Breath of the Wild Zelda Wii U - Taking Advantage Of Multiple Control Schemes or No?

[Blu Ray]

Ventus, you're just too negative on Skyward Sword, you didn't like the game and end up voicing your opinions with bias about every SS aspect. Motion controls on a perfectly working Wii Mote are amazing, It's smooth and very accurate with very minor glitches every now and then, even so, that's not enough for you to say that It's bad, It was a great part of Skyward Sword and I'd say the game wouldn't be as good without It. With that being said, gimmick is there to attract more customers, but on the other hand, It can actually be something fun, I loved the SS motion controls and the game was actually built around It, It's stupid to say It didn't play a important role because it did.

As for Wii Motion controls, IT ISN'T DEAD. Seriously, It's still is and will be a big part of Wii U, It's pretty clear Nintendo didn't want It to go to waste. It took Nintendo a very long time to develop Skyward Sword engine, I see no reason for them to not use It again, I highly believe at least the first Zelda title for Wii U will use It, but also have support for Gamepad.

 

[Cfrock]

So people having the choice to use whichever control scheme they find most suitable for them is a bad thing?

This isn't about what people find more comfortable. As I have gone over several times the large number of differences between the Gamepad and the Motion+ mean that a game designed to use as many features of the Gamepad as possible (something that the Zelda series is known for and is likely to do) will not be compatible with the Motion+. Motion+ simply will not be able to do the same things.

What if ZeldaU has an item that requires you to blow into the mic? Motion+ can't do that, the item would have to be removed from the 'Motion+ version' or be changed so that it was practically a different item entirely. What if they allow note-taking on the map with the Gamepad's stylus? Motion+ can't do that so there's a game feature lost. What if they use the fact that the sticks are also buttons to add in two extra slots for equippable items? Motion+ can't do that so now that 'version' is less convenient and has you spending more time in menus. This isn't a case of having two options and you pick which is most comfortable. This is a case of the game cannot be designed to use both without there being some pretty significant differences between 'versions'.

Games like Mario Kart Wii and Smash Bros. Brawl can get away with multiple control schemes because those games have, like, 5 inputs and the GameCube controller, Classic Controller and Wiimote all have enough buttons and a stick to accompodate them. A game like Pikmin 3 was designed for the Wiimote with the Gamepad thrown in as an afterthought, from what we've seen. If a Zelda game is designed around the Gamepad, heck, if any game is designed around the Gamepad, then a lot of what that game does will not be possible with the Motion+ without major changes.

Take ZombiU as an example. The Gamepad in that is mainly used as your map/radar and inventory, as well as a scanning device. Now, if it used Motion+ the map could be accesed via a menu, same with the inventory, and the scanner could be done similar to Metroid Prime 3's Scan Visor. However, entering a menu to do these things would pause the action around you, something which goes against one of the game's fundamental principles of keeping everything real-time to make the game dangerous. If going into the menu's didn't pause the game, well, without the second screen you would have your view blocked and be unable to see approaching zombies. You'd have people dying in menus because they couldn't see.
So, to accommodate the Motion+, the game would either have to either:
1) Abandon a central design philosophy and sacrifice a major source of tension
or
2) Become frustrating and unfair to the player, punishing them for unavoidable actions
The Gamepad is what allows ZombiU to be the game that it is. The limitations of the Motion+ in comparison to it would prevent a game like ZombiU from working the way it does. This kind of thing applies to any game built around the use of the Gamepad.

I imagine a potential counter-argument would be something like "But Nintendo Land and New Super Mario Bros. U use them both and so does Rayman Legends!" This is true but they use them in a multiplayer capacity, in games designed to use the two controllers. What's more, the players with the Motion+ must do things that the player with the Gamepad can't and vice versa. It's not a case of having up to 5 people playing the same game, one of those players must do something the others can't because the two control schemes are so different. The very notion of the Wii U's asymmetrical multiplayer is born from the incompatability of the Motion+ and the Gamepad.

Turning that difference into a strength shows the kind of genius that has kept Nintendo going all these years but we remain with that core issue; the Motion+ and the Gamepad are too different to be used for all of the same things. They can be used for some of the same things, but not all. Once again (with feeling), a game that is designed for the Gamepad, like ZombiU and (assumedly) ZeldaU, will not work in the same way if it was adapted to the Motion+. The Gamepad's various features such as a second screen, touch, the microphone, a camera and 4 extra buttons, which are all absent from the Motion+, prevent the use of both controllers without major differences in core game design between 'versions'.

