Breath of the Wild Zelda Wii U In Ending Stages of Development, Appealing to Western Gamers like OoT

[thane98]

I'm interested in how western influence will take form in Zelda U if this interview is any indication of what we'll see.

Honestly though, I'm happier to see them acknowledge that Zelda U exists.

 

[Deleted member 14134]

Hasn't Zeldas gameplay always had universal appeal? Perhaps he is talking about the story and characters since he mentioned he's writing dialogue now?

 

[Spiritual Mask Salesman]

Hasn't Zeldas gameplay always had universal appeal? Perhaps he is talking about the story and characters since he mentioned he's writing dialogue now?

Yeah It's always sort of had western appeal in particular. Atleast I thought it did.

 

[Adventurer of Hyrule]

SS was no more linear than TP, im not even sure how you guys are contesting that. In SS you needed to unlock all 3 main regions in progression, in TP your progress was constantly halted by the twilight zones. Until you did those, the world was closed off. There is no way around it, you just need to complete tasks early on to progressively unlock the world.

The overworld of SS had the same content, if not more, than the hyrule field in TP, which was also barren with a handful of caves to explore. SS had islands, had debris with loot, had a bigger and more comprehensive hub town and near the end it even expanded further with the thundordome, with a new kind of enemy to fight. On top of that SS's world below was dense and packed with things to do, the level design was masterful and it always threw something new at us. SS is the Mario Galaxy of the Zelda series, concentrated and creative as hell, and even platforming is a fun activity. There is more magic in a single area in SS, than the entire hyrule field in TP and OOT.

SS wasn't only bigger in dimension and density, but it was also richer and more developed narrative wise.

SS was incredibly linear. How many secret grottoes and hidden areas specifically for adventuring can be found in the overworld? Barely any? Mhmm, thought so.

There were plenty of secrets in both games, and tbh what does it matter if the secrets are located in the sky or down below, as long as their there? I dont understand that argument, you are fragmenting the game instead of seeing it as a whole. SS has the sky above, and hyrule down below. Put them both together and its a package TP just cant match. SS had more locations, up above and down below, it has a more dense level design, it has more comprehensive side quests, it has a more competent narrative, it has dungeons areas that could take 2 of TP's dungeons inside.

 

[The lone shadowbat]

While I will agree with you, the sky did fell like it could've used more island you could land on, and the suffice would've been nice with some more hidden grottoes.

 

[DeactivatedUser2]

SS was no more linear than TP, im not even sure how you guys are contesting that. In SS you needed to unlock all 3 main regions in progression, in TP your progress was constantly halted by the twilight zones. Until you did those, the world was closed off. There is no way around it, you just need to complete tasks early on to progressively unlock the world.

The overworld of SS had the same content, if not more, than the hyrule field in TP, which was also barren with a handful of caves to explore. SS had islands, had debris with loot, had a bigger and more comprehensive hub town and near the end it even expanded further with the thundordome, with a new kind of enemy to fight. On top of that SS's world below was dense and packed with things to do, the level design was masterful and it always threw something new at us. SS is the Mario Galaxy of the Zelda series, concentrated and creative as hell, and even platforming is a fun activity. There is more magic in a single area in SS, than the entire hyrule field in TP and OOT.

SS wasn't only bigger in dimension and density, but it was also richer and more developed narrative wise.



There were plenty of secrets in both games, and tbh what does it matter if the secrets are located in the sky or down below, as long as their there? I dont understand that argument, you are fragmenting the game instead of seeing it as a whole. SS has the sky above, and hyrule down below. Put them both together and its a package TP just cant match. SS had more locations, up above and down below, it has a more dense level design, it has more comprehensive side quests, it has a more competent narrative, it has dungeons areas that could take 2 of TP's dungeons inside.

I see you're the black sheep out of the bunch.

 

[A Link In Time]

@Adventurer of Hyrule

You're right. TP and SS had a lot of the same problems. The problem with Skyward Sword is that it released five years after Twilight Princess, more than enough time to fix the problems of its predecessor. You have also to consider how the games stacked up against their competition when they were released. Twilight Princess was the highest rated games of 2006 on aggregate sites, and won quite a few Game of the Years awards. Skyward Sword was quickly forgotten against the likes of The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim, Batman: Arkham City, and Portal 2.

