Breath of the Wild Should Zelda U Be More Like Skyrim?

[Hanyou]

I agree, but what's wrong with streamlining a combat system? That's something The Elder Scrolls was in need of, and Skyrim was a pretty good step in the right direction. Still clunky and floaty, but infinitely better than any previous entry's.

Not really. Combat in the first three Elder Scrolls games was truly RPG-like. In Oblivion and Skyrim, it's still based partly on chance, it's just disguised.

Combat in Daggerfall and Morrowind (haven't played Arena) was just fine for an RPG. Why try to turn it into a mediocre action game?

 

[JuicieJ]

Combat in Daggerfall and Morrowind (haven't played Arena) was just fine for an RPG. Why try to turn it into a mediocre action game?

Actions were also extremely laggy, resulting in a relatively unintuitive system. Looking back on them today, they're borderline unplayable.

 

[Austin]

It was also extremely slow and relatively unintuitive. Looking back on them today, they're borderline unplayable.

They're quite hard to get into (just Daggerfall, really. Morrowind isn't really difficult at all) but those games are absolutely huge. There simply wasn't enough time or even room to program some sort of elaborate combat system. The overworld in Daggerfall was twice the size of Great Britain and each area had its own political and social structure. There is a LOT going on there, combat simply is not meant to play a huge role.

Also, unintuitive? I don't think that's an appropriate adjective at all. It's quite easy to figure out. Press the button. Dice roll. You've attacked.

 

[Hanyou]

Actions were also extremely laggy, resulting in a relatively unintuitive system. Looking back on them today, they're borderline unplayable.

They weren't laggy, they were stat-based. It wasn't an action combat system, and for the most part, stats were most important in determining your ability to dodge, block, etc. Seems just fine to me. Why should I have to manually raise my shield, and why would I need every hit that looks like it connects to actually connect? Again, I don't play Elder Scrolls games for action.

The new combat isn't bad, it's just mostly cosmetic, which is why I'm always surprised when people praise it.

I would prefer that the developers focused their efforts on something more important, like not implementing obnoxiously bad scaling or simplifying the UI for the sake of inferior platforms.

 

[JuicieJ]

They're quite hard to get into (just Daggerfall, really. Morrowind isn't really difficult at all) but those games are absolutely huge. There simply wasn't enough time or even room to program some sort of elaborate combat system. The overworld in Daggerfall was twice the size of Great Britain and each area had its own political and social structure. There is a LOT going on there, combat simply is not meant to play a huge role.

Yeah, and that's one of my biggest issues with Bethesda and The Elder Scrolls. They focus so much on the content that they ignore the basic fundamentals of basic gameplay and leave things unpolished as a result.

Also, unintuitive? I don't think that's an appropriate adjective at all. It's quite easy to figure out. Press the button. Dice roll. You've attacked.

The timing is ridiculous. Your enemies attack at a normal rate, but your attacks take a second after you press the button to follow through.

 

[Austin]

Yeah, and that's one of my biggest issues with Bethesda and The Elder Scrolls. They focus too much on the content that they ignore the basic fundamentals of basic gameplay and leave things unpolished as a result.

I think you're just not their intended audience. I love the **** out of those games. "Basic gameplay" is pretty heavily dependent on the genre you're talking about. I didn't hate Animal Crossing because your shovel attack was just like, totally lame.

The timing is ridiculous. Your enemies attack at a normal rate, but your attacks take a second after you press the button to follow through.

Are you playing on an up-to-date computer? I've never had an issue like that. If you are, you've probably been either attacking an enemy with a high attack speed whilst holding a slow weapon. Minor details like weapon speed exist in TES.



Just to remain on-topic, not really. Zelda is Zelda, TES is TES. I don't want Zelda becoming a straight-up RPG anymore than I want TES becoming any more of a straight-up Action-Adventure.

 

[JuicieJ]

I think you're just not there intended audience. I love the **** out of those games. "Basic gameplay" is pretty heavily dependent on the genre you're talking about. I didn't hate Animal Crossing because your shovel attack was just like, totally lame.

I'm a pretty big fan of The Elder Scrolls. I love being able to escape into the worlds Bethesda creates. I just have issues with some of its fundamentals.

Just to remain on-topic, not really. Zelda is Zelda, TES is TES. I don't want Zelda becoming a straight-up RPG anymore than I want TES becoming any more of a straight-up Action-Adventure.

Of course. I'm not saying TES should have Zelda-like combat and whatnot. I'm just saying some of its features could use some polish.

 

[Zorth]

There are some genres of games that suit DLC very well, especially the competitive type of games, but for singular adventure games like Zelda it just doesn't fit even if the DLC was free. To me free DLC makes me think that the developers couldn't be bothered to complete the entire game. With the way Zelda is developed there is no excuse to not completely finish the game.

Not having DLC's kind of makes me think that Nintendo doesn't really care about the games they create, they don't care if everybody will stop playing after a few 100% runs. If I were Nintendo I'd release a few DLC's to pro long the life of the game, give the fans something to do or at least just make the world really huge and filled with content so the game doesn't die after a month of playing. This is really the only reason I like other Action/RPG's more than I do Zelda, they just have more stuff to do in.

 

[JuicieJ]

Not having DLC's kind of makes me think that Nintendo doesn't really care about the games they create, they don't care if everybody will stop playing after a few 100% runs. If I were Nintendo I'd release a few DLC's to pro long the life of the game, give the fans something to do or at least just make the world really huge and filled with content so the game doesn't die after a month of playing. This is really the only reason I like other Action/RPG's more than I do Zelda, they just have more stuff to do in.