The Wii MotionPlus is too damn good to leave behind, and Nintendo knows this. That's why there are launch games with it as an option.

The Wii U Gamepad is too damn good to ignore or stifle in favour of the older set-up. There are launch games which use Motion+ as an option because only one Gamepad can work on a Wii U at a time. If they didn't allow Motion+ to be used then the console would have no capacity for local multiplayer. I'd wager money that was a more convincing reason for the decision than "Motion+ is awesome guys! Yippee hooray!"
The thing is, with Nintendo's focus now on asymmetrical multiplayer, the Motion+ is gonna be a big part of the Wii U's life. It's unavoidable. It's not a bad thing, though. Having played Nintendo Land and NSMBU in their asymmetrical capacity I can tell you it's very fun and will lead to some of the more unique and enjoyable multiplayer experiences of the next few years. The Motion+ is not going anywhere.

But that is where the Motion+ belongs on Wii U, multiplayer. In multiplayer it is just one more tool for Nintendo to create fun experiences. In single-player (like Zelda) it is a back-step, a move in the wrong direction. I don't say this because I dislike Motion+ (I don't). I say this because I very much like the Gamepad. I own a Wii, have done for years now, and I have seen what Motion+ has to offer. Now I own a Wii U and I would very much like to see the full potential of the Gamepad. This will not happen if developers design games to use the Motion+.
They were very clear at E3 about the Motion+ being the primary and intended method of controlling Pikmin 3. That means the game is designed to work on the Wii. From seeing the ways the Gamepad was used it was obvious they had tried to adapt the game to it. I am provided with an example to use to explain my point here. Nobody should be adapting a Wii U game to make use of the Wii U controller. They should be built for the Wii U controller before anything else. I'm sure there will be people who love playing Pikmin 3 with their Wiimote and their Nunchuck and say how lovely it is to have an overhead map displayed on the Gamepad but the Wii U's actual controller should not be relagated to such a passive and perfunctory role in a Wii U game. I do not want to see developers designing games for Wii U which would work on Wii minus the HD graphics.

This can apply directly to Zelda. If, say, they used the Motion+ for ZeldaU and we returned to Skyward Sword's combat then we would once again have enemies which reacted directly to our sword movements and told us which way to swing our arm like a significant portion of the enemies in that game did. This proved a divisive point, with some people liking the change to combat and others disliking it. On a personal level, I thought it was interesting and not necessarily bad but led to less creative enemies and easier gameplay overall. It is a mark of what Zelda is like on the Wii. Well now it is time for Nintendo to show us what Zelda is like on the Wii U and the way to do that is to use what the Wii U gives us and not what the Wii did.
Think of how Nintendo could incorporate the Pictobox now that we have a camera on the Gamepad. Think of how we can use our breath or voices in puzzles and combat now that we have a microphone (I know such things made Spirit Tracks pretty unique). With more buttons we have more potential item slots which means we could have more offensive items or even just an expanded range of weapons. The extra buttons could be used to perform new actions that deepen combat or stealth. The touch function would enable note-taking and could change the way we use familiar items. The biggest difference the Gamepad offers is the second screen which has a much larger impact than it first appears and a better understanding of that can be found in this article to save me the time of explaining.

A Zelda game designed for the Gamepad has so many more options and potential than a Zelda game designed for Motion+. Motion+ had it's time to shine with Skyward Sword. It is now ZeldaU's turn to show us what the Gamepad can do.

If you payed attention to any of the Nintendo Directs, you'd know they didn't do that because they're already out on the market

The Pro Controller was also out on the market but they still bundled that with some Premium Wii Us. In fact, they bundled that with a game that doesn't use it. Regardless of whether you could just go out and buy a Motion+, bundling one with a few Wii Us would have been a good decision, especially for those people who never bought one in the first place.

 

[JuicieJ]

Cfrock, you're ignoring my entire point. What I'm saying is the game should first be designed for the Wii MotionPlus and then adapted over to the GamePad and Pro Controller. This would be extremely simple and would not make drastic differences in the core gameplay. Actions would be exactly the same on the screen no matter what. Yeah, you wouldn't be swinging your arm with the GamePad or Pro Controller, but that's just it. Some people don't WANT to do that. But some people do. Going with what I'm suggesting allows for each controller available for the Wii U to be used and used well.

