Breath of the Wild Combat in Zelda U

[Zorth]

it wasn't a "hit me here" system. It was a "swing in a specific direction or you won't hit me" one.

Not a big difference mate. The enemies still had obvious weak points and once I figured out the tactic for one enemy, I didn't have to use my brain to defeat any more of that species. The tactic itself was pretty simple, just figure the right angle for slashing the enemy and it's dead (which wasn't hard at all because as I said earlier it was pretty obvious).

So, what they should do for Zelda U is actually give the enemy some brains instead of just a weak defense against illogical slashes with the sword. Make them move around more, conceal their weaknesses a little better and maybe even add some environmental combat where the environment is our weapon and not just slashing at the enemy at the right time/angle.

Before, it was just basically run up and hit the enemy with no fear of not landing a blow. There was actual strategy required with most of SS's enemies, even if only a small amount. Besides, their entire bodies are their "weak point". A true weak point is something like a giant eye on a giant boss. Hitting an enemy in a general direction is nothing like that at all.

Agreed!
Just hope Nintendo increases that amount with like 500%.

 

[Kirino]

I highly doubt Nintendo will drop WM+ so soon. They didn't work so hard on it just to use it for one game, not to mention they said they would use it again in Zelda. If Nintendo were to use both motion controls and the gamepad, then I don't really see how that would work, especially if ZeldaU is going to have a big focus on motion controls in combat like in SS. I would explain how I want combat to be handled, but JJ pretty much said it all.

Not a big difference mate. The enemies still had obvious weak points and once I figured out the tactic for one enemy, I didn't have to use my brain to defeat any more of that species. The tactic itself was pretty simple, just figure the right angle for slashing the enemy and it's dead (which wasn't hard at all because as I said earlier it was pretty obvious).

So, what they should do for Zelda U is actually give the enemy some brains instead of just a weak defense against illogical slashes with the sword. Make them move around more, conceal their weaknesses a little better and maybe even add some environmental combat where the environment is our weapon and not just slashing at the enemy at the right time/angle.

In SS you actually had to figure the enemy out. In previous games, you could hack and slash your way through the enemies. If SS's combat wasn't hard enough for you, then cool, but it was still definitely harder than previous 3D Zeldas. Enemies like Lizafos had multiple ways of messing you up, and different attacks. They were, for the most part, unpredictable. Just one example. Not all enemies in SS are Bokoblins, which seems to be what everyone has in mind when discussing combat in SS.

 

[JuicieJ]

No, no, no, no, no. With specialized control schemes comes totally different gameplay, with advantages and disadvantages coming alongside each. As we've gone over in the MCS thread, there are things the WM+ can do that Gamepad can't, and vice versa. By introducing multiple schemes--and in order to make the maximum use of all the schemes--you have to water down at LEAST one of the schemes, which as far as I know isn't "maximum use". Approximation of one control scheme =/= making the most of any one scheme. It's nothing but approximation.

This carries over into combat, as the combat style would have to be one of two types: either type one where it's obviously geared towards one scheme (SS' combat is obviously based around the WM+) or type two where any scheme can excel (which really is any Zelda prior to SS, except WoG maybe). Do you really want watered down gameplay just so that motion control can be introduced? I don't want my gamepad to approximate those damn fiddly controls. :I

Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes.

Those "fiddly controls" worked just fine. There's also no reason the gameplay would be watered-down via the other control schemes. An analog stick can emulate the Wii MotionPlus just fine, as well as the other way around. Some people would probably consider it not as fun as the Wii MotionPlus, but there would be just as many others that would find it more fun than the Wii MotionPlus. Different people prefer different things.

It's also not necessarily about making the most out of a specific controller. It's about making the most out of the game, and having the game based around the Wii MotionPlus would not hinder that in any way. It wouldn't limit the other controllers in any significant way, either. Sure, the GamePad wouldn't get everything for it used, but all of its core functions and attractions would see the light of day. Any "downsides" would be ridiculously insignificant compared to the potential of the core game design.

