Are you concerned or cautiously optimistic for Zelda Switch?

[DarkestLink]

Why are we even assuming anything here. That is my question. The Zelda team hasn't even finished the DLC for the first title to be frank.

We have no idea what they could do next. And I mean this with sincerity. For all we know, the next title on the Switch could be a top down 2D Zelda game(which would be rad).

As for the new 3D Zelda formula.
I have high hopes.
Do we all forget that Ocarina of Time was an extremely basic concept at the time, with not the most fully fledged features in the world for the time? OoT was revolutionary for its time, just like BotW on. But like BotW, there was so much to improve upon. Combat was simplistic, most of the story was a retelling of ALttP, Epona's features were undercooked, and the overworld in OoT was extremely empty.

So, like OoT, BotW's sequels will take massive steps in improving, and using this formula to make different types of games. From the oddball MM, to the fresh WW, to the expanded TP.

OoT was far from revolutionary. Just as TP was OoT 2.0, OoT was aLttP 2.0. It was in 3D and that's it. The only thing it really changed was adding a puzzle focus to the dungeons.

And if Aonuma is to be believed, they will be making another game just like BOTW next. So we do have a general idea of what they will do next.

 

[Lozjam]

OoT was far from revolutionary. Just as TP was OoT 2.0, OoT was aLttP 2.0. It was in 3D and that's it. The only thing it really changed was adding a puzzle focus to the dungeons.

And if Aonuma is to be believed, they will be making another game just like BOTW next. So we do have a general idea of what they will do next.

?????
Every 3D action game ever took mechanics from Ocarina of Time and has been using it ever since.

Z-Targeting was completely new, and it completely changed the way that people experienced 3D games.
To say OoT isn't revolutionary is just like saying Mario 64 wasn't revolutionary. These two games completely changed the industry, and became the standard for 3D games.

 

[DarkestLink]

SM64 was radically different than Mario games at that point. OoT wasn't different at all from other Zeldas, aside from being 3D. It simply added onto aLttP and was one of the first games to pioneer 3D gameplay...likewise TP simply added onto OoT and was one of the first games to pioneer motion controls, but I wouldn't call that revolutionary either.

 

[the8thark]

Sounds like it entirely invalidates your statement. Open world games are, by their nature, huge and sprawling. If it's not huge and sprawling it's not an open world. So when Nintendo say the next game will be open world like BotW, that means the next game will be huge and sprawling. It might have some sort of hook to it like older Zelda games, but saying it won't be huge and sprawling sounds pretty invalid to me.

It does not invalidate what I said at all. I''ll have to explain as some people are not fully understanding what I meant.
Like MM does not mean smaller and not open. Like MM means has a unique gimmick which the game is based on. The game can be open and still have a unique hew feature that the game is based on. My point is, if Nintendo do make a 2nd Switch Zelda game, they have more scope to take more risks witht he core idea of the game. Simply because the console already has a Zelda game.

I did not say the next game would not be open world. You misunderstood what I said. "huge sprawling game" is not the same as open world. It's more about how you treat the open world and how direct the tasks you have to accomplish in said open world are. Also the size of the map doesn't have anything to do with open-ness either. Small map games can be open too if they are designed that way. I am not saying the next Switch Zelda game (if there is one) will be on a small map, I am just making a point here.

I hope this clears everything up for you. And thank you.

 

[DarkestLink]

But MM is not open...all four areas are closed off from the start.

 

[AncientPoe]

I don't think I can attest to whether or not I'm "optimistic" or not, it's more that I have some things in my head that I really hope they do or don't do.

I want them to take a harder focus on progression, to improve on the story a bit, to preserve the lethality... but what I really want most is long dungeons again. I know that (for some reason) dungeons in Zelda are a very divisive subject, but I will state that the single biggest disappointment for me in BotW was the absolute flaccidity of its dungeons. When I first saw how deadly the monsters and environments were in this game I was practically salivating at the idea of being able to apply my full intellect to the dungeons. I was hoping for a truly arduous test of strength that would stretch my martial skill and my ability to plan and prepare with the right supplies and strategies.

Then I beat Vah Medo in under 15 minutes. That's pathetic.

What I'd like them to do most is to stop treating open world, open path games with this mindset of "well we don't know how strong they'll be when they get here" and do one of two things: find a way to scale the encounters, or make a roughly implied dungeon order and then just let the player break it if they want. From my standpoint it's pretty easy, you either make the dungeon really difficult to get to, requiring a lot of mastery of a few of the game's mechanics, or you use enemy placement. I'm pretty sure a player with 8 hearts is gonna get the picture of what the dungeon will be like if a Blue Lynel is guarding the entrance.

Also brink back Fokkas.