The gating in Skyward Sword was especially problematic because the size of its overworld was fairly small, and there wasn't a lot of diversity in the areas to explore. There was the sky and standard forest, volcano, and desert areas. To top it all off, the three major regions weren't even connected to each other, which made the sky feel like a glorified level select screen. Skyward Sword isn't a bad videogame, but it is a bad Zelda game. There's a reason Zelda fans have distanced themselves from it in recent years.

 

[Baga Jr]

I find this quote really reassuring. For the first decade or so of the series, every big Zelda game took elements from the previous one but was primarily its own new thing. Think about Zelda 1, LttP, and OoT; they are all known as some of the most iconic and revolutionary games of their respective generations. Sure, LttP borrows from Zelda 1, and OoT borrows from both of them, but they have many fundamental differences that make them completely unique. In my experience, this is the case for many game series when they first start out, but then they eventually find a certain set of standards that they feel comfortable with and every future game has to follow that formula. (I'm looking at you, New Super Mario Bros)

I believe that's what happened to the Zelda series after OoT. Every 3D Zelda game (MM, WW, TP, and SS) follows the OoT formula very strictly. This might have something to do with Aunoma starting with OoT and getting promoted to producer of the series after that, but that's just speculation. But I'm not saying the 3D Zelda's are just boring rehashes or that they aren't unique. In fact, I think they're all better games in general than OoT because they all improve on the system in their own way (except maybe SS), and of course they have their own unique features in addition (3-day cycle, great sea, etc). But they still all have the same skeleton that they got from OoT, which kept them from being revolutionary like their predecessors. The one exception would be ALBW; regardless of what you think of that game, it definitely challenged Zelda conventions boldly and makes me hopeful that Zelda U has the same mindset.

Yes, it took me that long to bring up Zelda U, the whole point of this topic. But all of that explains why I'm so happy to see this quote from Aunoma. He finally wants to create a 3D Zelda without the OoT skeleton. It gives me hope that it could be as new and refreshing as Zelda 1, LttP, and OoT were in their times.

 

[Azure Sage]

Those who know me on this site know that I've always been a huge proponent for changing the formula and mixing things up. Zelda doesn't have to stick to its norms to be great. It doesn't even need to have Link as the guy in green to be great imo (I absolutely love Link's new blue tunic and I hope it stays the whole game). So putting aside the internal and external screaming about the game being in its final stages, I'm very excited to see what they come up with. I'm always looking forward to what's new and what's not. I'd really love to see the series go in a new direction, because thinking of the possibilities is a lot of fun and I'm usually not easily disappointed.

 

[the8thark]

Zelda doesn't have to stick to its norms to be great.

I agree totally. But sakes wise it does have to to a point. OOT sold amazingley well. MM sold much less. It was amazing but just too innovative and less a normal Zelda for the public to handle. Sure decades later people appreciated MM for what it is and MM3D's sales were good.

I believe all Zelda games have this issue. The more normal a Zelda game is, the better sales it will get. The more innovative a Zelda game is, the less sales it will get. The tyrick is to be normal enough to get the sales, but innovative enough to make an amazing game people will remember for decades to come. It's a tough balancing act.

 

[Hylianhero91]

Sounds good, also i think its funny he needs to mention that the new Zelda would cater to western gamers... when its pretty obvious it would. Its a Zelda game, its foundation is almost entirely western. Japanese gamers dont give two cents about the franchise anyways.

I think he means he is trying to make a game that will appeal to a wider audience of Western gamers. Zelda games do sell reliably, but it would be a lie to say they are really popular . Zelda has a decent sized hardcore fan base. Nintendo will always sell atleast a million copies when they release a Zelda game, but its sales numbers don't even begin to compare to the hot games of the day. I think Aonuma is trying to make this a game that will get more people to buy nintendo systems instead of an Xbox or Playstation. He plans to put Nintendo back on the map with this game.

 

[Castle]

At this point I don't think Nintendo could appeal to their own mothers no matter how hard they tried.

 

[CrimsonCavalier]

Trying to replicate the Ocarina of Time formula and trying to replicate the Ocarina of Time impact. Two different concepts.

Ocarina is the greatest game ever made, and it will probably always be. Trying to replicate the formula, however, simply doesn't work anymore.

Zelda Next needs to try to be the next Ocarina by replicating the impact it had on gamers back in 1998, not by replicating the formula. I don't think we're going to see a Light/Dark world dichotomy or Young/Adult Link. Heck, we may not even see dungeon progression as we know it.

If it's truly open-world, the formula has to change. An open-world game can't be like Ocarina and Ocarina wouldn't work as an open-world game.