Before you prattle on about not using the GamePad's functions again, who's to say that wouldn't happen? Yeah, the microphone wouldn't be taken advantage of. Big deal. The microphone never really served much of a purpose in the DS games, so it's not like we'd be missing out on anything sweet and revolutionary. Allow me to lay out what features would be able to be used with the GamePad if used to emulate the Wii MotionPlus control scheme.

• Gyroscope for precision aiming

• Touch screen for inventory and maps

• Acceleromter for moves like the Spin Attack and Ending/Fatal Blow

So, basically... the asymetrical gameplay mechanics that Nintendo has promised with the GamePad. Still game to say it wouldn't work?

 

[Cfrock]

What I'm saying is the game should first be designed for the Wii MotionPlus and then adapted over to the GamePad and Pro Controller. This would be extremely simple and would not make drastic differences in the core gameplay.

I think, pretty much, the exact opposite, that a Wii U game should be designed for the Gamepad first and foremost and not the previous console. I explained my reasons for why I believe adapting multiple control schemes that are so dissimilar would not be a simple task and would result in big differences and I simply do not think it would be worth the time and effort.

Before you prattle on about not using the GamePad's functions again, who's to say that wouldn't happen? Yeah, the microphone wouldn't be taken advantage of. Big deal. The microphone never really served much of a purpose in the DS games, so it's not like we'd be missing out on anything sweet and revolutionary.

Didn't realise I was prattling. Thought I was explaining my viewpoint in a way that would enable people to understand what I meant. Thought I was engaging in a discussion, not wasting everyone's time.

Anyway, I'll use the example of the microphone since, well, it's here as an example. You may feel not using the microphone is no big deal. It seems you view it as "well, it didn't do much on the DS so it won't do much on Wii U," whereas I view it as "there's a microphone there, be a shame to put it in and then not use it for anything." I wouldn't want any of the Gamepad's features to go unused just because they don't work with the Motion+. That's essentially my entire point, that using the Motion+ and the Gamepad would only put limitations on the Gamepad, which I absolutely don't want. No matter how big or small they are, they are bad. One such limitation is too many in my eyes.

• Touch screen for inventory and maps

I don't see how using my fingers to navigate a map and manage an inventory is the same as waving a stick at the TV. I suppose I sort of understand what you mean with this one but I wouldn't have used it as an example, personally.

Still game to say it wouldn't work?

Yes. Like I said, the two control schemes can do some of the same things, just not all. You've pointed out some of these things here yourself. I just don't think it's fair to limit the use of the Gamepad to make room for Motion+. That's not what I bought a Wii U for. I want new experiences, not old ones with HD.

 

[JuicieJ]

I think, pretty much, the exact opposite, that a Wii U game should be designed for the Gamepad first and foremost and not the previous console. I explained my reasons for why I believe adapting multiple control schemes that are so dissimilar would not be a simple task and would result in big differences and I simply do not think it would be worth the time and effort.

Their designs may be dissimilar, but the core gameplay would not have to change just because of different controllers. Just look at Black Ops 2 on the Wii U. It has four available control schemes -- the GamePad, the Pro Controller, the Wii MotionPlus & Nunchuk, and the Wii Remote held sideways. You know what the kicker is? No matter what, you're still playing the exact same game. Just because certain actions you perform are different doesn't mean the actions the game performs are different. That's why I've been saying "an emulation of the Wii MotionPlus".

Anyway, I'll use the example of the microphone since, well, it's here as an example. You may feel not using the microphone is no big deal. It seems you view it as "well, it didn't do much on the DS so it won't do much on Wii U," whereas I view it as "there's a microphone there, be a shame to put it in and then not use it for anything." I wouldn't want any of the Gamepad's features to go unused just because they don't work with the Motion+. That's essentially my entire point, that using the Motion+ and the Gamepad would only put limitations on the Gamepad, which I absolutely don't want. No matter how big or small they are, they are bad. One such limitation is too many in my eyes.

