Imagine the main theme is the first in the series with lyrics. And its Zelda who is singing!
BotW has the best main theme in gaming imo, so i hope the sequel has a theme as good or better than the first one.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild Sequel Development Thread- News, Updates, and Speculation
- Thread starter WestEgg
- Start date
- Status
BotW has the best main theme in gaming imo, so i hope the sequel has a theme as good or better than the first one.
I may get hate for this post but am I the only one that really doesn't care if Zelda is playable? Like I get why people want to play her but nobody ever gets mad that Peach is never playable (in mainline Mario games), I would be totally fine if she was just Link's partner in the game (Like she was in Spirit Tracks).
I hope we actually get a story that drives home how evil Gannondorf really is. He needs to do some sadistic stuff like how he killed The Great Deku tree (By Curse) so that the final battle is all the more rewarding. Dungeons, maybe some unique world mini bosses with a bounty system, Meaningful side quest rewards etc.
Okay, but for real, Patricia Summersett (Zelda's English VA) really is a good singer. Her music is very niche and you'll only ever find it if you look for it, but I really love her band's newest release (in 2020) called "More of the World" by Summersett. Her tone in this is lower than her voice usually is, and lower than Zelda's voice, but you can hear it faintly in parts. And, it's this performance that shines the best, imo. I was enraptured by the story told in this song and how dramatic/emotionally investing it is.
Going off-script here, but--I know Patricia gets a lot of flak for how "awful" her execution was. That wasn't her fault, however, the voice director for BotW made her do the accent. She also knows how much people disliked her performance, because she's said in an interview about acting for AoC that she tried to drop the accent first-thing, and the voice director for AoC said, "No, keep the accent, you are obligated to keep the accent." I think she did very well with what she was given, both in BotW and AoC. And even if it's not likely...I hope she gets an opportunity to do lyrics for BotW2's theme, if it comes down to that. I loved the lyrical version of the Ballad of the Wind Fish (I just wish it didn't feature so much autotuning, lol).
I'm glad you said this about having lyrics for BotW2's theme, btw! I thought I was the only one who entertained the idea!
To be honest, I don't really want her to be playable (for plenty of reasons, which are too complicated and technical to get into at this time), but I definitely don't want her to vanish for 99% of the game and the whole goal of the game being about getting to her again. It's time to put that formula to bed. There are plenty of ways to increase her role and presence in the game without making her a PC, and I'd like to see Nintendo experiment with some of them.
Unfortunately, Nintendo seems to legitimately not have any idea how to do this, however. They still seem to see Zelda (and Peach) as the "goal" and can't conceive of any other role for her. I do think that she'll get captured by Ganon early in BotW 2 (the 2019 trailer even hints at this with her possibly falling down in the earthquake and getting separated from Link right off the bat) and the whole goal of the game will be to get back to her. I don't want that to happen (which I've been misconstrued on in the past, both here and on other forums--people seem to think that because I predict this will happen it means I want it to happen, which I don't), but Nintendo has not earned the benefit of the doubt on this. If anything, this should be the default expectation for everybody until Nintendo gives us clear reason to expect otherwise.
I've said before that I hope BotW 2 has a similar gimmick to BotW 1's Memories quest, except that we're not hunting Link's memories this time, but Ganon's, in an effort to find out more about him, and, possibly, get a hint on how to defeat him once and for all (kinda like what Harry Potter 6 did with searching the Penseive for insights into Voldemort's past). If a large part of the game is set underground, or in the Underworld, they could do this in a sort of "archaeology"-type quest a la Indian Jones or, especially, the Mummy movies. This would even be a way to give Zelda a functional role in the game, as she could be the one to interpret the ancient texts and other things you might find as you continue exploring the ruins.
Gah. There's so many things I'd like for them to do in BotW 2, and I doubt they'll do any of them. I'd better bite my tongue lest I build up my expectations too high.
I'm in the same boat. I'm just extra excited for this since its been over 4 years and the engine, physics and assets were already ready, so they have had a serious amount of time to create content. Here's hoping they crush it.
What? Peach is playable in a lot of the mainline games.
Anyway, put me in the camp that wants her to be playable. Don't care if it's as the protagonist, swapping between them freely, or just playing different ones depending on where you are in the the plot.
Wow i didn't know that she's also a singer. I really like her singing voice! Now i'm even more hyped lol
Tbh her performance is not as bad as people say. And as you explained its not even her fault! I also think her performance improved in AoC
A character swap mechanic is what I think would work best whether that be a transformation or like they just travel together and whoever isn't in the lead just teleports over to you if they get left behind.
theres no hate per say, but it would be more refreshing than simply more link, I find the character more interesting, her abilities and powers different enough to have unique gameplay, and also want more for the character in general than being a forgettable damsel, i also admittedly has to do with the short hair she seemingly has, I want to believe that it's a sign of something and because of that I've set myself up for a fall should it not come to pass.
