Let's try to stay on topic, guys. We're getting slightly derailed right now.
Breath of the Wild Combat in Future Games?
- Thread starter Therapist Bill
- Start date
JuicieJ
SHOW ME YA MOVES!
Starcraft 2 is a PC exclusive, not a Ubisoft exclusive -- you cannot play the Starcraft games without a PC. Why? Because Ubisoft has no platform, just an online system. Uplay is only required because it's a DRM system that Ubisoft has in place, just like EA's (sh**ty) Origin.
Watch Dogs... isn't an exclusive game. This is an inarguable fact. It's currently on PS3, Xbox 360, PS4, Xbox One, and PC, and it will eventually be on Wii U. It even has exclusive content on the PS3 & PS4.
Since you won't look this stuff up yourself, here's the proof:
PS3 reviews
360 reviews
PS4 reviews
Xbone reviews
PC reviews
Wii U reviews (none currently existing)
Exclusive PlayStation content
Dude, if there's any score, you're at -3 right now. You're straight-up ignoring facts in order to keep up an argument against me (correctly) saying that Nintendo doesn't embellish their games with their trailers.
Unless you're trolling me, in which case, you're doing a very poor job.
[video=youtube;0kPTF8SFNiA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kPTF8SFNiA[/video]
Now that all that's cleared up... I once again repeat that Aonuma confirmed the footage we saw was actual gameplay and that Nintendo doesn't embellish their games -- end of story.
D
Deleted member 14134
Guest
Does this not mean anything to you? Admin said get outta left field but you're heading straight for foul territory. Enjoy your ban.
http://mrwgifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Batman-Robin-Green-Arrow-Laugh-In-Old-School-Cartoon-Gif.gif
Oh and I believe the score is 4-0.
JuicieJ
SHOW ME YA MOVES!
Didn't even see it. The same can be said for you right now, though.
My sides.
Sheik
:the:
As for the style of Link's combat, as long as they make him versatile with his sword as well as his items, then I'm fine.
As for the enemies, I want more foes like the Lizalfos in Skyward Sword. Unlike Bokoblins or even Stalfos, Lizalfos actually had interesting and sometimes unpredictable attack patterns and didn't spend 90% of the battle holding their swords out, expecting to block Link's every attack with their mediocre defence. They were actually, you know, agressive (or at least from what I remember from SS, I haven't played it in quite a while).
Also, the Iron Knuckles from OoT and MM. Probably the only enemy I've faced in a 3D title that I've actually been intimidated by.
I want enemies like them to become more common in Zelda U, as well as their AI built upon so that we can have enemies that are interesting to fight every single time, and not just the first few times.
As for the enemies, I want more foes like the Lizalfos in Skyward Sword. Unlike Bokoblins or even Stalfos, Lizalfos actually had interesting and sometimes unpredictable attack patterns and didn't spend 90% of the battle holding their swords out, expecting to block Link's every attack with their mediocre defence. They were actually, you know, agressive (or at least from what I remember from SS, I haven't played it in quite a while).
Also, the Iron Knuckles from OoT and MM. Probably the only enemy I've faced in a 3D title that I've actually been intimidated by.
I want enemies like them to become more common in Zelda U, as well as their AI built upon so that we can have enemies that are interesting to fight every single time, and not just the first few times.
JuicieJ
SHOW ME YA MOVES!
They're also not grunts, unlike Bokoblins. They were more aggressive than Stalfos, that's true, but they were also the second miniboss of the game, whereas a Stalfos was the first. It makes sense, really.
We still could use more enemies like them, don't get me wrong -- I'm just saying not every enemy needs to be like them.
Really? All you ever have to do is backflip when they attack, follow up with a Jump Attack, and repeat until their armor falls off, after which you can just spam the stab attack.
D
Deleted member 14134
Guest
We need a combat system that doesn't require you to flail around like a Magikarp on land to win.
[video=youtube;ibxFYAEL24Y]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibxFYAEL24Y[/video]
[video=youtube;ibxFYAEL24Y]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibxFYAEL24Y[/video]
JuicieJ
SHOW ME YA MOVES!
Um... that's not a requirement. That's called speedrunning, which takes precise timing and in-depth knowledge of the current situation.
Nice try, though.
Zorth
#Scoundrel
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2011
I find your suggestions quite satisfying Mr. Butt. Although I can't decide if I'd rather have something along the lines of The Force Unleashed or God of War where you are exploding with power and make combo breaking monster attacks (hack n' slash), or, a step into the RPG combat like you yourself suggested. I guess the hack n' slash road would be just taking the current combat and injecting it with steroids since we already in most Zelda games have faced weak enemies (often in groups) that we easily defeat by mashing the B button. Going for something like Dragon Age has would definitely give more replay value since you'd have so many choices to make of how you want to progress through the game (long rage fighter with the bow, melee monster, magical witch, tech dude with gadgets like bombs/hookshots/other stuff). Obviously, if done right, both combat systems would give the franchise a refreshing new feel.
