Topic: The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild

Obviously consoles prior to the Wii U had Fire Emblem games. Nintendo has switched a lot of franchises from console to handheld this generation. Cheaper production costs are likely the reason.

Shin Megami Tensei - The latest and greatest Persona, 5, is coming to Playstation home consoles only. Persona 4 Golden was just an enhanced port of a PS2 game, like the 3DS Zelda remakes, basically.

You've activated my trap card.

Persona is a spin-off.

And yet people fawn over Persona 3, 4, & 5 and I haven't heard a word of praise about a SMT mainline game. Just like with Ocarina of Time, many series predating the 3D era have had big blockbuster 'first 3D' entries on console that have since become the focus. Buy some packs, m8, you need better trap crads!

Castlevania - Dead franchise?
Mega Man - Dead franchise?
Metroid - Dead franchise? The last 4 games were released on console, there was only one actual portable game, Fusion, a remake of the first game, Hunters, and a pinball game on handheld.

I disclosed that these three didn't have a main series entry on current gen. Well, I'm not sure if I want to call Lord of Shadows main series, but I guess it is. And it has an entry on 3DS, which isn't a spin-off.

Demonstrably wrong on Metroid. Metroid 2 was a Game Boy game. And 3 of the last 4 games were spin-offs (boy, you're gonna hate me calling Prime a spin-off). The fourth is being swept under the rug by everyone.

Same thing about a 3D spinoff becoming the big focal point happened with Prime; there hasn't been a 2D entry since Fusion. The handheld options in the last decade+ haven't been very meaty.

Anyway, do excuse me for forgetting Metroid 2; the Metroid 2 that everyone loves and remembers. Ask anyone about Metroid 2 and they're all like 'I haven't played that one, but Super Metroid sure was great.'

Anyway, I didn't mean handheld Zelda games are 'spinoffs,' just not part of the 'main series.' Plenty of franchises have different series and sub-series within them, for most AAA games the console releases are the focal points. Both audience attention and developer effort fixate on console releases for almost every franchise. Talk to anyone and they liked ALBW, but they're still waiting for the next big Zelda game; a console game, obviously.

Irrelevant. Link's Awakening, Oracle of Ages, Oracle of Seasons, Minish Cap, Phantom Hourglass, Spirit Tracks, and A Link Between Worlds are all main series. Seriously, you can't just jovially redefine the term "main series" to mean "things I care about." Language doesn't work like that.

This doesn't have anything to do with what I care about. It's to do with what the gaming zeitgeist cares about. It's obvious most franchises go all-in development-wise on consoles, sometimes regardless of sales. The only ones that don't are your Pokemons and Monster Hunters; Japanese-centric series.

Really? A direct sequel to a game, set in the same world, has the exact same overworld map? Amazing how lazy that is, I mean it is totally normal for an entire region to undergo radical geographical change. What's that mountain doing there? The plot points are the same across the all the games. And yes, I've played and finished both.

So people are only waiting for the next console instalment, and the handheld games are a happy diversion, yet they rolled out the welcome mats for ALBW? Sounds like they were waiting for it to me.

Geographic stagnation is the exception rather than the rule in the Zelda franchise. So many of the games are based around environmental puzzles and exploring that it would be folly to keep the map largely the same; that defeats half of the purpose of playing a new game.

Haru17 wrote:

Both audience attention and developer effort fixate on console releases for almost every franchise. Talk to anyone and they liked ALBW, but they're still waiting for the next big Zelda game; a console game, obviously.

Haru17 wrote:

And I don't care what metacritic, of all things, says of the ds Zeldas. How they were designed was wonky and the general consensus I've seen is that touching was in fact not good. Why else do you think ALBW was so well received? I'm sure people wouldn't have rolled out the banners for it if the last 2 2D Zeldas had been button-controlled and not rendered on the PS1 (because it wouldn't have been as special.)

So people are only waiting for the next console instalment, and the handheld games are a happy diversion, yet they rolled out the welcome mats for ALBW? Sounds like they were waiting for it to me.

If you think the media and fan reception of ALBW was loud Zelda U's will be deafening. As it was for all 5 entries in the main, focal series (that's why it's obviously the main series.)

If it's not main series, that either means its a non-canon story or a spinoff. Yes, the handhelds are main series as the continue off the series story. Just because they aren't the scale of home console games (which is not achievable as consoles will always outpower handhelds of the same generation) doesn't mean they are not main series. Let's not compare by size.

How about by effort and creativity? Minish Cap (or whatever the division was back then) was the last handheld game that felt like EAD really put any creative weight behind it. ALBW... felt like a low budget game. The graphics, nonlinear gimmick, and repurposed world; it all just felt like a very cost-effective way to make a good portable game. That just puts me off. Really, why care about anything but the pinnacle of interactive entertainment if you have all of these devs pouring years of development into a single title? By comparison shorter handheld dev cycles just feel rushed and underwhelming.

Believe me, plenty of games prove that handhelds can technically handle more ambitious games; the dev effort just isn't there for most games. The only games I've played on 3DS that felt like they were the culmination of a great effort (besides ports) were Monster Hunter 4, Dream Team, Dark Moon, and maybe ORAS; all handheld-based series of late.

Size and budget in no way determine what is and is not "main line".

If a game in a series follows the general gameplay conventions of it's predecessors & and is canonical narratively, it is main line, no matter the budget & scale behind the project.

A spinoff would indicate that it's a game that doesn't fit into the canon, or experiments with a completely new gameplay philosophy. Good examples would be Link's Crossbow Training, Hyrule Warriors, and Tingle's Rosy Rupeeland. All of which show a much greater departure from other games in the series than exists between home console entries and portable entries. It's simply disingenuous to assert that a game like ALBW has about as much to do with the "Main Line", as Tingle's Rosy Rupeeland (which you insinuate when you say handheld entries are spinoffs), despite the fact that it's clearly a follow up to ALttP (which has to be a main line game, as it can't be a spinoff to a game that didn't yet exist).