Actually, it really wouldn't even be multiple control schemes. Just emulated versions of a control scheme. Multiple schemes implies significantly different controls, which isn't quite what I'm suggesting would be. I again repeat, only revised, the use of the three controllers available for the Wii U is the way to go.

Agreed!
Just hope Nintendo increases that amount with like 500%.

The "small amount" is referring to the grunt enemies, like Chuchus and Bokoblins. Enemies like the Lizalfos and Ghirahim... yeah, good luck getting out of those fights without paying attention to what you're doing.

 

[Ventus]

If SS's combat wasn't hard enough for you, then cool, but it was still definitely harder than previous 3D Zeldas.

I totally disagree. One word: shield bash. (the one word thing is a Phil joke ;p)

Different people prefer different things.

Precisely right. I prefer to play my Zelda like classic Zelda, not like this modern casual crap Nintendo calls themselves labeling as "Zelda". When I can see your weakpoint as well as the obvious way to get to it (or weakpoints/ways as SS' enemies actually DO shift their weapons around to adjust...somewhat), the game no longer becomes combat, it becomes a thinking game. Especially when there are three second pauses; those three seconds can feel like minutes if you are actually connected to the game world.

It's also not necessarily about making the most out of a specific controller. It's about making the most out of the game, and having the game based around the Wii MotionPlus would not hinder that in any way.
[...]
Actually, it really wouldn't even be multiple control schemes. Just emulated versions of a control scheme. Multiple schemes implies significantly different controls, which isn't quite what I'm suggesting would be. I again repeat, only revised, the use of the three controllers available for the Wii U is the way to go.

Well, I guess we disagree about it making the most of a specific controller so I'll leave that at that.

But, making the most out of the game itself would require having three separate games; otherwise you're going to be playing a Wii MotionPlus (or buttons if they base it around the traditional sticks method) with a traditional control which, BELIEVE ME, isn't nearly as accurate or fun as you might expect. I've been messing around with mods and different control styles since I've had a PC (which was quite early into my years), and when a game is specifically made for one kind of style, any emulation of said style just doesn't cut it. Need proof? Go look at games designed for consoles (e.g Resident Evil titles) and compare them to Keyboard/Mouse setup on PC. Which plays better? Console iteration. Same logic applies to games designed for WM+ and control stick-to-swordplay emulation.

If all the enemies are based around the sword (SS enemies in a nutshell), WM+ will outperform the sticks method you proposed in another thread. There's no debating this; WM+ has greater and freer range than sticks do. What then do you call the sticks gameplay? Watered down. On the flipside, if the enemies are made more hack and slash based a la Ocarina of Time, then using the WM+ would be wasted potential because there would be no precision required. What do you call the WM+? Watered down.

 

[Zorth]

In SS you actually had to figure the enemy out. In previous games, you could hack and slash your way through the enemies.

Yeah, you sure can just hack and slash your way through an Iron Knuckle, Dark Nut or Beamos..

It's really the same thing, to defeat the enemies I listed above you have to wait for the right moment.. that's the tactic.
While in SS you have to just slash at the right angle.

but it was still definitely harder than previous 3D Zeldas

It wasn't harder, just more annoying for the most part. Most enemies' weaknesses I could spot immediately but it took me 2 seconds longer to kill them compared to other titles because I had to wave my hand in a certain way.

 

[JuicieJ]

I totally disagree. One word: shield bash. (the one word thing is a Phil joke ;p)

The Shield Bash is there for players struggling to get the hang of the combat, as the shield itself has always been. Once you figure out the enemies' nuances, you probably won't need to use the Shield Bash (or the shield) at all. You know... like in almost every Zelda since Link's Awakening (Twilight Princess doesn't count due to its autoblock, even though you can technically not use one by burning up a Wooden Shield and not buying the Hylian Shield).

