Breath of the Wild "Rethink the Conventions of Zelda"

[Networker1]

Are Iron Boots required for Shadow Temple? I honestly don't recall.

There are a series of wind tunnels that require the iron boots to pass. Unless there is another method I don't know about.

 

[The Wanderer]

I'm pretty sure I used the hookshot too, though I may be wrong, and I recall using bombs...lots and lots of bombs. Actually...is there anything left to use? I mean we just lost a lot of the items from the time jump.

...

Off the top of my head:

Dodongo's Cavern: Slingshot

Jabu Jabu's Belly: Slingshot

Forest Temple: Hookshot

Fire Temple Hookshot(?), Bow, Bombs

Water Temple Hookshot, Bow, Bombs, Iron Boots

Shadow Temple: Eye of Truth, Longshot, Dins Fire, Bow, Bombs, Iron Boots

Spirit Temple: Eye of Truth, Longshot, Bow, Slingshot, Bombs, Megaton Hammer, Hover Boots, Boomerang

Again, I'm referring to carefully-laid-out puzzles, not jumping across revealed platforms or blowing up walls with cracks. Those are ways to use items, but those are not always clever uses. Secondly, I would discount things like the Hookshot in the Forest Temple and the Lens of Truth in the Shadow Temple because you were at the very least highly encouraged to go out and get them. (And as Ventus said, they weren't really found in dungeons.) As such, they count more as their respective dungeons' items than items stumbled upon elsewhere. With these filters in mind, you have...only a few selections left. And the dungeons were still interesting.

Let's keep in mind, this is Zelda. Also between LoZ and OoT...what had better puzzles? OoT.

I'll agree with you there, but I'm not sure what you mean by "this is Zelda." I believe dungeons should be interesting because of the dungeons, not because of the items involved. Items can supplement, but things tend to get gimmicky when you throw them all together. I loved some of the ingenious puzzles in Link's Awakening ("enter the space where the eyes have walls" in the Face Shrine was a brilliant riddle), but stopping and switching items all the time was a pain. Not that they have to be gimmicky, but they run a big risk of it. Besides, if dungeons rely on their individual themes and inherent items more than all the other stuff Link collects before then, they'd probably be made more interesting. I forget the exact thread and user, but one member brought up a chess-themed dungeon. Imagine the ramifications on that one.

Because Nintendo doesn't care about story. They've said this over and over. If Miyamoto had his way, he'd do away with it...in fact, I have a hunch that they're trying to use non-linearity as an excuse for that.

Acknowledging that gameplay comes before story is not the same as stuffing story into a corner and neglecting it. Zelda stories are highly flawed, but still generally interesting on their own, and each subsequent Zelda game is more evidence of that as they become more cinematic and complex. Just as Nintendo has the opportunity to throw Zelda Wii U's story in the trash, they also have the opportunity to make it shine. History and developer quotes suggest they're always looking to improve their games, so I'm going with the latter until I see concrete evidence for the former.

Why wouldn't they?

Why WOULD they?

Because now Miyamoto finally has his excuse to chuck the story out the window.

Which would again imply that he doesn't care about his games, but considering he's essentially a child in a man's body (in a good way), I don't think he's going to create a game he wouldn't personally enjoy.

 

[DarkestLink]

Boxes hold down blue switches as well.

Wait, I thought we were talking about the other switches? The ones that get shot.

Eye of Truth isn't actually required; it's just recommended.

I'll check again on Boss Mode, but I'm pretty sure you NEED it or your arrows won't hurt Bongo Bongo's eye. Also, you would have needed to play the dungeon before hand, memorize it, and be pretty darn lucky considering some of the invisible stuff moves.

Dins is an external item not found in a dungeon.

I know. I don't think it matters.

Are Iron Boots required for Shadow Temple? I honestly don't recall.

Room with the fans.

Depends on how you gauge "better puzzle". Some people get stuck with the simplest of block-pushing puzzles. Pushing a block isn't at all complex, but complexity =/= good on its own. What merit does complexity hold if I figured it out on first try? What merit does simplicity have if I got stuck on it for two days straight? Different people like different things.

Fair point, but before I argue further, do you consider the old games to have better puzzles?

Nintendo obviously doesn't care about story -- the Zelda timeline is messed up as it is -- but they wouldn't release a game with a completely nonsensical, standalone story. Linearity or not does not judge how good a story is; you may not prefer X to Y but that doesn't necessarily mean X is better than Y.

I dunno about you, but I've been noticing a pattern that the more linear games have better stories than the non-linear games.

They haven't done a single Zelda game since OoT like that, and I doubt it has to do with whether or not the games had (non)linear dungeon structure.

