The story’s been basically the same since the first game anyway: Gannon bad. Zelda missing. Kill Gannon; rescue Zelda. Oh and there’s maybe a triangle to find depending on the game.
Definitely true. But I liked the renditions from the last two 3d games before BOTW. It’s just the gameplay that was rough in those. The next round needs to put the two together.
You haven’t had to rescue Zelda much in the past 25 years.
In Ocarina of Time, Zelda was a badass ninja warrior that was constantly helping you.
In Majora’s Mask, Zelda didn’t appear.
In Wind Waker, Zelda was the leader of a gang of pirates. She had their respect and undying loyalty despite all being twice her size, because of her toughness and bravery. IIRC she actually kills Gannon in this one by bouncing an arrow off Link’s shield.
I don’t remember Twilight Princess enough to speak on that one, tbh.
In Skyward Sword, you think you’re saving Zelda, but she’s actually totally fine the whole time. She’s working with a Sheikah to restore seals to prevent Demise from returning.
In BotW, Zelda is fighting Gannon for 100 years (!!!) to buy time while Link sleeps and then later cooks food in his underwear.
In TotK, Zelda makes the ultimate sacrifice, trading her humanity to give Link a chance to beat Ganondorf. She makes herself immortal, but trades away her individuality and ability to think. She spends eternity crying because of what she lost to give Hyrule hope. I think she’s particularly brave in this one.
Zelda has not been a damsel in distress for a very, very long time. Both Zelda and Link play critical roles in saving Hyrule. Their roles are just different. Link saves Hyrule with a sword. Zelda saves Hyrule in other ways. Their roles are different but equally necessary.
Ocarina of Time, Zelda was a badass ninja warrior that was constantly helping you.
And is then captured by gannon toward the end of the game and you must rescue her.
Doesn’t appear in Majora’s Mask
I am not even counting the games she doesn’t appear in at all. Link’s Awakening and pretty much all the GBA games are like that. But they aren’t the main series, either.
In Wind Waker, Zelda was the leader of a gang of pirates. She had their respect and undying loyalty despite all being twice her size, because of her toughness and bravery.
And she is kidnapped at some point in the game, and you must rescue her.
Don’t remember Twilight Princess
Like Link to the Past, OOT and WW: Shes kidnapped toward the end by Ganon, and you must rescue her.
Skyward Sword
Zelda is literally trapped in a crystal and must be rescued by killing Demise. Sure, she put herself in that crystal, but you still save her from being imprisoned forever.
BOTW
Like Skyward Sword, Zelda is trapped as energy in a constant battle to keep Ganon at bay. Since she comes back in TOTK, you obviously rescued her.
TOTK
I haven’t beat the whole game yet, but either it’s the only main series one where you don’t rescue Zelda, or Link finds a way to turn her back to normal, which would be like rescuing her, much like Skyward Sword and BOTW. And please don’t spoil it for me; the big twist was already spoiled by all the memes and it’s impact when seeing it happen in the game wasn’t nearly as cool as it would have been otherwise.
As a lifelong Zelda fan, I’ve never cared much for the stories of Zelda games anyways. Like Mario games, they’re always incredibly simple placeholders that boil down to “princess gone, defeat evil that took her”. These games got their start when that was the only story that you could fit on the cartridge anyways, so I could see why Nintendo would want to keep that spirit alive.
Plus, in an open world game, is story really that important? I’d rather have the excellent gameplay of TOTK than something like Red Dead 2 which is a great story with excruciatingly boring gameplay.
I really enjoyed the writing of the side characters in the N64 games. Sure most only had two maybe three things to say outside a side quest but they all had a nugget of commentary on the human condition.
Personally I thought that N64 and the beginning of GC had the best cadence of Zelda games; a retelling of the main “legend” (evil ganon, triforce power corrupted, magical princess captured to use towards ultimate evil plan, hero appears, master sword, open path to ganon, defeat, time/space/existence saved) which was OOT, followed up by “here’s another adventure the hero went on that has almost nothing to don’t any of that, and it’s more character driven” which was Majoras Mask. It looked like we’d repeat that cycle with WindWaker (and to some extent I guess we did with Phantom Hourglass and Spirit Tracks) but then we got TP and nothing and SS and nothing and they got so bogged down into turning Zelda into a lore dump. Now we don’t even have dungeons and item anymore. Dungeons and items were the core gameplay! Imagine being able to hook shot around in BotW?