They've started doing DLC with the 3DS and plan on doing it with the Wii U. I wouldn't worry too much about not having DLC in Zelda's HD debut.

 

[Vaati101]

Not having DLC's kind of makes me think that Nintendo doesn't really care about the games they create

Just because DLC appears in alot of games these days, doesn't mean Nintendo have to go down that route. Nintendo care alot about their first party games especially Zelda and just because they don't include DLC does not automatically mean they don't care about their games. That is a silly thing to say.

If I were Nintendo I'd release a few DLC's to pro long the life of the game, give the fans something to do or at least just make the world really huge and filled with content so the game doesn't die after a month of playing.

Even after you complete the game, there is plenty of stuff for you to do e.g collect all the heart pieces you didn't get or do certain sidequest you didn't do or didn't even know about and many more. I am certain that everyone who has played a new Zelda game for the first time didn't collect everything before the end of the game, which is why you have the opportunity to go back and do so afterwards if you didn't before. Because of this I think DLC for Zelda is pretty redundant. There is already plenty of things you can do, there is no need to to include something if a game already provides what you want.

 

[zack125]

I think Zelda could use some examples of TES games, in particular the exploration. The first game in the series made use of the exploration for you to advance through the game and you could do the dungeons out of order. As the Zelda games progressed, that level of exploration slowly disappeared up until Skyward Sword where the exploration is nonexistent. My two favourite genres is action/adventure and RPGs and one of the things I enjoy is how much it can distract me from the main quest. One of these distractions that I enjoy is the exploration, something that SS failed miserably at. What I enjoy in explorations is the excitation of potentially finding something new and exciting, like finding the Cane of Byrna in ALttP, for example.

 

[Zorth]

Just because DLC appears in alot of games these days, doesn't mean Nintendo have to go down that route. Nintendo care alot about their first party games especially Zelda and just because they don't include DLC does not automatically mean they don't care about their games. That is a silly thing to say.

First of all I'd like to point out that just because game A. does something doesn't mean that game B. shouldn't add something similar if it's something that has shown to have more pros than cons. :silent:

Now, I believe that DLC's are a good way of just giving the player more stuff to do, there are plenty ideas that pop up in the developer's heads after launch I'm sure, so it wouldn't hurt at all to have a small team continuing to extend & improve the latest game instead of just moving on to working on the next title (which in my eyes is either really high confidence believing their games to be perfect or just not caring xD). Even if DLC's are such a horrible idea for Zelda then I'd rather they just added more stuff to do, at least now with the Wii U's potential for the amount of content a single game could have. There really don't have to be any DLC's at all, all I want is more content.

Even after you complete the game, there is plenty of stuff for you to do e.g collect all the heart pieces you didn't get or do certain sidequest you didn't do or didn't even know about and many more. I am certain that everyone who has played a new Zelda game for the first time didn't collect everything before the end of the game, which is why you have the opportunity to go back and do so afterwards if you didn't before. Because of this I think DLC for Zelda is pretty redundant. There is already plenty of things you can do, there is no need to to include something if a game already provides what you want.

This was exactly my point, all of that stuff you mentioned is possible to complete within 10 extra hours of playing time, add another 5-10 hours if you have never played a Zelda game before. Just compare the amount of content itself from Zelda with other Action RPG games and you'll see a big difference in the amount of time you can spend doing side quests or just random stuff in general to keep you occupied.

:wave:

 

[Curmudgeon]

I say yes to more (moderately) open exploration, no to more RPG elements, especially the stat-driven insanity that leads to equipment min-maxing or Diablo IIish skill progression. There are plenty of games that cater to those needs.

That being said, I was a big fan of the differences in equipment between OoS and OoA. I could see my way to a game where at specific points in the quest, you had to choose between two and three items that in aggregate dramatically alter how you approach playing the game.

 

[Deeds]

In terms of Visuals, Twilight Princess Graphics in High Definition is good enough for me.

Skyrim like visuals are pretty much Twilight Princess visuals in High Deinition - realistic and dark.

There are some genres of games that suit DLC very well, especially the competitive type of games, but for singular adventure games like Zelda it just doesn't fit even if the DLC was free. To me free DLC makes me think that the developers couldn't be bothered to complete the entire game. With the way Zelda is developed there is no excuse to not completely finish the game.

Yes, but what if the game was completed fully, what if it satisfied your needs and then added free DLC, which would add more skills or maybe even another dungeon. It creates replay value, that Zelda normally misses out on.

People on this thread are saying that Zelda doesn't need to copy an inferior game, and that it should stick to its own ideas - this forum is going to be biased, I understand that. Hell, even I believe that Zelda is a better game then Elder Scrolls, but this doesn't mean to say I don't want features that we, as Zelda lovers, miss out on.
Expansion that's free is always going to be better.

 

[Zorth]

Skyrim like visuals are pretty much Twilight Princess visuals in High Deinition - realistic and dark.

I disagree, TP's art style didn't look real, it was just regular anime art style. Realistic art styles can be seen in Skyrim, Crysis, Far Cry etc. Just look at the textures of the human faces & environment and you'll see a difference between TP and Skyrim art style wise. TP just felt like I was playing an anime, even in the HD demo for the Wii U the TP art style didn't look realistic to me.