Sequelitis covers LttP and OoT

Moderators: Booyakasha, Marilink

User avatar
The Missing Link
Posts: 21402
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2000 2:00 am
Location: New Hyrule, VIC, Australia
Contact:

Sequelitis covers LttP and OoT

#1

Post by The Missing Link » Tue Jul 01, 2014 11:31 pm

As always, the standard Egoraptor disclaimer: NSFW

[MEDIA=youtube]XOC3vixnj_0[/MEDIA]
Carpe Pullum Domesticum! (Seize the Cucco!) Image

User avatar
Apiary Tazy
Posts: 29455
Joined: Thu Sep 14, 2000 1:00 am
Location: Flipping a Switch
Has thanked: 36 times
Been thanked: 152 times
Contact:

#2

Post by Apiary Tazy » Wed Jul 02, 2014 12:27 am

I don't want to see this, but I'll do it anyway.

EDIT: It's... mostly what I expected.

A lot of it sounds like nagging, but it has a good point at the center, that OoT is a game that despite pushing the game into the third dimension, and having a lot of good about it, is mostly held down by what is expected in a Zelda game combined with the intent to make the game deeper. While I may not agree with the idea that everything has to be Zelda 1 to be better as a Zelda game, the old Ocarina style and formula has started to wear out its welcome and Skyward Sword is a testament to this. What changed stands out does so because of all the things that stubbornly stayed the same. You may remember the sprint meter and the motion controls but its just additions on the same mechanics and concepts that have been around since the N64. Good news is that A) Aonuma has expressed willingness to change the formula, and B) Zelda is showing more of the flexibility that I enjoy from Nintendo franchises. The willingness to bend what we expect and turn it into something else.

The- The video was good, but it just seems like nitpicking on a game made during the time of FF7 and FMVs. It's just a reminder not to follow that train route anymore.

User avatar
DarkZero
Posts: 34925
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2007 2:15 pm
Has thanked: 341 times
Been thanked: 815 times
Contact:

#3

Post by DarkZero » Wed Jul 02, 2014 1:14 am

I saw this earlier today. It's based more on his opinion on what he wants a game to deliver more than any sort of objective game design theory. And as anyone who's watched even a little Game Grumps knows, Egoraptor is not a patient person, so a lot of his criticisms of OOT are based on how long it takes to do things relative to LttP. Not all of them, but that's still a sizable portion of his rant.

My opinions on this; he does make a lot of valid criticisms. There are a lot of things in OOT that either lack polish or were unnecessary. Enemies should have been more suited for the combat system implemented, things like warping or crossing Hyrule Field should be quicker, and more plot elements should factor into the experience of the player rather than just there. But his statements about the game's pacing is all his personal opinion on what a game should be rather than anything that has to do with the game failing execution. I think OOT and it's successors are all-around designed to be played a little more patiently than your top-down Zelda.

Also this is not entirely relevant to the video but I feel like maybe the only person who didn't totally enjoy ALBW. It was well-designed and all but it didn't hold my interest except for dungeons.
Join the VGF Discord server! https://discord.gg/pbSDTAZ
Also if any admins are reading this, please let me into Nameless!

User avatar
Deepfake
Supermod
Posts: 41460
Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2002 1:00 am
Location: Enough. My tilde has tired and shall take its leave of you.
Has thanked: 382 times
Been thanked: 184 times
Contact:

#4

Post by Deepfake » Wed Jul 02, 2014 2:49 am

Well, the waiting does get pretty annoying, and in Skyward Sword they actually ramped that up as much as possible. He does seem to miss the point that the arbitrary checkpoints were designed to actually stretch out that very meager empty game world that they could make - I mean the path to the goron's place is so small it isn't even a straight line out to a slightly distant location, as the Zora cave (yes, it's just a single cave) is, it literally doubles back on itself twice. You have to get access to the first dungeon by talking to Zelda because of the necessity of the contrived story elements - otherwise, you could finish the first dungeon and then the next two dungeons without meeting Zelda, and then when you went to meet Zelda the first time, she would be fleeing, and then they'd... oh, wait this would've made the story better. Because then Zelda is being chased by a guy on a flaming black horse the first time you see her, and you could, I dunno, search the palace grounds for the ocarina. This is a symptom of bolting on the story afterwards and not having a decent editor.