:bunnylink::bunnylink::bunnylink::wolf::wolf::malon::eight:
:Edjinn::walrus::majora::kirby::kirby::kirby::yes:
:bunnylink::bunnylink::bunnylink::wolf::wolf::malon::eight:
:Edjinn::walrus::majora::kirby::kirby::kirby::yes:
Jamie
Till the roof comes off, till the lights go out...
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2014
- Gender
- trans-pan-demi-ethno-christian-math-autis-genderfluid-cheesecake
JJ I am going to do you the favor of letting you know that the HOT is, pardon my french, ****ing with you. This is not meant to be insulting, but do you generally find you are a dense and/or gullible person? Because his 3-0 post was obviously a joke (saying that Ubisoft created Starcraft 2, and that Battlenet is their software).
JuicieJ
SHOW ME YA MOVES!
Does that answer your question?
You never really know when people are trolling or not in situations like this anymore, because unfortunately, the world is full of people who are really that stupid. I've seen it far too often, especially on YouTube.
Jamie
Till the roof comes off, till the lights go out...
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2014
- Gender
- trans-pan-demi-ethno-christian-math-autis-genderfluid-cheesecake
Yeah, but do you know what Battlenet and Starcraft 2 are? No one on the planet thinks that Battlenet is the platform for Ubisoft, he even said in a previous post that it was Uplay. I understand if you are not too familiar with Blizzard where some confusion could come from on your part, though.
Sorry for derailing the thread for a bit, this'll be my last off-topic post.
Sorry for derailing the thread for a bit, this'll be my last off-topic post.
Garo
Boy Wonder
I might take a lot of flak for this, but: I am with Egoraptor on this. I would rather see simplistic, rudimentary combat over Skyward Sword-style combat.
Combat in the series has always, to me, felt like an afterthought. It never really felt like something that was an integral part to what the series is. My favorite stretches of any given game are those without, or at least with minimal, combat. The long stretches where it's just puzzles, or just exploring an area. Those are so much more engaging and involving than any segment where a creature pops out and demands my attention. And that's ultimately the sticking point: it demands my attention. It forces me to take my gaze off what I want to be looking at - the rooms and the dungeon design and the puzzles it presents - and instead look at this creature that I've likely seen and killed before, and kill it in a way very similar to the way I killed the creature in the previous room. Combat has always been a gating mechanism that prevents me from solving the game's puzzles too quickly. It's a step up from filler fetch quest content.
So I would love to see it stripped down. If it must be included, and I feel that at this juncture expecting a Zelda game without content is a very stupid thing to do, then it should be as unobtrusive as possible. Quick disposal with as little distraction from the rest of the game as possible.
...but I find that's an inelegant solution, because to tell the truth, I think there's a lot of promise with the game's combat system. The problem is that there are two huge obstacles in the way of that combat system becoming truly engaging.
1) It is fundamentally disconnected from the puzzle solving, and as such requires players to divert their attention...
2) ...which means that combat cannot be too complicated or involved, as making it so would result in the frustration of players who desire to focus on puzzle solving.
I feel that this twofold problem is a large part of the reason that combat has never been particularly difficult. Making it difficult would further gate the puzzle content beyond this wall of challenging combat. It'd make the interruption of a puzzle in progress with the sudden appearance of a Wolfos (a very familiar occurrence for anyone who has played the N64 titles) a significant ordeal rather than the minor annoyance it currently is. Skyward Sword took some baby steps toward making combat difficult and compelling, but because it was still inherently separate from puzzle solving - but still forced to occur simultaneously, as monsters populated dungeons and the overworld with relative regularity - it frustrated a lot of people who felt forced to sit and wait while they disposed of monsters, almost universally by waiting for an opening and striking. This method of combat - waiting for openings and taking advantages of weak points - is compelling. It's fun. It's tactical and it's awesome. But it's problematic when you have to play a game of tactics to get back to the puzzle you were just solving.
Basically, the series' combat is getting its toothpaste into my puzzle-solving peanut butter, and I don't like it.
I've often harped on how I feel like the series should embrace non-traditional storytelling methods and take a more non-linear approach to things. I think A Link Between Worlds was a wonderful step forward in both regards, and really enjoyed it. It even had more simplistic combat that still had some degree of depth! But it still had the problem of combat intruding on puzzle solving. So while the series is making baby steps toward my ideal vision for what Zelda could and should be, it's not quite there yet.
But I know what it looks like! My ideal Zelda game, though one that I am fully aware will almost never actually happen, is one that features a more or less open world divided into a series of zones (or districts, or regions, or whatever you want to call them). In each zone there lies a dungeon that you must complete (naturally). Completing the dungeon nets you an item that allows you to explore more dungeons (still sounds familiar). But, like A Link Between Worlds, there are avenues you can pursue to do the dungeons out of the intended order.
Here's the catch: the entire open world is deserted. No NPCs, no monsters, nothing. Just empty ruins and constructs that you have to explore and solve puzzles in. You go through the dungeons and start to encounter a few monsters here and there - always as minibosses or "kill all the enemies in this room" challenges, rather than just randomly wandering monsters. The minute you complete the dungeon (not by defeating a boss!), the zone you're in "wakes up," and monsters and NPCs suddenly appear. No longer are there puzzles to solve in this region; just monsters to kill. There's a boss that is wholly separate from the dungeon, and you have to kill your way through a labyrinth of sorts to reach him. Killing the boss "clears" the zone.
