly subjective and interpretive story. While it's not traditional in any sense of the word, Journey still has a narrative. Story and narrative relate to things that evoke thought through either presenting or implying events, plot, characters, themes, etc.
Pikmin has the boorish main plot of escaping the planet, which can be heavily critiqued for being way too simple, but it also has the environmental storytelling. You go around, look at the various flora and fauna, and see how they function. It's still relating information, just in the form of a living environmental science textbook. That's still a narrative.
On the Wind Waker, neither of us know if climate change was an influence on the writing or not. Personally I think it was, as once I saw it in the dialogue I couldn't not see it, but others might not, still, neither of us know. On the subject of that game I quite enjoyed that version of Ganondorf because, though evil, he was still relatable in the end. His was the tale of an environmental refugee who, after he had finally conquered the realm, saw it destroyed despite all his efforts. It's pretty sad because he was constantly facing hardship from one source or another, then he got stabbed dead.
I think you're implying a Nintendo character needs a ton of backstory and deep motivation. Which is false and a bad idea sometimes tbh. Ghirahim simply exists to make you love to hate him essentially (well that and to be used as a sign of your improving abilities, which was actually a highlight for me on my first playthrough) and that's all he really has to do. And he succeeds more than most characters in games. Outside of certain JRPGs, it's hard for me to think of characters who so consistently appear just to make you want to kill them.
He's also clearly a response to how disappointed people were by Zant's personality change in Twilight Princess, so they made sure you knew this guy was odd upfront.
My big issue with Ghirahim was that after his big reveal, I really felt like I couldn't hate him anymore. Him being a sword stripped him of the intrigue of his own motives. He was basically just a puppet programmed to do what he's doing. He didn't want power, revenge, etc.
Currently Playing: Steamworld Heist, The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask, Tales of Graces F
I think you're implying a Nintendo character needs a ton of backstory and deep motivation. Which is false and a bad idea sometimes tbh. Ghirahim simply exists to make you love to hate him essentially (well that and to be used as a sign of your improving abilities, which was actually a highlight for me on my first playthrough) and that's all he really has to do. And he succeeds more than most characters in games. Outside of certain JRPGs, it's hard for me to think of characters who so consistently appear just to make you want to kill them.
He's also clearly a response to how disappointed people were by Zant's personality change in Twilight Princess, so they made sure you knew this guy was odd upfront.
My big issue with Ghirahim was that after his big reveal, I really felt like I couldn't hate him anymore. Him being a sword stripped him of the intrigue of his own motives. He was basically just a puppet programmed to do what he's doing. He didn't want power, revenge, etc.
That's a valid enough point. I think a lot of examples of this would normally go to the idea of this guy betraying his master and taking the power for himself, but they just straight up played the "betrayed by the thing I just summoned" trope in the way you expected. They do it well enough and it makes him an interesting contrast to Fi considering the final battle but Demise is not interesting as a character, even by comparison.
Forums
Topic: The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild
Posts 1,141 to 1,160 of 15,210
Please login or sign up to reply to this topic