Search results for query: *

Sure, 3D might not be as straightforward, but it’s not like they’re really restricted on time when they release these games anymore.

Right, I’m saying that if they’re willing to go back to the classic formula at all then I don’t see why they can’t do both 2D and 3D.

That’s not what I meant. I meant that classic Zelda still holds the same fundamental concepts regardless of if its 2D or 3D. Saying that they’re different pillars would be like saying that Zelda 2 is different because of its viewing angle or that the DS games shouldn’t be in the same category as...

I don’t even think pillar is the right word. I just don’t think there’s really a distinction to be made between 2D and 3D classic Zelda.

….but that’s the exact same formula as every other pre-BotW Zelda?

What’s the 3rd formula?

Ok, but the difference is that Fur Elise was never meant to be a sequel to Moonlight Sonata. Regardless of popular taste, games in a series are inherently going to be compared with one another simply because they’re in a series together.

No I’m not, no I’m not, and no I’m not. You can’t just pretend that I’m making illogical arguments just because you can’t be bothered to actually argue against them. You don’t seem to understand what the word “exploration” means. Exploration has literally nothing to do with whether a game is...

I think I would like the idea of finding my own solutions if it was significantly harder to do it. Make it feel like they were going out of their way to prevent you doing that.

It’s certainly better in this regard, but I still don’t think it goes far enough. If the mechanics were more strictly defined as to what will work and what won’t then I would feel better about it.

Even without that definition, that’s a pretty basic rule of game design. Like, a college level game design 101 textbook rule. You don’t have to follow these rules, but the games that successfully deviate from them only do so because they have a method of working around the complications that...

Games are restrictive by nature. Attempting to make a game with as few restrictions as possible tends to lead to nothing but problems. You can do it well, but you have to be careful. Blindly implementing non-restrictive elements like BotW and TotK did just causes problems.

You’re right, it isn’t vague. There are plenty of games where your progression isn’t tied to the level design itself, even at the time. Mario, Metroid, and Zelda all follow this. Exploration is just as much of a thing in Mario as it is in Zelda. The only difference is that Mario is level based...

It proves that the idea that Zelda has ever revolved around its lack of restrictions is objectively incorrect.

No, the entire point was to figure out the correct way to progress through a clearly defined world. It is literally impossible to beat the game without the sword. You can get to Ganon, but he requires the sword to kill. BotW has plenty in common with the concept you claim to be the core of...

Oh yeah that’s right. That just proves my point further.

Not even the lack of a dungeon order is a good comparison between BotW and Z1. Z1 still had a very specific dungeon order, and actually locked you out of doing certain dungeons before others. For that matter, you can do most of the adult dungeons in OoT in any order as well, with the only real...

So I guess we’re just going to ignore the fact that there is literally nothing that OoT did to restrict the player that wasn’t also present in Z1 or LttP to some degree, as well as the fact that BotW has nothing in common with Z1 whatsoever. I guess whatever Aonuma needs to say to sell more...

“Zelda was too much like a video game, I only want to make non-games.”