But really, the whole point is to get Link to walk back and forth over the same stretch of land a couple more times, and make sure he's up to speed on the rather dry plot points. There are better ways to handle this than with NPCs, but it's already been said enough times that they were very low on storage capacity. The design had to account for it. Patience isn't a design feature, but it's a means to an end - hence why the music isn't full-bore the whole way through the game, there's a lot of quiet and a lot of emptiness.

Saying that's the entirety of the video's criticism isn't realistic, though, sticking an eye on the wall isn't a puzzle and the targeting system actually substitutes waiting/timing for aiming. What do you do when a game series' mechanics are almost entirely designed around something you can't do any more? OoT's mechanics were almost always going to happen, because it's necessary for classic Zelda fans to see the developers making an attempt to be reticent with the series.
I muttered 'light as a board, stiff as a feather' for 2 days straight and now I've ascended, ;aughing at olympus and zeus is crying

User avatar
X-3
Moderator
Posts: 24040
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 2:00 am
Location: noiɈɒɔo⅃
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 221 times

#5

Post by X-3 » Wed Jul 02, 2014 2:54 am

He has some points that kind of make sense, but I've almost forgot which ones those are. A lot of bad things in OoT like the length of time it takes to switch between worlds seem more like design choices that, like AI said, are designed around the system's limitations. Child and Adult Link are never really used in the same way as the Light and Dark worlds, anyway.

-I never really got that feeling from Z-Targeting, especially considering it's triggered or ended at the push of a button. Always seemed more like an alternate camera angle to make the game's combat not frustrating, which is why lock-on continues to exist in many 3D games today. And let's say that Egoraptor is right, and the targeting system does separate exploration and combat. So what?
-His rant about spiked things/boulders coming out of no where makes no sense. These obstacles follow an easy pattern that one can easily gather from watching rather than running in.
-He later contradicts ^ that point by suggesting an enemy for platforming that sounds suspiciously like the spiked obstacles he was just complaining about.
-His thing on chests doesn't make sense when you consider that most dungeon item chests in OoT are preceded by a mini-boss fight or a challenge similar to those found in LttP. Whether LttP or OoT has more better chest anticipation is completely subjective. I always thought LttP's Big Keys were like getting a letter that says "IOU a puppy" for Christmas as opposed to an actual puppy.
-I can understand getting impatient by the slow moving NPC text, but enemies? They don't even really have invincibility frames, like they do in say Wind Waker, save maybe those **** Lizardos.
-I question whether making an optional item like the Ice Rod the weakness of a boss is a good idea. Sure, people who explore everything may think that's a chill idea (I certainly think it's kind of neat), but what about someone who didn't explore and find it before Turtle Rock?
-We get it, Skyward Sword was Hitler's benefactor.
-Where's that DAMN Outset Island shield?

I mean yeah, ultimately I think LttP is the better game, but it's not really because of what he listed out in the video.

User avatar
Deepfake
Supermod
Posts: 41460
Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2002 1:00 am
Location: Enough. My tilde has tired and shall take its leave of you.
Has thanked: 382 times
Been thanked: 184 times
Contact:

#6

Post by Deepfake » Wed Jul 02, 2014 3:05 am

[QUOTE="X-3, post: 1473452, member: 27765"]They don't even really have invincibility frames, like they do in say Wind Waker, save maybe those ****ing Lizardos.[/QUOTE]
Actually, OoT breaks it down into intelligent/usually-humanoid enemies which are intelligent/require more blocking, etc, and obstacle-like enemies such as bats which home in and potentially complicate other situations. Any humanoid enemy tends to have auto-block sequences where they can't really be damaged, including the Wolfos which has nothing to block with. WW fixed this with the sideways roll maneuver.
I muttered 'light as a board, stiff as a feather' for 2 days straight and now I've ascended, ;aughing at olympus and zeus is crying

User avatar
X-3
Moderator
Posts: 24040
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 2:00 am
Location: noiɈɒɔo⅃
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 221 times

#7

Post by X-3 » Wed Jul 02, 2014 3:15 am

Yeah, I guess that's true. Maybe I was thinking too narrowly. When talking about invincibility frames, I was thinking more about moments where you're clearly striking the enemy and they're clearly not blocking but the hit just goes through them completely, as if you're hitting air. When it comes to OoT I think only Lizardos pull that, if they're running away from you. Enemies in OoT otherwise block or take damage.