The sort of alternate universe I yearned for once upon a time was Zelda continuing to be about time gimmicks. OoT had two points in a timeline, MM had the groundhog’s labor day weekend, and there was oracle of ages/seasons by Capcom. I guess there’s only so many ways to spin it though.
The stories in most Nintendo games are weak and mostly pointless. I loved BOTW but strrrrrrrruggled to enjoy TOTK. It just felt too gimmicky. And I adore RDR2, story and gameplay.
Always interesting to read about some of the specific considerations to go into features that may not seem that complicated at first glance (especially to the layman).
Geforce now is amazing. Much better image quality(video stream), on top of running on pc(so better graphics and fps). It is obviously more expensive(and doesnt come with any free games) but you do get what you pay for.
The microsoft cloud is “almost kinda working”/“this is neat” while geforce now “wow, i guess cloud gaming is the future”. Now if only nvidia could persuade sony and japanese devs to release their games on geforce now(though dragons dogma 2 was, which was surprising).
I have to note that sometimes, the loading times on geforce now can be long, this is not normal and varies. Sometimes load times are normal, sometimes are fucky. I think geforce now has become more popular lately and this has caused some issues. Also if a game is really cpu dependent(like dragons dogma 2), the geforce now cpus arent that great.
Another issue is that since games often use weird launchers and drm, this can cause issues. But eventually these issues are resolved.
Honestly I don’t think anyone can really look at TotK and not think it was a massive undertaking. They took the giant open world of BotW, made it bigger, and added a ton of more physics interactions, and have it running on a 7-year-old gaming tablet. It’s incredible they could do that at all.
It is kinda funny how people have no issue paying for it all together as bundle, but separate it so people can pay for things individually is silly and everyone is suddenly offended?
I would rather have a story for $10 and $1 outfits I can ignore, than to spend $30 on a story and bunch of cosmetics that don’t add to the game.
This is just marketing, nothing more. They make more money forcing you to buy everything than letting you pick what you want.
Eh… It’s more than just paying, but that a lot of the stuff which is now a standard microtransaction used to be integrated into the total experience, so you’d unlock outfits and such for finding secrets or completing challenges. That sort of content was integral to the over all experience, not just an extra to tack on as an afterthought.
That’s also just an affect on the market of people wanting more choice and not wanting to be forced to pay for stuff they don’t want.
Of course it can be swung in a negative light too, because it affects developers bottom lines, and they always want the most money possible. CDPR is no different.
The outcome of splitting the content is that there are a lot of people who want to have everything and they will end up paying far more for a la carte than for an expansion. The people who wouldn’t have bought the expansion still buy nothing, and pretty much nobody just buys a couple of things to save money.
Microtransactions is a system designed to prey on completionist whales. Barely anyone only buys a couple of things and doesn’t end up spending more than $30 over time as the content is drip fed and the new hotness comes along to replace the old hotness. Those that don’t spend anything, or just buy one thing before catching on, weren’t going to spend the $30 anyway.
It is false choice that negatively impacts the game experience.
The outcome of splitting the content is that there are a lot of people who want to have everything and they will end up paying far more for a la carte than for an expansion
So if they want the content, they can support the devs so they make more.
The people who wouldn’t have bought the expansion still buy nothing, and pretty much nobody just buys a couple of things to save money.
So no lose there, but they could buy an outfit if they liked it and want to support the dev.
…… that’s actually the majority of gamers…… 2% of the player base accounts for most of the purchases, that means the other 98% is still buying stuff, just not everything. So that’s not even remotely close to reality, most people pick and choose the content, which is literally why this because a thing, because the market wanted it….
just like the market wants nothing but superhero movies? This doesn't work anything like a free market. people would buy full games if they where available, devs just figured out they could drip feed the content and make significantly more money at the expense of a good product so you don't get to choose the good product because it doesn't exist. That's not the market choosing crap it's the market makers only providing crap.
They still buy full games though, using old as seats to make new content for an “old” game is a great way to have more income come in. Most would probably prefer to make a new game, but that takes longer as well.
