Topic: The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild

Yes, this. It's been a long time since I've visited a dungeon in Zelda a felt genuine concern for what may be inside, probably not since I played the first game. Nintendo should consider the success of Harry Potter (growing more dramatic to match its aging audience) and make the next in the series a little more intense, rather than the other way around like they've been doing.

I don't give a care about realism, or looking cool as I slash my sword. I just miss the challenge, and the genuine excitement. No more handholding, no gradual difficulty curve. A dynamic AI behavior, or a more complex battle system (fewer enemies I can just run up to and hit B repeatedly), to feel like I am actually up against danger.

To be honest, the ability of enemies to attack in groups at the same time would really be in line with the apparent theme this game has, where the new kind of puzzle-solving is figuring out how to get to the destination. You would have to make choices, and think of clever ways to avoid being ambushed.

Just a real challenge is all I ask.

^yeah this. Just making enemies do more damage or reducing the ability to recover health doesn't make the game more challenging. It makes it more tedious and punishing, but it's no more enjoyable to fight enemies.

I want an AI that really forces me to think of my feet and have quick reaction time. That's the core draw of any action game. I'm totally beating a dead horse here, but Pandora's Tower is EXACTLY how Zelda should approach it's combat. Give us some items to work into fighting, give the player options to beat different enemies, and make it so that AI enemies know how to work together to make your life harder.

I think the thing is that if Zelda focuses too much time on the combat, that's way less time to spend on other things.

Yeah, you guys make it sound like it's so easy to implement such a thing, just as an extra. You're basically asking for Bayonetta within Zelda but still remain Zelda and have all kinds of new things to introduce without losing it's identity as Zelda but still play like Bayonetta... wat?...

I actually want a Zelda that is less based on combat. Closer to 2D Zeldas, less of what 3D Zeldas have had. I just haven't really enjoyed Combat in 3D Zeldas and think they just need to make it very basic and focus on the puzzles.

Actually, I'd say the 2D Zelda's focus MORE on combat. There are entire dungeon rooms dedicated to fighting enemies, and gameplay was actually harder.

Now if only it wasn't insanely boring. No dodge and no diversity in swings. It's just so slow and tedious.

"2d Zeldas had less combat" is a myth and a lie. It's just that they are quicker, more frequent and almost casual (sometimes easier to ignore)

There may have been more combat but there was less of a focus on combat imo.

@DefHalan

What's the difference?

The difference is if Combat is a focus then the game is more about defeating enemies. If Puzzles and exploration is the focus then the game is more about discovery and finding more uses for items.

2D Zeldas generally have more enemies which leads to more combat. 3D Zeldas generally have less enemies but each encounter is drawn out giving a focus on combat. The 2D Zelda formula of combat with basic enemies is hit them until they die. The formula in 3D Zeldas is generally wait until they are vulnerable, then hit them, then wait some more. The 2D formula leads to quick encounters and less time waiting. The 3D formula is pretty boring. But this is just my opinion

I read some posts on NeoGAF from a programmer at Retro. I will not say who it is, to make sure that he doesn't stop talking. Anyhow, he guessed that frame drops at certain places in Wind Waker HD could be caused by the CPU and not the GPU, since he didn't think the WW HD port supported the Wii U multiple cores. He also guessed that Zelda U (and Xenoblade Chronicles X) would run at 30 fps.

My own interpretation of all this is that Zelda U could be a 1080p/30fps game, just like WW HD (with better CPU utilization than WW HD).

Oh well, that's okay. Zelda was never really the kind of game that demanded 60fps. It's not like the high-speed action of Mario Kart or Super Smash Bros., where 30fps actually makes it harder to react to things and make split-second decisions. A competitive game like Smash is balanced to the average human reaction time. In contrast, the average Zelda boss battle is slower and more realistic.

60fps always looks better though, especially when the camera moves around a lot. If there are cinematics in this game (and judging by the slow-mo mechanic, there probably will be), those may suffer, but it's an almost insignificant worry.

The alpha footage looked pretty smooth, and so did XCX's recent gameplay. Also, does eshop video run at 60 fps?

Yeah, 30fps works fine for Zelda. Unless they are for some reason changing up the combat system.

Honestly, a lot of the challenge in the first Zelda was artificial. Having next-to-no-clues for certain important things, always having to start at low health with few ways to regain it unless you trudge all the way to the nearest Fairy fountain (was there even more than one?), arrows attatched to rupees, having a limited supply of bombs and usually needing to buy them, certain dungeon enemies were rediculous to deal with. I love the first Zelda, but that's in spite of its difficulty...

Here's a question I hope we don't ask... What's the point of Link having so much health if the enemies don't pose any real danger? I really hope we don't have that when Zelda U releases.

But this would most likely mean that other areas would have to be sacrificed. Draw distance, anti-aliasing; just graphical grandeur in general (look at A Link Between Worlds for proof). Like others said, there's a fundamental difference in gameplay between Zelda U and MK & SSB: smoothness and split-second reaction are essential to the hectic racer and smasher – not so much for the slower action-adventure. Every 3D-Zelda to date is a testament to that.

If it's stable, 30fps will be acceptable, in my opinion.

I agree with everything said here. The puzzles in 2D Zeldas are also so basic as to be comparable to a match 3 game with their tile-based boredom. My rule is that Zelda worlds should always be better than pokemon's, and having a top down perspective in a grid-based world with little functional verticality is not a good way to fulfill that.

Just look at the Wind Waker and Zelda U; you can use the deku leaf and (presumably) sail cloth ANYWHERE in their world. Just think how much level design it takes to implement that in puzzles and ensure it can't be used to cheat or skip puzzles or quests; especially in a vertical terrestrial world like Zelda U's.

And on frame rate, it doesn't matter in most games I play (story-based experiences, RPGs, and various kinds of action/adventures) and it won't matter in Zelda. The obvious exception being if it's below the visual threshold (which is around 15 fps or something, I think), which we've already seen it isn't, so let's not get excited about it.

Anyway, I wouldn't worry about Zelda U's combat. We already know it's button based, so at the minimal effort level they could just copy the Twilight Princess combat. Which, with the standard hero mode of recent Zelda releases and rereleases, would be amazing. The only thing I'm worried about is whether hero mode can be activated or deactivated at any time, which may or may not be the case (compare WWHD to A Link Between Horrible Video Game Titles).

I wouldn't saw we know for sure its button based. We see that Link is definitely right handed and sword combat isn't really seen. The likeliest possibility is button controls with a motion option, but it's possible (albeit unlikely) the button controls were just for the demo and an SS style system is in development.