Ok so I wanna ask just what physics is needed for a game these days?
I'm asking this because I'm not able to understand how it took long to fix the physics engine in this game?
The physics isn't particularly difficult. Nothing in the game goes beyond fairly simple Newtonian physics that has standard ways of being implementing. Most low-budget physics engines, even the open source ones, can accomplish all of this same stuff. E.g: https://bepuphysics.codeplex.com/
The time it took them is likely down to the number of potential bugs it introduces when you allow this much freedom in the physics. Smaller developers and Bethesda would just leave those there but Nintendo has their whole seal of quality thing going on and they're more averse to bugs than almost every other developer.
@Socar The game's far from perfect though (every game is); and there's still a lot of improvement that I don't think will be fixed before the final version. It's fine as it is, but it's not ''perfect''.
Can they go back to a more linear structure? Of course they can. Because in my book, an amazing linear game will always be better than an amazing open-world game.
I don't know whether that's the City in the Sky, or Skyloft, or the reserve where all the cuccos that fly onscreen to murder you sleep, but it's something. Something like an airship.
I wonder if it's feasibly to sum up the major changes to preexisting systems:
-The bow now aims in third person.
-The roll attack is gone.
-Fire arrows no longer consume magic.
-Hearts are gone.
-Cutting grass now just cuts the grass.
Also, there's no Navi-type sidekick in this game. That's a pretty big convention break if you ask me.
alright, I think I wanna ask this. How can Nintendo expand the series further from this game on? I'm not able to picture a new game after this one since this one seems to be the ultimate Zelda game.
Personally, I don't think every future Zelda game will take such a drastic leap and reinvention of the Zelda formula as this one. Nintendo will probably think they can't afford this long development period for every Zelda game, specially when the development period gets longer than a console cycle.
I'm sure Nintendo won't keep making Zelda games this big. People are definitely going to miss the linear OoT structure after a while. But even if they don't do an all-out open-world Zelda game each time, I'm sure there will be a few things future Zelda games will take from Breath of the Wild. I certainly wouldn't mind things like non-linearity, starting with no equipment, and the lack of a hand-holding side-kick.
But not every important has to be "moving forward," whatever one's definition of that may be. As long as it's good and it's different, it will capture my interest.
Why the hell didn't the treehouse show the fire rod in the first place?!!?!? That thing looks badass!
Ok, now I really want to get this for the NX big time!
@Socar The game's far from perfect though (every game is); and there's still a lot of improvement that I don't think will be fixed before the final version. It's fine as it is, but it's not ''perfect''.
Can they go back to a more linear structure? Of course they can. Because in my book, an amazing linear game will always be better than an amazing open-world game.
How can a linear game be better than an open game? By that logic, you're claiming that Metroid is better off being linear than being open ended.
@Socar, why did you even quote my ridiculously long post? Lol.
But in reply to linearity, open-ended games have the disadvantage of being more intimidating, mostly for casual players, but not exclusively casual players. It's easy to feel lost, sometimes you don't really know what to do first, and sometimes you don't want to get sucked into playing for too long. Sometimes, it's nice to just play a regular game where the obstacle is placed right in front of you, and you have to try to overcome it without too much complication. This also gives the developers a better control over what kind of reaction or emotion you'll experience during the linear path.
@Socar, why did you even quote my ridiculously long post? Lol.
But in reply to linearity, open-ended games have the disadvantage of being more intimidating, mostly for casual players, but not exclusively casual players. It's easy to feel lost, sometimes you don't really know what to do first, and sometimes you don't want to get sucked into playing for too long. Sometimes, it's nice to just play a regular game where the obstacle is placed right in front of you, and you have to try to overcome it without too much complication. This also gives the developers a better control over what kind of reaction or emotion you'll experience during the linear path.
Then explain Metroid being open ended and people wanting more of that instead of linearity then or how about explaining the reason for the need to change the whole structure of the Zelda game when people are fine with it being linear.
I'm excited for the game but its still puzzling as to why this change is required when linearity is still fine regardless?