Nintendo theoretically could tell a story out of order, but I doubt they care enough to make that work. Without structure, there is no story.

What makes you think Miyamoto doesn't care about story and wants to get rid of it completely?

His open annoyance, disdain, and belittlement of it. It's really not subtle.

That being said, non-linearity of dungeons and decent storyline are not mutually exclusive. All they would have to do is what they did with the OoT dungeons, but slightly more. The dungeon progression pattern usually has sequences where a few dungeons in a row have an objective of collecting pieces of a set (3 spiritual stones, 5 sages in OoT; 2 pearls, 2 sages in WW; 3 twili pieces of something, 3 mirror shards in TP; etc etc). They could make dungeons in those "sets" be completable in any order, maybe adding optional content that can only be unlocked by items from other dungeons in the "sets". Non-linear dungeon progression, story still allowed to move forward.

Well in some games (like OoT), this could work. But in games like TP where the story was showing up after each and every dungeon and building off itself...no, that would never work. There's also the problem (for you) that this isn't non-linearity. You're basically suggesting they bring in linear elements. And by all means, I'd prefer this over complete non-linearity...but...it's still linearity. Less linearity, but linearity all the same.

Again, I'm referring to carefully-laid-out puzzles, not jumping across revealed platforms or blowing up walls with cracks. Those are ways to use items, but those are not always clever uses.

It's Zelda. The puzzles are always easy.

Secondly, I would discount things like the Hookshot in the Forest Temple and the Lens of Truth in the Shadow Temple because you were at the very least highly encouraged to go out and get them.

Well good luck getting into the forest temple then.

(And as Ventus said, they weren't really found in dungeons.)

Irrelevant.

I'll agree with you there, but I'm not sure what you mean by "this is Zelda."

Well you're talking about the games like there were these super hard puzzles to figure out or something...but there wasn't. The only "hard" part was when you weren't paying attention and missed a room or something. But the puzzles have always been easy. It's a casual series and many of us figured out the puzzles in OoT when we were around 6.

I loved some of the ingenious puzzles in Link's Awakening ("enter the space where the eyes have walls" in the Face Shrine was a brilliant riddle),

Sorry I don't recall. None of the puzzles in LA were memorable to me.

Besides, if dungeons rely on their individual themes and inherent items more than all the other stuff Link collects before then, they'd probably be made more interesting.

I don't see how. Some of the problems some games have faced was rather than thinking "What item works best here?" my thought process was "Well, I just picked up this new item...I bet its somehow related to this thing one way or another."

Acknowledging that gameplay comes before story is not the same as stuffing story into a corner and neglecting it. Zelda stories are highly flawed, but still generally interesting on their own, and each subsequent Zelda game is more evidence of that as they become more cinematic and complex.

What story was complex?

Just as Nintendo has the opportunity to throw Zelda Wii U's story in the trash, they also have the opportunity to make it shine. History and developer quotes suggest they're always looking to improve their games, so I'm going with the latter until I see concrete evidence for the former.

They have said time and time again, they don't care....in fact, I think they even said that we as fans shouldn't care for the timeline (or something along those lines).

Why WOULD they?

Because to Miyamoto, story is nothing but an obstacle that gets in the way of gameplay.

Which would again imply that he doesn't care about his games, but considering he's essentially a child in a man's body (in a good way), I don't think he's going to create a game he wouldn't personally enjoy.

He cares about the game...but not the story.

They need to stop pushing you to complete specific game tasks and just let you take in the world and complete tasks as you discover them or as you're inclined to.

Ehhh that's actually what really annoyed me in Wind Waker. They tried to make you explore way too much. Like when I was supposed to get the bracelets and iron boots. I had no idea what was the main quest and what was the sidequests. I was bored out of my mind doing so many sidequests, talking to so many fish, and I just wanted to get back to the main game.

 

[ZeldafreakCJM]

(btw Responding to Ventus & JJ didn't wan't to quote either as I'm on my Wii U. )

Err...I guess to me the plot is one of the most important parts of Zelda, It's why I loved Skyward Sword so much. The storytelling was phenomenal, and IMO the game has one of the best stories of the series, I'd hate to see that jumbled up or thrown out for non-linearity. Something that doesn't seem to add anything just potentially take things away.

 

[JuicieJ]

(btw Responding to Ventus & JJ didn't wan't to quote either as I'm on my Wii U. )

Err...I guess to me the plot is one of the most important parts of Zelda, It's why I loved Skyward Sword so much. The storytelling was phenomenal, and IMO the game has one of the best stories of the series, I'd hate to see that jumbled up or thrown out for non-linearity. Something that doesn't seem to add anything just potentially take things away.