In Wind Waker that "sword hitting air" effect happens literally every time you knock down an enemy, which leads to lulls where you have to wait for the enemy to get up and move a bit. It's not particularly exciting compared to trying to strike a Stalfos when they aren't blocking.

User avatar
I am nobody
Moderator
Posts: 13489
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 7:26 pm
Location: -89.97814998,-42.2333493
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 239 times

#8

Post by I am nobody » Wed Jul 02, 2014 8:38 am

My thoughts:

- This is exactly what I was referring to with (I think) Bolt in the LBW thread a while back. Zelda "puzzles" almost always consist of finding pieces that work together in painfully obvious ways. The challenge in what I consider a good puzzle comes entirely from figuring out how to make the pieces you already have work to accomplish a goal. The reverse of that is a scavenger hunt, and I hate them passionately. OoT was mostly the latter.

- I disagree strongly on the combat. Waiting is not necessarily a bad thing, and his example of Skies of Arcadia is actually a perfect example of that. SoA has one of the most strategic battle systems I've seen in a game, but the critical difference is that its challenge comes from resource management and planning out when its safe to attack. That kind of challenge can't come without waiting.
And really, waiting in combat isn't even bad in an action game. Look at Dark Souls and all its defense-heavy enemies.

- That said, I actually agree that OoT's combat was flawed because of its speed, along with literally everything else about it. Presumably because of some engine/hardware limit on frame rate or animation speed, the entire world felt to me like it was in slow motion. Link does not jump, run, swing a sword, or even fall at the speed of a real person, and neither do most of the enemies. This makes it impossible to have the sudden, deadly strikes that are so rewarding in Dark Souls. Instead, we get enemies that reveal their weak spots for no reason at all (I'm looking at you, suicidal Skulltulas) and then just kind of leave them their for you to hit at your earliest convenience.

- The biggest problem with the quest design of OoT for me is the disconnect between the very linear progression of the game and how illogical many of its story triggers are. The sections where NPC A wants you to find random items hidden almost entirely randomly in the new hub area feel mismatched with the game as a whole. (Why would I play a diving game in order to find the Zora King's daughter? All the minigames have been totally optional before now.)

- The last major problem for me is the fact that the open world is too empty. Traversing Hyrule Field sucks because, particularly if you're crossing it during the day as young Link, there's practically nothing there. Crossing large fields (or oceans) can be plenty of fun if you give me enemies to fight, scenery to see, and secrets to find along the way, but Hyrule Field largely does not. And you have to cross it just short of infinity times using Link's weird moon movement.


WW and TP mostly fixed the problems I had with OoT, so I don't think there was a critical flaw with the series. OoT felt like the result of good ideas held back by the (lack of) power and unfamiliarity of the hardware. Skyward Sword was the result of abruptly forgetting everything about game design they learned between OoT and TP.

User avatar
Marilink
Supermod
Posts: 43711
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2001 1:00 am
Location: avatar credit @SkyeRoxy_ on Twitter
Has thanked: 373 times
Been thanked: 745 times
Contact:

#9

Post by Marilink » Wed Jul 02, 2014 8:44 am

Man, a lot of SS bashing up in here. Apparently I'm the only Zelda fan that still legitimately likes that game.

I'll post my thoughts on the Egoraptor video when I get a chance to watch it.
Carthago delendum est

User avatar
Saria Dragon of the Rain Wilds
Administrator
Posts: 34020
Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2000 1:00 am
Location: Forteresse de Valois
Has thanked: 38 times
Been thanked: 32 times

#10

Post by Saria Dragon of the Rain Wilds » Wed Jul 02, 2014 9:41 am

You can criticise things you like, ML. Sometimes, in spite of its horrendous flaws, you'll still enjoy something.
Nonsense, I have not yet begun to defile myself.

User avatar
Marilink
Supermod
Posts: 43711
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2001 1:00 am
Location: avatar credit @SkyeRoxy_ on Twitter
Has thanked: 373 times
Been thanked: 745 times
Contact:

#11

Post by Marilink » Wed Jul 02, 2014 10:14 am

^Yeah, I totally get that. It's just that most of the SS criticism I see (in general, not necessarily here) is wholly dismissive of the game. But maybe that's a discussion for a separate thread.