Minish Cap was made by Capcom.

I'm starting to think you're just trolling out of boredom by the lack of news. Everything you're saying is either just outright wrong or belongs in the Unpopular Opinion thread.

The Nintendo E3 leaks are pouring in!!! I WANT PRAISE IF THIS LEAK TURNS OUT TRUE!
Link: http://hiddentriforce.com/zelda-wii-u-and-nintendo-e3-2015-ru...
Main points of Alleged Leak of Zelda U:
"Zelda Wii U, while previously pushed from the E3 event list will still make some kind of an appearance. Official art and a trailer will be shown. Nintendo changed their mind as in attempt to sustain momentum for their Wii U console.
Zelda Wii U will work with several different Amiibo models. Using an Amiibo will provide Link with a daily item that he can use. For instance, Link can be given a fairy or a potion-like power-up. This ability can only be used once a day.
Zelda Wii U will support both the GamePad and the Wii U Pro Controller.
There will be a form of fast travel within the game. The overworld is so large that riding a horse or walking simply is not feasible later in the game. While Epona has been shown to avoid obstacles on her own, fans would quickly grow weary of sitting around waiting. Nintendo wants to avoid complaints similar to the sailing in The Wind Waker.
Ganondorf/Ganon will not be the main villain. Similar to Skyward Sword, there will be some kind of connection to the game’s main lore, but a new foe will appear.
The Wii U GamePad controller will allow gamers to scan the environment and to take notes to be referenced later.
The game will feature a lot of “darker” themes, similar to what we saw in Majora’s Mask. NPC will have a more icons role than some of the recent titles. There will be more of an emotional connection.
While not surprising, the game will have different sets of overworld enemies for night and day times.
Zelda Wii U will feature Gorons. Zoras have not been seen yet, but there will be at least 2 new “races”."

WHATCHA THINK?

Wow, the link seems like a whole lotta BS. They are picking all the easy, low-hanging fruit, but they are also pointing out things that are likely not what would be shown a year and a half away from launch.

Also, Link is left handed, so the game's going to support the Wii Remote.

Yeah, it's about time for fake E3 leaks to start ramping up. Decent comedy, at least.

As I said in the E3 discussion thread:

Phantom Hourglass was definitely well received Mr Haru. 90% on metacritic and 5 million sales (4th best selling game in the series) and most importantly of all, I quite liked it (except for that ocean king place)

No, the wiimote won't be used, it is definitely confirmed that zelda u will use the gamepad (no mention of pro controller tho). Link must be right handed for some canonical reason, such as this Link being the same Link or related to SS Link.

Nintendo's trying to push the gamepad, so they won't make this game compatible with the wiimote. That would be like saying, "Yea, buy our gamepad, even though you can use all your old controllers which make the gamepad seem un-needed, you should just listen to us and buy it anyway."

Yo... what exactly is your avatar???

Just like supporting the gamepad doesn't preclude the Pro controller, it doesn't preclude the Wii remote. Link has never been right handed for anything other than a technical reason.

Nintendo has been pretty willing to include a waggle option in many of their games. They have experience with it and they understand some of their fanbase prefers it. There is no reason to assume it won't support the Wii Remote given what we've seen so far.

I mentioned metacritic, he doesn't care, which means we have a valid point.

(I was editing my post as you responded btw)

I guess right now there's no way to tell, but personally, I think the wiimote being used is unlikely, since I assume zelda u will have the same control scheme as WW HD. Also, there will be no one-to-one swordstrikes in this game, which we can see in the game awards footage, so adding wiimote functionality would be a step back from SS's motion. You would just shake the wiimote a little for Link to strike, like in TP (which was really annoying imo). If I know anything about Nintendo's past patterns, it's that they dislike staying in one place for too long, and incorporating the wiimote would keep them from moving forward.

Among the first Zelda games I played, and it managed to get me hooked on the series. Spirit Tracks, in my opinion, improved upon it on every aspect. That game has some of the best music in all of Zelda series.

I faintly remember discussion going on eons ago about Dark Link: I don't think anybody mentioned that he made an appearance in ST as well.

TP's controls could be a little more tightly controlled, but I thought they were fine. I liked SS's controls themselves, but I thought their implementation caused problems. Combat became a lot slower and less action focused, and secondary items and specials kills took a side seat, so that combat could focus EXCLUSIVELY on directionality. That's the core problem with building a game around a control scheme rather than using a control scheme to improve a game. But to each is own.

I don't see how incorporating the Wii remote would be moving backwards any more than incorporating the Pro Controller. Nintendo could be said to have moved forward with both controllers, dropping the Wii Remote without building upon it would really be moving back.

I think WWHD didn't really change the controls much because they were mostly translating directly from WW, and just adding the motion aiming (because it's a million times more accessible). Zelda U is being built from the ground-up though.

I'm just saying that having wiimote compatibility would add nothing to the experience except the ability to shake something instead of pressing a button. WW HD also gives you a map in your hands, switching items without pausing, and off TV play.

From my edit I said: Nintendo's trying to push the gamepad, so they won't make this game compatible with the wiimote. That would be like saying, "Yea, buy our gamepad, even though you can use all your old controllers which make the gamepad seem un-needed, you should just listen to us and buy it anyway." Letting you use the wiimote would be downplaying the usefulness of the gamepad, something which Ninty can't afford to do right now. BUT their inclusion of the pro controller in WW HDis offsetting all the points I can make, so I think I'll end by babbling here

Since there is no way to prove what Ninty is gonna do, I reaaaaaalllllllly want to make a bet with you.