So if it’s a dlc a year at $15 for 4 years, or a game every 4 years for $60… what’s the difference in the end? Other than what you think is going on inside your head? It’s the same content, same price, same everything, you just get content yearly instead of every 4 years. Bonus for everyone since they can than use that money after the first year to maybe make the other better.
I can’t possibly roll my eyes any harder at this statement, with gaming companies practically competing to go under as fast as possible over the past decade.
What…? Most people want more content more often with more options, not everyone wants a release every 4 years that’s the same content and story rehashed.
Unless the entire game is developed by an independent studio and is entirely funded on microtransactions, buying micro transactions is just there for more company profit on top of the regular game sales by stripping content out of a full release. It isn’t supporting the development.
People did have issues paying for it all together, back when they were called “expansion packs.”
I don’t mind paying for more of the game. I do mind paying for fixes to a broken game. I don’t mind optional cosmetic upgrades, but I don’t like pay-to-win, even in single player (looking at you, Nintendo amiibos).
But regardless, people are going to complain, and many of their complaints will be valid.
People had different issues with those, that was because online was a portion of it, and people thought devs were holding content back just to make more money. Obviously some did that, but they started painting every dev with that brush and they needed to adjust to save their bottom line from being affected.
Every change has been a reactionary effort to adjust for the market changes and people suddenly not wanting what they just wanted a few years ago, and using it to their marketing advantage. Of course not everyone is going to be happy, it’s just funny that certain devs get defended for doing what everyone else does since their marketing gets eating up.
I think some people like to know when it ends. Microtransactions can make it seem endless. Once you’ve done that a few times it makes you want to know about as much as you can upfront.
You know, the way you phrase it I’d be fine. Only in your example, instead of 60 for it all, it is now 60 for 80% of the story, another 2x15 for the remainder, and 10 per Outfit.
Oblivion had a LOT of post release paid content, most of which was decent value per $ spent, including a full on expansion. So while horse armour was a warning sign for things to come, Oblivion ALSO showcased the good side of paid post release content
I am actually ok with micro transactions in multiplayer competitive games for cosmetic skins.
I am not saying that most games that do this aren’t extremely toxic in their design but the idea of players of a popular competitive game continually paying small amounts of money to artists to create new riffs on the same player models and weapons that those players can use to express themselves is potentially a wonderful direct connection between 3D modeling artists and players that continually values those 3D modeling artists far after the initial game development is over (and a game company could potentially have no work for a 3D modeler when just maintaining a multiplayer game with small updates).
The problem is that the type of people who are most likely to spend money on loot boxes are exploited heavily, and then shamed by everyone around them into not revealing how much they spent on video game call of duty mobile skins.
None of this even remotely works when you talk about singleplayer games though, basically nobody dresses to the nines to just go for a walk in the woods where nobody can see them… the direct link between 3D modeling artists and players expressing themselves in view of other players is gone. Players may spend hours dressing their singleplayer character and enjoy that part of the game but it just isn’t the same thing as your multiplayer competitive game character you have spent countless hours playing in multiplayer matches interacting with countless people with. It is the difference between taking a freeing walk in the woods and taking a walk in a city in view of a crowd of other artists.
I guess what I am trying to say is that micro transactions are really only okay when they are “micro” because they are a direct interaction between a player and an artist in the way buying a single song from an album might be.
Of course, my entire point is subsumed by the fact that most of the big companies probably treat the 3D modelers making their skins like trash and are probably going to replace literally all of them with AI as quietly but as quickly as possible in the next couple of months.
If they want to sell skins that are purely cosmetic I don’t have an issue with that. Some people have money to drop on stuff like that and it helps fund the game.
Loot boxes on the other hand can absolutely get fucked. It’s gambling, plain and simple. It has no place in games.
Except Bethesda is also one of the few companies that releases full on expansions to their games. Horse armour was the worst (and thus cheapest) of Oblivions addons, but Shivering Isles was an entire new full area and plotline.
Nuance exists. And ignoring it allows a lot of good to get caught in the crossfire
Real good take, I couldn’t agree more. I also sold a dota2 skin that I got randomly for a couple hundred dollars like 8 years ago and it funded my PC purchases for a couple years so I might be biased 😉
In my comment I attempted to point out that yes the profit from micro transactions never really goes to the artists and developers, but if it did in theory I would actually be really supportive of artist run cosmetic stores for multiplayer competitive games.