That seems extremely shallow. The microphone is literally the only thing that wouldn't have a functionality. You would really prevent the choice between three control schemes that effectively do the same thing but with perks for different people's preferences just because of one teensy little feature? It's not like we're talking about removing the targeting system, man. I really think you're looking at this through a grossly limited perspective.

I don't see how using my fingers to navigate a map and manage an inventory is the same as waving a stick at the TV. I suppose I sort of understand what you mean with this one but I wouldn't have used it as an example, personally.

That wasn't my point. My point was that it's something the GamePad can do and obviously something YOU are wanting. Why diss that just because of an emulated control scheme?

Yes. Like I said, the two control schemes can do some of the same things, just not all. You've pointed out some of these things here yourself. I just don't think it's fair to limit the use of the Gamepad to make room for Motion+. That's not what I bought a Wii U for. I want new experiences, not old ones with HD.

I outlined how you could get new experiences even with an emulated control scheme. That was the entire reason I used those bullet points. I don't know if this is the case or not, but it really seems to me like you've closed off your mind to the idea that what I'm suggesting could still provide you with things you want, even though I've flat-out proven that notion wrong.

 

[DarkestLink]

Such a heated argument...and for the life of me, I just can't figure out why people want different control schemes so badly. It adds nothing to gameplay and wastes development time.

 

[JuicieJ]

Such a heated argument...and for the life of me, I just can't figure out why people want different control schemes so badly. It adds nothing to gameplay and wastes development time.

It's not supposed to add anything to the gameplay. It's specifically designed for different people to play according to their own preferences (although using a different scheme in a subsequent playthrough would probably provide replay value). I've also pointed out countless times that multiple teams can be hired to work on the different control schemes, meaning development time wouldn't be an issue.

 

[DarkestLink]

It's not supposed to add anything to the gameplay. It's specifically designed for different people to play according to their own preferences (although using a different scheme in a subsequent playthrough would probably provide replay value). I've also pointed out countless times that multiple teams can be hired to work on the different control schemes, meaning development time wouldn't be an issue.

It's not that easy. Doesn't matter how many you hire, they still need to work on the same project: translating one control method to another. This isn't as simple as making new control schemes for Brawl. It was just different buttons (and "waggle" ...which is pretty much just another button). Here you have the touch screen, the motion controls, and multiple other issues. Motion controls don't translate to touch screen and mic as easily as button translates to button.

In the end, one control scheme will overshadow the other: the original will trump the others. How many people use the Wii Remote for Brawl, I ask you? Not only is Nintendo wasting time, but they're wasting money and, at times, jumping hoops all for the sake of making control schemes people won't use.

 

[JuicieJ]

It's not that easy. Doesn't matter how many you hire, they still need to work on the same project: translating one control method to another. This isn't as simple as making new control schemes for Brawl. It was just different buttons (and "waggle" ...which is pretty much just another button). Here you have the touch screen, the motion controls, and multiple other issues. Motion controls don't translate to touch screen and mic as easily as button translates to button.

The touch screen wouldn't be the main source of control, though. See, the motion controls are mapped to 8 cardinal directions and thrust forward to stab. An analog stick on the GamePad and Pro Controller can move in 8 cardinal directions and be pressed down to stab. It's really that simple. If you're worried that it could be a bust, don't be. This sort of mechanic has been used in games before, such as Metal Gear Solid 2, and it worked just fine, so given Nintendo's track record, I see no reason to have any fears or doubts. Nintendo has never screwed up any Zelda control scheme. They've all functioned with utmost precision and intuitiveness. There's no way they'd mess that up here.

In the end, one control scheme will overshadow the other: the original will trump the others. How many people use the Wii Remote for Brawl, I ask you? Not only is Nintendo wasting time, but they're wasting money and, at times, jumping hoops all for the sake of making control schemes people won't use.

Oh, people would use them, I can assure you that. I've seen countless people coming from all three directions as to what controller they want to use for Zelda Wii U. What I'm suggesting allows all three of these rather than one that everyone is forced to used.

 

[DarkestLink]

The touch screen wouldn't be the main source of control, though. See, the motion controls are mapped to 8 cardinal directions and thrust forward to stab. An analog stick on the GamePad and Pro Controller can move in 8 cardinal directions and be pressed down to stab. It's really that simple. If you're worried that it could be a bust, don't be. This sort of mechanic has been used in games before, such as Metal Gear Solid 2, and it worked just fine, so given Nintendo's track record, I see no reason to have any fears or doubts. Nintendo has never screwed up any Zelda control scheme. They've all functioned with utmost precision and intuitiveness. There's no way they'd mess that up here.