@Socar, why did you even quote my ridiculously long post? Lol.
But in reply to linearity, open-ended games have the disadvantage of being more intimidating, mostly for casual players, but not exclusively casual players. It's easy to feel lost, sometimes you don't really know what to do first, and sometimes you don't want to get sucked into playing for too long. Sometimes, it's nice to just play a regular game where the obstacle is placed right in front of you, and you have to try to overcome it without too much complication. This also gives the developers a better control over what kind of reaction or emotion you'll experience during the linear path.
Then explain Metroid being open ended and people wanting more of that instead of linearity then or how about explaining the reason for the need to change the whole structure of the Zelda game when people are fine with it being linear.
I'm excited for the game but its still puzzling as to why this change is required when linearity is still fine regardless?
Oh, well yeah, when you talking about what the vocal majority demands, then yes, people are always asking for open world. But aside from public opinion, linear games definitely have their merit.
Wow, those are the lamest secret messages I've seen. I guess the puzzle hints could be neat, but the canon-breaking stuff, memes, and references I could do without. Then I could do with it burning like so many fields.
Thanks for making me chuckle.
I'm not against open-world games, but I prefer there to be at least some linearity. Branching linearity is fine, but sometimes I feel that the world is too open. While I enjoy Elder Scrolls, I sometimes feel like there's too much to do. This isn't a problem if I just want to waste a few minutes doing stupid things, but I also want play sessions where I feel like I've accomplished something in the hour or so that I've been playing. With open world games, I don't always feel that way.
Currently playing: Pokemon Scarlet - The Indigo Disk, Super Mario 3D World + Bowser's Fury (Switch)
I won't be buying this game, unless it is for sale for $20 or less. No gamepad support. Aonuma must be smoking something very good if he feels that the gamepad, in the case of Zelda, doesn't add anything to the gameplay.
@Socar The game's far from perfect though (every game is); and there's still a lot of improvement that I don't think will be fixed before the final version. It's fine as it is, but it's not ''perfect''.
Can they go back to a more linear structure? Of course they can. Because in my book, an amazing linear game will always be better than an amazing open-world game.
How can a linear game be better than an open game? By that logic, you're claiming that Metroid is better off being linear than being open ended.
Pacing. Linearity allows for a sense of progression.
@Socar The game's far from perfect though (every game is); and there's still a lot of improvement that I don't think will be fixed before the final version. It's fine as it is, but it's not ''perfect''.
Can they go back to a more linear structure? Of course they can. Because in my book, an amazing linear game will always be better than an amazing open-world game.
Yep. That's how they write books, so it's no surprise that linear games feel more complete than open world ones. That said, if Skyward Sword is the product of this incarnation of EAD 3's narrative bonafides, I'm glad they're making an open world game over a story-driven one. It'd probably just be worse.
@Socar The game's far from perfect though (every game is); and there's still a lot of improvement that I don't think will be fixed before the final version. It's fine as it is, but it's not ''perfect''.
Can they go back to a more linear structure? Of course they can. Because in my book, an amazing linear game will always be better than an amazing open-world game.
How can a linear game be better than an open game? By that logic, you're claiming that Metroid is better off being linear than being open ended.
Pacing. Linearity allows for a sense of progression.
True. Anything that's too open can definitely restrict a story. But I'm curious if Aonuma can still create a story-driven game amongst an open world. After all, Zelda's story became much more cohesive when he joined the group — I can't imagine him straying from that ideal too far.
I've been hearing reports of the lack of GamePad functionality in this game (not even a map on the screen or inventory management or something) and I don't like it.
Aaaand then I just remembered that I visited this article: https://www.nintendolife.com/news/2016/06/video_see_even_more_... and looked in the comments much ti my chagrin. @rjejr don't cancel that vacation now...
Meh, don't mind the lack of GamePad stuff. It might work for some stuff, and off TV play would be cool enough, but I prefer games that aren't built around console tech rather than what works for that game...
Forums
Topic: The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild
Posts 6,781 to 6,800 of 15,166
Please login or sign up to reply to this topic