Precisely right. I prefer to play my Zelda like classic Zelda, not like this modern casual crap Nintendo calls themselves labeling as "Zelda". When I can see your weakpoint as well as the obvious way to get to it (or weakpoints/ways as SS' enemies actually DO shift their weapons around to adjust...somewhat), the game no longer becomes combat, it becomes a thinking game. Especially when there are three second pauses; those three seconds can feel like minutes if you are actually connected to the game world.

You do realize that combat IS a thinking game, right? It's not something that you just go into and not give a crap about. It takes patience and timing, and Skyward Sword emulated that perfectly.

Zelda has also stopped being casual with the release of Spirit Tracks and Skyward Sword. (Thank God.)

If all the enemies are based around the sword (SS enemies in a nutshell)

They're not based around the sword. Strategy just became more important, i.e. a layer of depth was added in.

WM+ will outperform the sticks method you proposed in another thread. There's no debating this; WM+ has greater and freer range than sticks do. What then do you call the sticks gameplay? Watered down.

SS's Wii MotionPlus was mapped to 8 cardinal directions and a stab. The GamePad and Pro Controller's analog sticks can move in 8 cardinal directions, as well as pushed down. The only way you can argue this would be watered-down is by saying that it wouldn't be as fun to not swing the Wii Remote. Thing is... some people don't WANT to swing the Wii Remote. Surely you wouldn't argue that these people would prefer to use the WMP over one of the other two options?

On the flipside, if the enemies are made more hack and slash based a la Ocarina of Time, then using the WM+ would be wasted potential because there would be no precision required. What do you call the WM+? Watered down.

AHA! Ironically, this is actually an argument against your claims that SS's combat was a trainwreck. Yes, the motion controls would have been pointless without the added strategy. That's proof that the gameplay was completely fluent with the game's controls, just like in every previous Zelda title, even the beloved Ocarina of Time.

Yeah, you sure can just hack and slash your way through an Iron Knuckle, Dark Nut or Beamos..

It's really the same thing, to defeat the enemies I listed above you have to wait for the right moment.. that's the tactic.
While in SS you have to just slash at the right angle.

The difference is very few of enemies from previous games required any kind of strategy at all. Nearly EVERY enemy in Skyward Sword required some sort of thought to be defeated.

You also make SS's style seem inferior to having to wait for the right moment. I don't see how either is objectively better than the other. They both require an equal amount of reaction skills.

It wasn't harder, just more annoying for the most part. Most enemies' weaknesses I could spot immediately but it took me 2 seconds longer to kill them compared to other titles because I had to wave my hand in a certain way.

That's exactly why SS's combat was more advanced. You didn't have to worry about having your attacks blocked or enemies dodging you in the past (at least the basic ones, anyway). Each and every enemy in SS had a layer of depth added to them, both basic and advanced. This includes the bosses, as well. You may prefer the previous style over SS's, and that's fine, but you're acting like it's not more advanced. That's just not an accurate mindset at all.

 

[Kirino]

Yeah, you sure can just hack and slash your way through an Iron Knuckle, Dark Nut or Beamos..

It's really the same thing, to defeat the enemies I listed above you have to wait for the right moment.. that's the tactic.
While in SS you have to just slash at the right angle.

True, but in SS this is applied to all enemies instead of just hard enemies that were rarely seen. In SS, you didn't just make one slash in the right direction and kill them. Only Bokoblins are that simple. Look at Lizafos, Technokoblins, Beamos, Shield Moblins, ect. These enemies have multiple ways of attacking and defending themselves. They always alternate between different methods of attack and defense, changing their strategy to fit the situation. This is called adapting, and it's what make these enemies unpredicatable, and much harder to defeat then most enemies in previous Zelda games. Especially combinations of enemies. What about a Techno Bokoblin and a Beamos together? Hacking and slashing will kill you instantly. You have both on your mind. There's a Beamos shooting lasers at you, and a Techno Bokoblin that you need to defeat. What do you do? It's a very difficult position to be put in, and you have to formulate a strategy. Just focusing on one will kill you. You have to make a good strategy for dispatching both of them in an efficient manner; this is not easy. Again, one of many examples.