Wait, let's see if I have this straight...you propose they sacrifice the touch screen for additional controls...

 

[Cfrock]

The microphone is literally the only thing that wouldn't have a functionality.

The camera, the 4 extra buttons, the second screen and the touch control would also lose out as well as the microphone (and possibly the second stick which Nintendo would almost certainly retain only for camera control like in The Wind Waker). As I have said. And pointed out examples of how as well.

I don't know if this is the case or not, but it really seems to me like you've closed off your mind to the idea that what I'm suggesting could still provide you with things you want, even though I've flat-out proven that notion wrong.

Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I've closed off my mind. And what exactly have you "flat-out proven"? This whole discussion is based on a singular point that we both actually agree upon. It's the follow through that we disagree about.

See, we both understand that designing the game to use both Motion+ and the Gamepad (and the Pro Controller) will result in limitations of the Gamepad's features. We have both said this and this is why I say it is something we agree upon. Now, we may disagree on the exact extent of that (as seen above) but it is clear that we do both agree on the basic point that designing for both with limit the Gamepad. This is when we start to differ.

In your opinion (and correct me if I'm wrong) this is cause to focus design on the Motion+ as that way the more basic controller will be fully implemented and the Gamepad can be adapted and perhaps have some extras added on for fluff. In this way, the game ends up with three control options but doesn't take full advantage of the Gamepad.

In my opinion this is cause to focus on the Gamepad as that way the system's primary control option is utilised as fully as it can be and we get a Zelda game which incorporates the use of various diverse features that allows for more creativity in combat, puzzle-solving and item design. In this way, the game ends up being a very unique experience but forces the player to use the controller that came with the console.

Two very different viewpoints that stem from the same root. You have explained why you think the way you do and I have explained why I think the way I do. We simply do not agree. Anything else would just be going in circles.

 

[Ventus]

Their designs may be dissimilar, but the core gameplay would not have to change just because of different controllers. Just look at Black Ops 2 on the Wii U. It has four available control schemes -- the GamePad, the Pro Controller, the Wii MotionPlus & Nunchuk, and the Wii Remote held sideways. You know what the kicker is? No matter what, you're still playing the exact same game. Just because certain actions you perform are different doesn't mean the actions the game performs are different. That's why I've been saying "an emulation of the Wii MotionPlus".

The difference, JJ, between BO2 and a Zelda game is that BO2 wasn't designed with motion controls in mind. If anything, using the Wiimote + Nunchuck is nothing more than an emulation of button controls. Performs damn well, but you gotta understand that the motion controls weren't used to their fullest in BO2 and that's perfectly fine; CoD isn't a motion controlled game, it's a sticks and buttons game. Zelda? It's up in the air at this point, but button controls easily outclass motion controls. I don't want my sticks emulating motion controls for several reasons that C already outlined.
Too many Gamepad features would be left out, traditional control (it's called TRADITIONAL for a reason) wouldn't be so much, and motion controls would outclass everything.

 

[DarkestLink]

I loved Skyward Sword's combat, but thinking of mimicking the the movements by control stick sounds downright dull...I'd rather they just bite the bullet and go back to TP's combat if that's what needs to happen.

Sure, the motion controls would be another option, but I don't think even the most zealous haters of SS controls would use the boring gamepad controls at this point, which not only makes them redundant, but sacrifices the full potential of them for the sake of catering to M+. Where does the series grow at this point?

 

[JuicieJ]

The camera, the 4 extra buttons, the second screen and the touch control would also lose out as well as the microphone (and possibly the second stick which Nintendo would almost certainly retain only for camera control like in The Wind Waker). As I have said. And pointed out examples of how as well.

Now I know you've ignored every one of my major points. I don't know how many times I've said it, but the second analog stick would be used to emulate the Wii MotionPlus controls. I also explicitly mentioned the touch screen for menus and maps in a bullet point. Did you really forget about that post that quickly? The other 4 buttons could be used for things, as well. The A button would be the action icon as always, and the other three could potentially be used for things like hot points for items like the 3D games prior to Skyward Sword. And the camera? What exactly would the camera be any use for? Reading our facial expressions? You're focusing on little things, Cfrock. You're missing out on vital points by not looking at the whole picture.

Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I've closed off my mind.

I find that hard to believe given the opening to your post.

And what exactly have you "flat-out proven"? This whole discussion is based on a singular point that we both actually agree upon. It's the follow through that we disagree about.

I proved to you that the Wii U's main gameplay features would still be available. Seems like you forgot that, though, considering you said the touch function would be left out.

See, we both understand that designing the game to use both Motion+ and the Gamepad (and the Pro Controller) will result in limitations of the Gamepad's features. We have both said this and this is why I say it is something we agree upon. Now, we may disagree on the exact extent of that (as seen above) but it is clear that we do both agree on the basic point that designing for both with limit the Gamepad. This is when we start to differ.

In your opinion (and correct me if I'm wrong) this is cause to focus design on the Motion+ as that way the more basic controller will be fully implemented and the Gamepad can be adapted and perhaps have some extras added on for fluff. In this way, the game ends up with three control options but doesn't take full advantage of the Gamepad.

In my opinion this is cause to focus on the Gamepad as that way the system's primary control option is utilised as fully as it can be and we get a Zelda game which incorporates the use of various diverse features that allows for more creativity in combat, puzzle-solving and item design. In this way, the game ends up being a very unique experience but forces the player to use the controller that came with the console.

Two very different viewpoints that stem from the same root. You have explained why you think the way you do and I have explained why I think the way I do. We simply do not agree. Anything else would just be going in circles.

The GamePad would hardly be limited by emulating the Wii MotionPlus. Any limitations would be minor and would be more than worth it by keeping the gaming world's best interest in mind.

The difference, JJ, between BO2 and a Zelda game is that BO2 wasn't designed with motion controls in mind. If anything, using the Wiimote + Nunchuck is nothing more than an emulation of button controls. Performs damn well, but you gotta understand that the motion controls weren't used to their fullest in BO2 and that's perfectly fine; CoD isn't a motion controlled game, it's a sticks and buttons game. Zelda? It's up in the air at this point, but button controls easily outclass motion controls. I don't want my sticks emulating motion controls for several reasons that C already outlined.
Too many Gamepad features would be left out, traditional control (it's called TRADITIONAL for a reason) wouldn't be so much, and motion controls would outclass everything.

Would it still work well, though? Would the GamePad still have most of its features used? Would the core control design for all three still be great? Yes, yes, and yes. Like you said, the Wii MotionPlus was an emulation of the button controls for BO2. Just because they weren't taken full advantage of doesn't mean they're bad or limited controls. They get their job done and play the game like it's supposed to be played. That's what matters in game design.

I loved Skyward Sword's combat, but thinking of mimicking the the movements by control stick sounds downright dull...I'd rather they just bite the bullet and go back to TP's combat if that's what needs to happen.

It sure wasn't dull in the games I've played that had it.

Sure, the motion controls would be another option, but I don't think even the most zealous haters of SS controls would use the boring gamepad controls at this point, which not only makes them redundant, but sacrifices the full potential of them for the sake of catering to M+. Where does the series grow at this point?

If some people wouldn't use the GamePad (or Pro Controller) just because of an emulated Wii MotionPlus control scheme, that's their problem for being shallow. These people would be few, anyway.

 

[Blu Ray]

I haven't read what everybody said, but multiple control scheme isn't as time consuming as you guys are making It out to be. The Wii Motion plus engine is done, Nintendo can easily port that to Wii U. Actually, porting It would be less time consuming than creating a new engine for Wii U Game Pad. As for the Pro controller, It would work exacly like Game Pad but without the screen, perhaps It will require some minor modifications in game to show maps and etc, but that shouldn't take long.

Gonna read this whole page now....

EDIT: Kay, done. Cfrock, I just have to agree with JuicieJ, you've closed of your mind just to make your point true. Let's apply the mic example on Gust Bellow. You would blow the mic on GamePad and press Z + A on Wii Mote, wow, problem solved. Making the game compatible with Wii Mote wouldn't limit GamePad features, If anything, It's the gamepad that could end up limiting Wii Mote, but JuicieJ idea to use the second analog stick to emulate motion controls seems good enough.