Quote
So for many situations the game plays completely differently? I would consider that making the game twice. It's just an insane amount of work.
Mounted combat is one situation, and like I said,
theory. Aiming in first-person mode using the controller would be obvious but wouldn't be "magical" in the least, as Reggie put it.
Quote
Waving my arm is only immersive if the character responds exactly as I moved my arm. Otherwise it's just a more difficult way of doing a button press. It has to be incredibly responsive and Nintendo just doesn't have the time to make Zelda have that kind of control while still making the game completely playable and GOOD on the Cube.
While I'm not going to claim that I have any clue how plausible or non-plausible it is, I DO know that you lack the same knowledge. Connecting the point in 3D space to a wireframe model might be easier than you'd think, or it could be harder. All I'm saying is that ruling it out on a technical basis is impossible because no one here knows what the system will and will not do.
Quote
Plus immersion isn't the purpose of games. That's just a BS term American devs who making boring realistic games use. Immersion is the purpose of virtual reality or simulation and that's not the same thing as gaming. The real purpose of gaming is to provide entertainment. And a game is much more entertaining if the controls are as easy to use. So if something can be assigned to a mere button press it should because it's precise and easier to do than anything. Motion control should only be used when it provides an easier way to control the game and in Zelda's case it wouldn't. It would either be more physically tiring for the user for no reason or if used properly it would make the sword fighting considerably more complex then it really needs to.
Immersion isn't the
purpose, having
fun is the purpose and immersion is very often a means to that end. MGS, ED, and RE4 were all fun games because they had storylines which pull the player into them: if you're involved, you're immersed. What's the likelihood of enjoying a game when I can't give two sh*ts about the story and its characters (aka PD0)?
Moreover, what you consider complex and tiring, I might consider fun and engaging. I don't think games today are in danger of being too complex, quite the opposite. Most games are so devoid of depth and complexity that it's shameful. I hate when developers tone down a game in order to appeal to a broader audience for fear that the idiot masses won't be able to relate to the game because there's too much thinking required.
Quote
Part of Zelda's charm is that it has always allowed you to do so much with minimal button pressing while at the same time making you feel in control. Things like assigning items to a button and the auto-jump and z-targeting and context sensitive buttons are all examples of this. And the game is always designed so perfectly that none of these things feel like a limitation. There is never a situation where you need a jump button so auto-jump works. In Link's Awakening I can only use two items at once including my sword but I never need to use more than two at once. A part of the beauty of Zelda is that you can have an exciting sword fight with only a few button presses and everything is easy to pull off and very natural. Once you start having motion controlled fighting suddenly things are way more complex and with Zelda that's kind of losing the point. That's ultimately why Zelda clones have never been in the same league as the real thing. The copycats always think they can improve the formula by making things more complicated.
Waiting for the "counter" signal to appear so you can mash the A button is not "exciting". I play Zelda because the puzzles are enjoyable, as are the bosses. The regular fighting encounters are boring and not worth the return in actually doing them, especially when the enemies respawn whenever you reenter the room.
I distinctly remember that, in OoT, I was shocked when the female Gerudo prison guards were actually able to hit me with my shield up because it was the first time in the entire game where the melee combat was forcing me to think beyond "shield, attack, repeat". Windwaker was ridiculously easy, the only "challenge" coming from
Ganondorf's fight at the end (and I only burned 2 of 3 fairies on that one).
I'm not advocating a full revamp of Zelda from the ground up to use the Revmote, but I think the incorporation of the controller into the game for something "magical" (as Reggie himself put it) is going to entail something more than a fishing minigame.
Quote
Originally posted by: mantidor
Its not presumptuous. remember OoT? the big Poes that went away in a straight line when you were in horseback? that was made that way because if the ghost start dancing around the horse it would be simply imposible to hit it with an arrow, analog stick doesnt offer that kind of presicion, but apparently the new remote does, that alone opens a whole lot of posibilities for enemies, and it would indeed be a waste if they just map the remote to hit a poe who goes into a straight line. This is a very simple example of the care that Nintendo puts in design, and if they promise to make the best zelda game ever, we have no option but to get absurdly hyped for it, and espect at least the same level of care in the design.
Fair enough, but remember that I'm just tossing out a theory here. I don't know what they actually intend to do, although, by Reggie's own words, I'm confident that they intend to do
something which involves the Revmote in some part of the actual gameplay (and not a minigame).
Topic: LoZ: TP delayed until Nov... (Read 21817 times)