It wasn't harder, just more annoying for the most part. Most enemies' weaknesses I could spot immediately but it took me 2 seconds longer to kill them compared to other titles because I had to wave my hand in a certain way.

Again, not all there is to it.

 

[Zorth]

You also make SS's style seem inferior to having to wait for the right moment. I don't see how either is objectively better than the other. They both require an equal amount of reaction skills. That's exactly why SS's combat was more advanced. You didn't have to worry about having your attacks blocked or enemies dodging you in the past (at least the basic ones, anyway). Each and every enemy in SS had a layer of depth added to them, both basic and advanced. This includes the bosses, as well. You may prefer the previous style over SS's, and that's fine, but you're acting like it's not more advanced. That's just not an accurate mindset at all.

I'm not, sorry if it seemed that way. It's just that I personally don't think that SS's combat was as advanced as some make it out to be, it is the most advanced out of all the 3D Zelda games but nothing huge, step in the right direction though.

 

[JuicieJ]

I'm not, sorry if it seemed that way. It's just that I personally don't think that SS's combat was as advanced as some make it out to be, it is the most advanced out of all the 3D Zelda games but nothing huge, step in the right direction though.

Some people do overplay it a bit, but I legitimately think it was a massive step in the right direction. Enemies requiring us to use directional swinging was something I'd been waiting for ever since I first played Ocarina of Time. I feel it was a waste of potential to not take full advantage of the ability to swing horizontally and vertically, as well as stab. SS finally delivered on that, and in more ways than just those three options. Diagonal swings were available, unlike in previous 3D titles, so it wasn't just one layer of depth added, but two. That's why I praise it like I do.

 

[JuicieJ]

They need to be actively responding to attacks according to their own limitations and not have coding that simply consists of "For the first three strikes automatically block the players attack. The fourth though, let that one through, make 'em think they caught you off guard".

What? Dude, SS's enemies totally did the first thing you mentioned. I don't know where you got the notion that they were as simply-constructed as what you claimed, but that's not true at all.

I [want] actual intelligence from the enemies

Congratulations, you got it in the form of a game called Skyward Sword.

Not coding that I can almost read floating above my adversary's head.

You mean like the enemies in games prior to Skyward Sword?

 

[JuicieJ]

Now I must request that if you are only going to reply further trying to defend Skyward Sword that you don't. This is a thread about the upcoming Zelda game and what we want from the combat. I have demonstrated what I want and do not wish to further derail this thread by soley discussing past games. Thank you.

It's less about defending SS and more about correcting you on an inaccurate assessment.

Unfortunately not. They responded to my attacks, but not because they were figuring out where best to put their weapons. Simply because they were programmed to automatically block at specific times or move their weapon to follow mine. That's not intelligence, that's just direct coding. What I want is an enemy who is analysing the situation and picking the best times to block and defend. SS however followed a similar attack and defend phase that previous titles have. Their attacks were done at random, not when they thought was best to attack. There were counter-attacks for some enemies. But again, they were directly coded and not the result of the enemy figuring out that immediately after they blocked your attack you were vulnerable.

No, that's not true at all. They guard according to the position of your sword. Go try it out. Hold your sword to the right. They'll guard to the right. Hold it to the left. They'll guard to the left. Hold it up. They'll guard up top. They anticipate your attacks and react accordingly. It's not a mundane system of chance. It's emulation of real-life combat.

Read above. SS enemies were no more intelligent than previous games enemies. They merely a longer list of IF statements backing them up. I used to think like you, thaat they were actual being clever. The further I've looked into it though the more I've realised the opposite. Of course, there's nothing specifically bad with this kind of coding as it's worked for the entire series duration so far. I just want a change, that's all.

To repeat you, read above.

 

[Ventus]

@TBR

You say what amounts to you wanting enemies that think and act on their own accord. I myself have thought that games prior to SS have done this, but that's just me. Do you have any specific examples of this type of AI in regards to adventure/action genre that The Legend of Zelda series subscribes to? Videos would help as well.