In fact, it's funny you should say that, because I was kinda going to make that same point in response to the Egoraptor vid: I agree with a lot (not all) of the points he brings up about OoT, despite still loving that game to death.

Like Ian, I don't think the waiting in combat was necessarily bad, but maybe a little overdone. And as for puzzles, I don't really see where he's coming from on this one, since there are still puzzles in OoT and I don't think the 3D perspective hampers them like he seems to think. Why does solving a problem to unlock a door not count as a puzzle? And they spike traps move in a circle...I don't think that's terribly hard to figure out.

The fetch quests may have been boring, but I don't think it's fair for Egoraptor to dismiss the story as "misdirection" and superfluous just because there are some plot triggers. For instance, his comparison from the LttP Mirror to the OoT Temple of Time was, IMO, not exactly warranted, because the Temple of Time was meant to contextualize the time travel as a whole. They could have had you switch from kid to adult on a whim, but they wanted you to think about why you were doing it--and I don't think that contextualizing is a bad thing like he seems to think. And besides, it really doesn't take that long, for Pete's sake.

I don't think the addition of story to Zelda is a bad thing. Different, yes, but not bad. As someone pointed out, just because something isn't exactly like Zelda 1 doesn't make it a flaw. I like LBW because it's a good friggin' game, not because it's so similar to LttP.

And yes, there are things wrong with OoT. The world is empty, the exploration is limited, the fetch quests are tiresome. But this was also the dawn of console 3D, and that wasn't an easy transition to make. Egoraptor makes good points here (boss sameness, false suspense [which I still don't really mind], empty world, etc.). I still love OoT.

Sorry if this post doesn't flow very logically, I'm writing it in small chunks on my phone between shelving library books.
Carthago delendum est

User avatar
The Missing Link
Posts: 21402
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2000 2:00 am
Location: New Hyrule, VIC, Australia
Contact:

#12

Post by The Missing Link » Wed Jul 02, 2014 11:53 am

With regards to waiting, I don't think his big complaint is that there is some waiting. It's that there's a LOT of waiting.

If you go with the video, he called out four or five enemies that are effectively clones of one another; I didn't actually realize that until just now, that Wolfos were essentially glorified Lizalfos. Sure, they look different, but they're not different. It's totally find for one or two of them to have waiting as an element, but there are a lot of them that do that.

The other interesting thing that he didn't cover but I find is interesting is that, if you have one of those wait-loving enemies Z-targeted, only that enemy will ever attack you. Or at least it's only highly likely that that enemy will attack you. The others kind of go with the flow, encouraging you use the system. The game changes fundamentally when you go into Z-targeting mode, and that's kind of fascinating in its own right.

For what it's worth, I don't think Egoraptor is criticizing the inclusion of story into Zelda, ML. Because he says that LttP's story was a good thing. The difference I think is that ALttP streamlined the story whereas OoT streamlined the dungeons. I don't think there's anything wrong with contextualizing the player's quest, but I do think he's onto something with the claim that the player already wants to do those things. That is a hugely fair point. The game design premise here is that you don't want to limit the player's natural curiosity, and we can see this played out as the more "helpful" Link's helper becomes, the more we tend to hate him or her.

However, if since ALbW did get brought up, I have to say that ALbW was more akin to LoZ than ALttP was, if only because they don't really tell you where crap on the map is. Now granted, all of the dungeons and all of the king's horses secrets are hidden in the exact freaking spots as they were in the original game.... BUT the trick is that you do have to figure out to some degree how to get there.

Lastly with SS, god, he was spot on. Granted, there were things I *loved* about the game, but there were things I really REALLY *hated*. It's one of the critically low points of the series along with Spirit Tracks, and it made me question over and over again if the course of Zelda games weren't something I cared about... and if I would even bother buying the next Zelda.
Carpe Pullum Domesticum! (Seize the Cucco!) Image

User avatar
spooky scary bearatons
Posts: 7007
Joined: Tue Apr 11, 2006 12:35 pm
Location: Wales
Been thanked: 1 time
Contact:

#13

Post by spooky scary bearatons » Wed Jul 02, 2014 12:41 pm

[QUOTE="Marilink, post: 1473470, member: 23215"]Man, a lot of SS bashing up in here. Apparently I'm the only Zelda fan that still legitimately likes that game.