I like this idea because it introduces character-free storytelling by forcing Link to discover things about the world in a ruined state; think Metroid Prime-esque storytelling. It also does the wonderful thing of separating puzzle-solving from combat, allowing them both to be complex and compelling without causing frustration. I don't have to rush to kill a monster because I was in the middle of a puzzle, I can just leisurely work through both the puzzles in the game and the combat encounters, thinking about each of them in smart and tactical ways.
TL;DR? Separate combat from puzzle solving, which would allow for sufficiently deep combat systems, or keep it simple and quick.
Combat in the series has always, to me, felt like an afterthought. It never really felt like something that was an integral part to what the series is. My favorite stretches of any given game are those without, or at least with minimal, combat. The long stretches where it's just puzzles, or just exploring an area. Those are so much more engaging and involving than any segment where a creature pops out and demands my attention. And that's ultimately the sticking point: it demands my attention. It forces me to take my gaze off what I want to be looking at - the rooms and the dungeon design and the puzzles it presents - and instead look at this creature that I've likely seen and killed before, and kill it in a way very similar to the way I killed the creature in the previous room. Combat has always been a gating mechanism that prevents me from solving the game's puzzles too quickly. It's a step up from filler fetch quest content.
So I would love to see it stripped down. If it must be included, and I feel that at this juncture expecting a Zelda game without content is a very stupid thing to do, then it should be as unobtrusive as possible. Quick disposal with as little distraction from the rest of the game as possible.
...but I find that's an inelegant solution, because to tell the truth, I think there's a lot of promise with the game's combat system. The problem is that there are two huge obstacles in the way of that combat system becoming truly engaging.
1) It is fundamentally disconnected from the puzzle solving, and as such requires players to divert their attention...
2) ...which means that combat cannot be too complicated or involved, as making it so would result in the frustration of players who desire to focus on puzzle solving.
I feel that this twofold problem is a large part of the reason that combat has never been particularly difficult. Making it difficult would further gate the puzzle content beyond this wall of challenging combat. It'd make the interruption of a puzzle in progress with the sudden appearance of a Wolfos (a very familiar occurrence for anyone who has played the N64 titles) a significant ordeal rather than the minor annoyance it currently is. Skyward Sword took some baby steps toward making combat difficult and compelling, but because it was still inherently separate from puzzle solving - but still forced to occur simultaneously, as monsters populated dungeons and the overworld with relative regularity - it frustrated a lot of people who felt forced to sit and wait while they disposed of monsters, almost universally by waiting for an opening and striking. This method of combat - waiting for openings and taking advantages of weak points - is compelling. It's fun. It's tactical and it's awesome. But it's problematic when you have to play a game of tactics to get back to the puzzle you were just solving.
Basically, the series' combat is getting its toothpaste into my puzzle-solving peanut butter, and I don't like it.
I've often harped on how I feel like the series should embrace non-traditional storytelling methods and take a more non-linear approach to things. I think A Link Between Worlds was a wonderful step forward in both regards, and really enjoyed it. It even had more simplistic combat that still had some degree of depth! But it still had the problem of combat intruding on puzzle solving. So while the series is making baby steps toward my ideal vision for what Zelda could and should be, it's not quite there yet.
But I know what it looks like! My ideal Zelda game, though one that I am fully aware will almost never actually happen, is one that features a more or less open world divided into a series of zones (or districts, or regions, or whatever you want to call them). In each zone there lies a dungeon that you must complete (naturally). Completing the dungeon nets you an item that allows you to explore more dungeons (still sounds familiar). But, like A Link Between Worlds, there are avenues you can pursue to do the dungeons out of the intended order.
Here's the catch: the entire open world is deserted. No NPCs, no monsters, nothing. Just empty ruins and constructs that you have to explore and solve puzzles in. You go through the dungeons and start to encounter a few monsters here and there - always as minibosses or "kill all the enemies in this room" challenges, rather than just randomly wandering monsters. The minute you complete the dungeon (not by defeating a boss!), the zone you're in "wakes up," and monsters and NPCs suddenly appear. No longer are there puzzles to solve in this region; just monsters to kill. There's a boss that is wholly separate from the dungeon, and you have to kill your way through a labyrinth of sorts to reach him. Killing the boss "clears" the zone.
I like this idea because it introduces character-free storytelling by forcing Link to discover things about the world in a ruined state; think Metroid Prime-esque storytelling. It also does the wonderful thing of separating puzzle-solving from combat, allowing them both to be complex and compelling without causing frustration. I don't have to rush to kill a monster because I was in the middle of a puzzle, I can just leisurely work through both the puzzles in the game and the combat encounters, thinking about each of them in smart and tactical ways.
TL;DR? Separate combat from puzzle solving, which would allow for sufficiently deep combat systems, or keep it simple and quick.