At best, I would liken this to fighting game AI. Take a look at the Dead or Alive franchise. The AI, even on the (technically) easiest setting, is absolutely brutal. They will decimate new players in seconds, and they don't just button mash; they take whatever course of action they deem to be best. I would call this "anticipatory thinking and action", almost like the enemy knows what you're going to do seconds in advance. It could (and most likely would) work well with Zelda U. What do you think?

 

[JuicieJ]

I would call this "anticipatory thinking and action", almost like the enemy knows what you're going to do seconds in advance. It could (and most likely would) work well with Zelda U. What do you think?

I know you're asking Blue, but I want to respond, as well.

I think that would be proper for the highest difficulty level of a Zelda game. Being a series trying to appeal to both casual and hardcore gamers alike, the base AI for enemies should be like that of Skyward Sword. Max difficulty level, though? Go crazy.

 

[JuicieJ]

Now it should be noted that I view SS Stalfos as a significant improvement. however they are still, for the most part, acting on random triggers. Again, Link has his shield up at times yet the Stalfos decides to initiate attack, leaving himself open. The battle is again a case of wait for an opening to emerge as the Stalfos randomly switches it's blades positions with no real attempt at any specific blocking action. As said earlier, there is a counter-attack in there. But this is pre-programmed and not the enemy acting of it's own accord.

They definitely start out guarding in a randomly generated way, but they still react to the position of your sword. They actually do this nearly instantaneously when they're a couple hits from death in order to up the challenge of delivering that final blow.

 

[DarkestLink]

True, but in SS this is applied to all enemies instead of just hard enemies that were rarely seen. In SS, you didn't just make one slash in the right direction and kill them. Only Bokoblins are that simple. Look at Lizafos, Technokoblins, Beamos, Shield Moblins, ect. These enemies have multiple ways of attacking and defending themselves. They always alternate between different methods of attack and defense, changing their strategy to fit the situation. This is called adapting, and it's what make these enemies unpredicatable,

Each of these is predictable.

Lizalfos: Horizontal slash. It will duck and be in its "taunting phase" as I call it. Use a vertical spin attack. Use a finishing blow. Guaranteed kill.

Note: Note, if your controls are acting weird and you hit it in its taunting phase, it's guaranteed to attack. Every single time. Use this to your advantage and shield bash it, spin attack, and use an ending blow.

Technokoblin: Three ways to kill it.

1) Wait for it to attack...don't worry, it will give you a generous amount of time to raise your defense and prepare.

2) Move back. Despite being well in range, it will not attack you. It will raise its arm in hopes to intimidate you as if it was actually going to strike, but really, it's just lowered its defense. Use a skyward strike. It will collapse on the ground. Use an ending blow.

3) Same as above, but use a spin attack when its arm is raised.

Really, all you have to do is hit it once and the battle is won.

Beamos: It works the exact same way the previous beamos fought. It spots you and shoots a laser. Dodge it or shield bash it. Now use two horizontal slices and a stab. Don't worry, after the first hit on it, the beamos won't hurt you.

Shield Moblin: Use a horizontal and vertical slash in any order. Slash wildly and it will die. If you haven't gotten your first frame, then simply add a shield bash in the middle of the wild slashing. Don't worry you will have plenty of warning before it hits you.

Shield Moblin (metal): Charge and run over the top of its shield. Slash at its back. Lather, rinse, repeat.

What about a Techno Bokoblin and a Beamos together? Hacking and slashing will kill you instantly. You have both on your mind. There's a Beamos shooting lasers at you, and a Techno Bokoblin that you need to defeat. What do you do? It's a very difficult position to be put in, and you have to formulate a strategy. Just focusing on one will kill you. You have to make a good strategy for dispatching both of them in an efficient manner; this is not easy. Again, one of many examples.

Not really. Because I know two things.

1) That Techno Bokoblin is too much of a coward to hit me.

2) I can kill it easily in the time the beamos is stunned by my shield bash.