I'll post my thoughts on the Egoraptor video when I get a chance to watch it.[/QUOTE]

you're not the only one brother

nah but real here i enjoyed skyward sword, i enjoyed phantom hourglass and i enjoyed spirit tracks, but thats just how i function if i find myself being able to play through a game and enjoy it in my eyes despite whatever flaws it has its still a damn good game.

i mean christ my utter favourite game in the series is wind waker which i see get slammed more often than not
"whether you have or have no wealth, the system might fail you, but don't fail yourself" -
GET BETTER - dan le sac Vs Scroobius Pip

User avatar
Marilink
Supermod
Posts: 43711
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2001 1:00 am
Location: avatar credit @SkyeRoxy_ on Twitter
Has thanked: 373 times
Been thanked: 745 times
Contact:

#14

Post by Marilink » Wed Jul 02, 2014 1:04 pm

^Actually, the Zelda cycle has come around far enough to the point that you might be in the WW-favorite majority.
Carthago delendum est

User avatar
spooky scary bearatons
Posts: 7007
Joined: Tue Apr 11, 2006 12:35 pm
Location: Wales
Been thanked: 1 time
Contact:

#15

Post by spooky scary bearatons » Wed Jul 02, 2014 3:29 pm

razz since when did that happen hahahahaha
"whether you have or have no wealth, the system might fail you, but don't fail yourself" -
GET BETTER - dan le sac Vs Scroobius Pip

User avatar
Calamity Panfan
Moderator
Posts: 34367
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 1:00 am
Location: all posters post posts
Has thanked: 123 times
Been thanked: 507 times

#16

Post by Calamity Panfan » Wed Jul 02, 2014 3:36 pm

I think it's about time I replay Wind Waker. It's been years since I've played through the game. It's always been one of my least favorite Zelda games but its reputation seems to be really improving with time and I'm curious to see how I'll feel about it this time around.
and that's the waaaaaaaaaay the news goes

User avatar
Marilink
Supermod
Posts: 43711
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2001 1:00 am
Location: avatar credit @SkyeRoxy_ on Twitter
Has thanked: 373 times
Been thanked: 745 times
Contact:

#17

Post by Marilink » Wed Jul 02, 2014 3:39 pm

^^GamesRadar put Wind Waker at #5 on their 100 Best Games of All Time list. LttP was #9, and no other Zelda game was on the list.
Carthago delendum est

User avatar
X-3
Moderator
Posts: 24040
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 2:00 am
Location: noiɈɒɔo⅃
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 221 times

#18

Post by X-3 » Wed Jul 02, 2014 6:23 pm

[QUOTE="The Missing Link, post: 1473482, member: 19860"]
With regards to waiting, I don't think his big complaint is that there is some waiting. It's that there's a LOT of waiting.

If you go with the video, he called out four or five enemies that are effectively clones of one another; I didn't actually realize that until just now, that Wolfos were essentially glorified Lizalfos. Sure, they look different, but they're not different. It's totally find for one or two of them to have waiting as an element, but there are a lot of them that do that.[/QUOTE]

If you're breaking down enemies to that level, LttP's enemies are all the same and Helmasaur King, Arrghus, Kohldstare and Trinexx are all the same boss.

Of course, simplifying LttP like that doesn't serve as a good retort to your main point, that OoT has a lot of waiting in combat. However, I don't think that waiting ever becomes necessarily a bad thing in OoT, and Ego makes it sound a lot more boring than it actually is. It's strange that he praises the Iron Knuckle so much, when winning that fight essentially DOES boil down to "waiting".

OoT's combat design is different, but not necessarily worse. I feel that the real problem with OoT's combat is not that its design is flawed for its reliance on defense, but that technological limitations (mmmm 15 fps power of the cloud baby) make this combat seem clunky and slower than it actually is. It's clearly a failure of execution due to technology if anything, but Ego makes it (and other things) seem as if it's just bad design.