Thing is, non-linearity can be applied to more than just the gameplay. The story can adopt it, as well. Nintendo should design the games to where the ending is always the same outcome, but doing or not doing specific events before others changes the path of how the story gets there. For example, a certain character either appears or doesn't appear in a cutscene, causing it to play out a bit differently, but not to the point that the entire plot is changed. That would actually work out better than what we already have, as subsequent playthroughs would truly be different every time, upping the replay value immensely.

 

[Ventus]

(btw Responding to Ventus & JJ didn't wan't to quote either as I'm on my Wii U. )

Err...I guess to me the plot is one of the most important parts of Zelda, It's why I loved Skyward Sword so much. The storytelling was phenomenal, and IMO the game has one of the best stories of the series, I'd hate to see that jumbled up or thrown out for non-linearity. Something that doesn't seem to add anything just potentially take things away.

Linearity doesn't necessarily make a story great, either. Completing dungeons in certain manners or traversing the world in a different way could effect a different story; whether we kill the victim or succumb to their will should make a difference in my honest opinion. Yeah, Zelda up until this point has been flowers and sunshine, but the story could take several cues from all the other open-ended games out there!

 

[ZeldafreakCJM]

Thing is, non-linearity can be applied to more than just the gameplay. The story can adopt it, as well. Nintendo should design the games to where the ending is always the same outcome, but doing or not doing specific events before others changes the path of how the story gets there. For example, a certain character either appears or doesn't appear in a cutscene, causing it to play out a bit differently, but not to the point that the entire plot is changed. That would actually work out better than what we already have, as subsequent playthroughs would truly be different every time, upping the replay value immensely.

Zelda's stories should be linear...Personally I wouldn't mind non-linear dungeon order, just as long as it doesn't touch the story...story can be just as immersive as gameplay, gameplay should just come first.

 

[JuicieJ]

Zelda's stories should be linear...Personally I wouldn't mind non-linear dungeon order, just as long as it doesn't touch the story...story can be just as immersive as gameplay, gameplay should just come first.

Not trying to be rude, but you didn't really provide any backbone for your statement. What reasoning is there for Zelda's story needing to be linear?

 

[ZeldafreakCJM]

Not trying to be rude, but you didn't really provide any backbone for your statement. What reasoning is there for Zelda's story needing to be linear?

I wasn't trying to say there's a reason why, just that IMO Zelda stories are better when they're linear, of course I can't think of one that isn't linear, so I guess I'll have to just wait and see how Zelda Wii U turns out before jumping the gun :embarrassed:. Personally I've never been disappointed by a Zelda game, I'm just worried that too much change may actually ruin Zelda Wii U.

Sorry if I sounded rude or anything

 

[The Wanderer]

Ah, here we are, DarkestLink, an unstoppable force and an immovable object.

It's Zelda. The puzzles are always easy.

I wouldn't say that. The grid puzzle for entering the Sacred Grove in Twilight Princess and the turn puzzle for entering the Isle of Songs in Skyward Sword were particularly difficult for me the first time. The series may not be littered with brain-busters, but that doesn't mean it can't be difficult. Bear in mind that many of my posts at all in this forum reference the future and how it can be shaped. Perhaps Zelda doesn't have difficult puzzles now, but that doesn't mean it can't later. You seem to be focusing a little too heavily on the past and present in that puzzles weren't difficult before and therefore it's unfeasible they'll be difficult in the future.

Well good luck getting into the forest temple then.

That was actually my point. You can't get into the Forest Temple without the hookshot; as such, the hookshot is a Forest Temple item, and its consistent use within said dungeon doesn't really count as re-using older items.

Irrelevant.

Eh. Granted.

Well you're talking about the games like there were these super hard puzzles to figure out or something...but there wasn't. The only "hard" part was when you weren't paying attention and missed a room or something. But the puzzles have always been easy. It's a casual series and many of us figured out the puzzles in OoT when we were around 6.

Actually, the ability to miss a room was part of the genius of the puzzles... But I digress. Not all of the puzzles have been easy, as those of us stuck on the Water Temple in OoT can attest to, and I usually relied on a walkthrough for Zelda when I was 6. So to kind of summarize my point, most dungeons don't have many puzzles that reuse previous items, and the ones that do aren't clever, difficult puzzles in the first place. By this reasoning, dungeons may not have reused items in meaningful ways much, but we still remember them as fun, entertaining experiences. Therefore, dungeons can be fun without reusing older items. Additionally, because most Zelda puzzles are not difficult now does not mean Nintendo can't find a way to make them difficult later. Fans have been known to change the minds of developers, as Operation Rainfall and quite possibly Operation Moonfall have shown, so I wouldn't say it's inconceivable for Nintendo to take these things into consideration.