I want 3D modeling artists to be valued, and competitive multiplayer games providing a canvas in which artists can continually express themselves and create outfits/skins for players and items in game is an incredible opportunity to reaffirm the value of the labor of 3D modeling artists.
The opportunity is currently totally captured and subverted by shitty corporate control, but in theory it is still there.
For singleplayer games, no horse armor crap is lame, I just want developers working on expansion content.
but its okay, cause 4 years later we’ll release an expansion and what we are declaring the final patches to finally have the game in a state it should have been when it was fucking released.
The worst thing is that everyone seems to think that it IS where it should have been at release! Which I will admit that it is finally the polished bug-free game that any game should be at release. But anyone like me who was watching every last promo video they did teasing the game pre-release, knows it still isn’t and never will be the game they promised it would be.
Their insistence on releasing on previous gen hardware is surely as much to blame as the rush to get it out for that sweet sweet pandemic money. Still looking back it’s hard to say if it ever was going to live up to what they were teasing it would be.
I’m just happy if a game arrives in good, playable condition, feature and story complete.
and Cyberpunk couldnt even live up to that. Perhaps it was story complete on release? I dont know, I was never able to beat the game until like 2 years after release due to encountering a mind-numbing amount of bugs and catastrophes and thus giving up and walking away from the game for a good long time.
I would have refunded it and never thought about it again if it wasnt a gift.
Yeah with initial disaster at release it’s easy to forget they originally promised multiplayer would be added in later and a robust functioning society where each NPC would have a job and routine they follow
Exactly. I hate that people are completely on CDPR side again, forgetting that they completely deceived their fans with a half baked game. Just because they eventually made it better (and still didn’t deliver on what they said) doesn’t mean they deserve to heralded again. Any trust I had in them is gone.
what really bugs me are fighting games with dlc characters. i know fighting games arent as profitable, but twenty years ago you could unlock every character by actually playing the game. locking content behind paywalls are a slap to poor gamers. that’s on top of a $60 price tag
This has been disproven and was called out at the time of the increase. Games cost less to develop now than ever. Microtransactions and recurrent subscription transaction1s like battlepasses mean a shit game gets to live longer than it would deserve. People have careers in the field and languages common to the industry - this isn’t a “new and groundbreaking” industry - its one of the largest on the planet.
Studios are absolutely not passing any of that $10 to lower level staff. It was to see if the market would bear it, and no other reason - and corporate defenders came out of the woodwork to pretend BILLION dollar corporations need more money. If videogames were too expensive to make, they’d not be spending so much, now would they?
It’s interesting actually. There are both games with insane budgets that cost more that than triple A games in years past and incredible tooling and assets available for very modest amounts of money + incredibly powerful computers very little. It’s possible for some games to be made for less than ever before AND some to be made for more.
Has the distribution gone up though? If the quantity of games being sold has increased the companies are making just as much even though games are “cheaper.”
Imo. That’s the big argument in this debate that doesn’t get discussed. The reach has increased so prices could come down as more units are sold and the company would get the same amount of money.
20 years ago, they sold every Street Fighter three times with more characters in each new iteration. Microtransactions suck, but simple DLC is a less shitty than what used to be normal.
They did milk the fuck out of that, I’ll grant you.
But at the same time you couldn’t take them online and end up playing somebody who’d got the latest one and have to fight new characters you’d have no access to.
Fighting games started in coin operated arcade cabinets that were intentionally designed to be such a pain in the ass to beat that people would dump heaps of money into them just to keep playing. Same deal with games that were released in the days that youd rent them for a week. The difficulty was set so high that it was very unlikely that you could beat the game in that week so you would end up renting them another week or two.
The gaming industry has been filled with greedy fuck policies from the beginning and the only thing that has changed is how they are greedy fucks.
Yeah, I noticed this with mortal Kombat on snes. Every time I played the single player campaign, I’d win one fairly easily, then I’d lose to the next guy. Then I’d use a continue and beat that guy fairly easily and lose to the next one. Repeat until I run out of continues, with the occasional upset of the pattern (extra win or loss).
eurogamer.net
Najstarsze