On an unrelated note, the Skulltula also loses its invulnerability and thus the "waiting" when you become an Adult, which gives you a feeling of the progression of power. (one of the reasons I love the Forest Temple)

man I hope I didn't make a huge contradiction or something

User avatar
The Missing Link
Posts: 21402
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2000 2:00 am
Location: New Hyrule, VIC, Australia
Contact:

#19

Post by The Missing Link » Wed Jul 02, 2014 11:50 pm

X-3, post: 1473527, member: 27765 wrote:If you're breaking down enemies to that level, LttP's enemies are all the same and Helmasaur King, Arrghus, Kohldstare and Trinexx are all the same boss.
I see what you're getting at... but I also really don't see what you're getting at. If you're saying, "Oh, each of those bosses have armor of some sort that you have to remove first before you can actually attack them for real," well... okay, but that's being a little overzealous about it, don't you think?
Stalfos, Deku scrubs, lizard men, skulltulas, wolf dudes, Gerudo, clams!?
Tossing out Deku scrubs (and possibly clams) for just a moment because they don't fit the narrative exactly to the point, what honestly is the difference between the remainder of those enemies in the moment-to-moment interplay between enemy and player? With Stalfos, you wait until they provoke the attack, and then you (optionally) stun them and sword them. Gerudo? Almost the identically same tell-tale sign, you stun them and kill them. Lizalfos? Same deal. Wolfos? Same deal? Those enemies have the identical strategy insofar what the player has to do to kill them. Almost all of the enemies in this list have the exact same movement rules as all the others (save that Lizalfos hop around a little bit).

As for the bosses that you mentioned in ALttP move different, have different projectiles and/or environmental effects that you have to dodge. Some of them have two attacks that can happen simultaneously. And almost all of them have different moment-to-moment gameplay.

With Helmasaur King, there are safe spots in the lower corners of the room from the tail, but they may not be safe spots from the fireballs. And plus you can't attack from there, so you have to figure out how to do damage while at the same time watching the rest of his body for the tail attack.

Arrghus is a battle of exact positioning. During his attack, there are safe spots, but you can also do damage from those safe spots. Otherwise, the battle becomes increasingly about finding the exact position to snipe the last doohickey. And then once done, you have to predict his movement pattern, hit him, and then find a place out of the way so he doesn't sneak attack you.

Kholdstare's first form isn't really a fight, but the remainder of the fight is about dodging environmental effects and three equivalent forms of the boss, all of which are in motion.

Trinexx's first form isn't that difficult, but if you give it time, the ice head will create ice on the ground, which impedes movement. Stun and do damage to one thing while something else is legally allowed to shoot at you. The last form of the boss is vaguely like Moldorm in some ways, except that this boss has much more purpose in attacking you than the aimless wanderings of Moldorm and with significantly more dire results if he knocks you off the platform.

It is pretty impossible to think that the same configuration of button presses could kill any of them because there's frenetic dodging involved in each of those. Whereas each of the OoT enemies in the sublist above practically has the same input sequence needed to kill it with just a difference in the exact timing of when those buttons take place.
However, I don't think that waiting ever becomes necessarily a bad thing in OoT, and Ego makes it sound a lot more boring than it actually is.
See, maybe it's my impression here, but I don't think that he's necessarily saying waiting = bad in ALL cases. Waiting for attacks of opportunity requires careful coordination to keep an eye on the enemy to watch for his movements. But next time you face multiple Lizalfos or Stalfos in a game, Z-target one and watch what happens to the other. Quite literally, so long as you make some amount of movement with the control stick and Z-target one, the other WILL NOT attack. Which is kind of silly strategy for the enemy. Not faulting it necessarily because it might have been a technical limitation (or even a perception of fairness to the player), but once you realize the trick of what's happening, the proverbial veil is lifted.
It's strange that he praises the Iron Knuckle so much, when winning that fight essentially DOES boil down to "waiting".
Which is funny, because if you listen to the video, he precisely claims the opposite. His concept of waiting is defined by the pace of the battle being controlled by the enemy. There is literally nothing you can do -- provided you do it perfectly -- to speed up a battle with a Stalfos. But with the Iron Knuckle, that's not the case. You have to provoke the attack, wait for the death zone to disappear, and then intercede with your own attack. You control the pace of the battle, not the enemy. That's his point.
It's clearly a failure of execution due to technology if anything, but Ego makes it (and other things) seem as if it's just bad design.
I'd say you need a citation needed on that, but we really can't know. However, the natural response to this could be, "Well, if technology limits you so that you can't create all that many interesting and fun experiences, then you need to redesign it. Anything less, therefore, is bad design." Now, that's perhaps a little overzealous as I know that features that were planned on and strongly wanted get cut, therefore requiring workarounds and hacks at the last minute.