Sorry I don't recall. None of the puzzles in LA were memorable to me.

Although I can't remember Majora's Mask's puzzles that well, Link's Awakening stands out as one of the harder games in the series to solve. I'm generally a fan of its puzzles, but some of them could be downright stupid, particularly the whole bomb arrow thing in the final dungeon where you were apparently just supposed to guess you could use bombs and arrows at the same time and that you should shoot them at a certain point in the wall. Stupid, but it stands as the exception.

I don't see how. Some of the problems some games have faced was rather than thinking "What item works best here?" my thought process was "Well, I just picked up this new item...I bet its somehow related to this thing one way or another."

Puzzles could definitely use a bit of sprucing up, but again, they don't always have to rely on item usage to do it. If items are useful and effective in areas like combat and exploration as well as their dungeon's puzzles, we won't count them a waste. If dungeons themselves have unique ideas for gameplay and puzzles, they can be treacherously but enjoyably difficult in both puzzles and combat. I could call up any number of possible themes if you like, but hopefully you get the idea. Saying dungeons need to use a bunch of items to be enjoyable is like saying Mario needs the Starman to have good platforming or Pokemon needs HM Flash for good exploration. They're components of the core, not the sum, so those components can be easily swapped around for a different approach that works.

And to reiterate myself, I don't believe non-linearity should be a permanent thing in Zelda. Sometimes it should be linear again so it can use the approaches non-linearity can't do. Still with a huge, open, secret-packed world, but linear in story and dungeons.

What story was complex?

Honestly? None of them. But they've slowly been improving in flair, writing, and overall storytelling, so if this trend continues, Zelda Wii U will result in another talented effort at a good story.

They have said time and time again, they don't care....in fact, I think they even said that we as fans shouldn't care for the timeline (or something along those lines).

They've said time and time again that gameplay is more important than story, not that it's completely irrelevant and that nobody should care about it. First, if they don't care about story, why did games like Skyward Sword and Twilight Princess have so much detail in them? They were still flawed and a little vague, but the plots of those games tell me Nintendo at least cares enough about their stories to try. Saying the brain is more important than the liver is not the same as saying the liver is irrelevant and no one should care about it.

Because to Miyamoto, story is nothing but an obstacle that gets in the way of gameplay.

Again, I'm going to ask for some evidence here. Not all his games have been storytelling wonders, but I've seen nothing so far to imply he disregards story completely and only tacks it on casually when the game is near completion. Developer quotes suggest they first think of what the series could do next when making sequels, not where it could go. They want to make sure they give players a fresh, new, fun gameplay experience, then they focus on what Link's doing story-wise to accommodate the new ideas. I've seen absolutely nothing to suggest Miyamoto doesn't care about the story, even if the whole timeline is admittedly flawed. And if the past is anything to judge by, he'll try to make a non-linear game have an engaging story as well.

He cares about the game...but not the story.

And my point still stands. Nintendo has made some poor decisions regarding the overall continuity of the Zelda timeline, but that doesn't mean they don't care about each individual story. Actually, the sloppiness of the timeline might imply they're focusing too much on the enjoyability of each individual story to take the overarching Zelda plot into account. Still not the right way to go about it, but it's one way to look at it.

Ehhh that's actually what really annoyed me in Wind Waker. They tried to make you explore way too much. Like when I was supposed to get the bracelets and iron boots. I had no idea what was the main quest and what was the sidequests. I was bored out of my mind doing so many sidequests, talking to so many fish, and I just wanted to get back to the main game.

I know this wasn't directed at me, but I feel I should answer it anyway. The Wind Waker is what happens when linearity and non-linearity meet head-on without preparation. Nintendo should not have expected players, after having been guided on a fairly linear path for so long, to suddenly accept non-linearity and know what to make of it. Even then, the supposed "non-linearity" was treated with a linear air, as you were forced to get one item before the other but nothing in the game implied this. The event you're speaking of in The Wind Waker is when linearity and non-linearity crash into each other unprepared, not non-linearity as a whole.

 

[1upmuffin]

I think one of the most intriguing possibilities of a more non-linear Zelda is it might be a good speedrunning game, since people will have to decide the fastest order to complete dungeons. I'm not a speedrunner myself but I really enjoy watching it.

 

[Castle]

I think the best thing about a non-linear Zelda is playing a game not watching some half baked nonsensical excuse for a story.