However, more than technical limitation, I would argue that the result is more due to the likelihood that the designers were still experimenting with 3D space and figuring out what made sense with it. I would blame the enemy design on naïveté rather than technological limitation, though in fact it may be a little bit of both.

But you know, the real testament behind it all depends upon whether or not Nintendo learned their lessons or not...

Image

NOPE
Carpe Pullum Domesticum! (Seize the Cucco!) Image

User avatar
Deepfake
Supermod
Posts: 41460
Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2002 1:00 am
Location: Enough. My tilde has tired and shall take its leave of you.
Has thanked: 382 times
Been thanked: 184 times
Contact:

#20

Post by Deepfake » Thu Jul 03, 2014 2:35 am

One of the problems I do have with Zelda enemies, and combat in such a primitive engine, is the homing combat. In LttP there are a handful of hyper-aggressive enemies which come after the player, the most aggressive of which are the darknuts, which are fairly low-power. The first Zelda game has almost no homing enemies, save for (kind of peahats) and (maybe Darknuts). What it (and occasionally LttP) does that gives the enemies a feeling of intellect and not simply obstacle, is the enemies actually change their behaviors due to the player's location in relation to theirselves - they may become more active or erratic.

This actually also reflects an ongoing problem that Retro Studios struggled to accomodate in the Metroid: Prime series. With its lock-on targeting, circle strafing, etc, the game is actually more of a first-person evolution of the 3D Zelda formula than Nintendo lets on, and the series possesses many similar issues when adapting to 3D. The most obvious of which is how to deal with aggressive enemies, when the player's movement and spacial awareness has been severely dampened. The first Prime game is rather obviously the most laid-back, with almost no presence of high-intelligence enemies in early areas. Enemies can be broken down into rather obvious groups of hazards such as the geemer, aggressive hazard which may charge you in a straight line but will stay put for the most part, and then finally sentient and maneuverable enemies which approach/intend to thwart the player and may even use cover.

The most aggressive and erratic in the first Prime are probably the Chozo ghosts, the least aggressive is probably the entirely passive grass-like organism which either slows or damages you on contact or the tentacle with a claw which is entirely fixed to the wall and you simply have to not run into it. What I felt N64 games and especially almost all 3D Zeldas have done, is confuse their difficulty scale with the damage scale - they use many homing/aggressive enemies up front and rather erroneously. The very first enemy in Ocarina is actually a single boulder which rolls in a loop, it cannot be harmed but it must be avoided. This is a hazardous enemy. Yet that is just one hazard, and the game rather immediately ramps up confrontation by putting in Deku Babas - basically Piranha Plants which are in a fixed point but must be blocked and then struck, and which actually lunge at the player. From then on it's no-man's land with homing keese, deku scrubs which are redressed homing octoroks, spiders for which you must wait to become vulnerable (and actually have a penalty for striking out of turn), etc. The game's sense of enemy progression is almost immediately bypassed, and enemies are made near the most aggressive they can be almost immediately. This is combined with the player actually having a decreased awareness for his own location.

The point of homing aggression is a kind of plateau for a game without low-cost and low responsibility projectiles. In games with ranged combat, you could expect an enemy to duck behind cover, become more evasive, and try to lure you into combat with more enemies, etc, as they might in FPS (and especially the Descent series). Due to the player absolutely having to be right up next to them to engage this combat engine with this short-range weapon, and due to Nintendo failing to provide controls for attacks to peripheral or un-targed enemies, most possibilities for combat becomes stagnant at that point. They only thing the developers can really do with common enemies is make them attack more frequently, give them unblockable attacks, require the use of a special weapon, etc, arbitrary things which decrease the fairness of the enemies and makes only a first encounter with that particular enemy a unique experience, because the second time you fight it you will remember and then that stalfos becomes another wolfos that you must defeat by bombing (or maybe just by hitting it 5 more *groan* times).
I muttered 'light as a board, stiff as a feather' for 2 days straight and now I've ascended, ;aughing at olympus and zeus is crying

Post Reply

Return to “The Legend of Zelda: See That Mountain?”