I mean mainline titles like 3D Mario's, M64, Sunshine, Galaxy's, and Odyssey, not Mario Bros titles.
These guys could work, though their unique voices would probably be replaced by English ones which would be a shame.I expect Zelda to be playable in this. not as a reskin, i hope, but as a character with different mechanics
also, put Kikwis in the game
Okay, so as we get closer to likely seeing the game again at last (since I consider BotW 2 being at this E3 to be as close to a slam dunk as anything that's possible without Nintendo explicitly coming out and saying it'll be there—I don't find my security in video games so it's not like I'll be emotionally deflated if it's not there, but really, there's every logical reason to expect that it will be), I've decided it's time to store up everything that I've been thinking about the game for the last two years and leave a record of it behind somewhere on the Internet for posterity's sake. That way, if any of this does turn out to be right, I can later go, "Ah, HA! I knew it!" Hee hee.
(Remember that comment from Aonuma a few years ago along the lines of "But what would Link do?" if Zelda were a PC? A lot of Western fans laughed and made fun of him, largely because they didn't understand what he was saying. To Aonuma, it makes no sense for Zelda to be playable just because. She has to do something, something that Link fundamentally can't do. So to him, if Zelda's the PC, then the obvious question becomes, "What's Link doing?" Or maybe the question should be phrased as, "Why is Link not doing what Zelda is doing?" Their entire design philosophy is geared around experimenting to come up with things for Link to do, and then designing a world and matching characters to go along with that, including Zelda. It would take a monumental shift for them to start designing the games any other way. Honestly, I don't see it happening until Miyamoto, Aonuma, Fujibiyashi, etc., are gone, and an entirely new generation of designers takes their place.)
How about a character-swap function? Well, I don't see much value in doing this in a game like BotW, to be honest. At least not while randomly wandering around the Overworld (assuming BotW 2 even has an Overworld. But that's a topic for another time). If Link and Zelda had different abilities, how annoying would it be to have to switch between them every few minutes? I'd think that'd get very tiresome, very quickly. Would they have to be tethered together all the time? Would there be a "teleport" function to zap the AI character to the PC in an instant (this concern also applies if Zelda's role in the game is to be an AI companion)? And if they had the same abilities, what would be the point? I don't think anybody is calling for Zelda to just be a skin for Link, and of all the possibilities, I have to assume this is the least likely one for Nintendo to go with. And again, if they have different abilities, why wouldn't Nintendo just give all those abilities to Link to begin with? Almost certainly, they would. For Zelda to be a PC she has to be doing something that Link fundamentally can't do.
Anyway, since the discussion at hand is about Zelda being playable, I'll go ahead and explain my reasons for why making her into a PC would not be my preference. But before we get into that, some table-setting is required.
First of all, when talking about making Zelda playable in an actual LoZ game, the question must be asked: what, exactly, does that mean? Are we talking about a "select-a-character" feature where we pick whether we want to play the game as Link or Zelda before we start? Are we talking about a character swap feature where we press a button or touch some kind of environmental hotspot to switch between them? Are we talking about Zelda being controllable in specific areas that Link can't go to? Or maybe making her a Player 2? A lot of people talk about wanting Zelda to be playable in an actual LoZ game but don't specify what they mean by that; they just seem to take it for granted that it should be done. Some people even seem to insist that it's a moral imperative in this day and age and must be done. But Nintendo is a very industrial-design-oriented company; we need to be more specific about Zelda would actually do if she were a playable character in an LoZ game, 'cause that's how Nintendo approaches this. Nintendo's not going to be convinced by the argument that Zelda, as a character, "deserves" to be playable, especially if we're approaching it from the angle of modern-day Western politics.
(Remember that comment from Aonuma a few years ago along the lines of "But what would Link do?" if Zelda were a PC? A lot of Western fans laughed and made fun of him, largely because they didn't understand what he was saying. To Aonuma, it makes no sense for Zelda to be playable just because. She has to do something, something that Link fundamentally can't do. So to him, if Zelda's the PC, then the obvious question becomes, "What's Link doing?" Or maybe the question should be phrased as, "Why is Link not doing what Zelda is doing?" Their entire design philosophy is geared around experimenting to come up with things for Link to do, and then designing a world and matching characters to go along with that, including Zelda. It would take a monumental shift for them to start designing the games any other way. Honestly, I don't see it happening until Miyamoto, Aonuma, Fujibiyashi, etc., are gone, and an entirely new generation of designers takes their place.)
This is also why simply assigning Zelda a different set of abilities, such as magic or archery, isn't enough. To the development team, if they wanted to experiment with magic or archery gameplay, they would simply give those abilities to Link. To them, it makes no sense not to do this (we've seen a glimpse of this already in the 2019 BotW 2 trailer with Link's Green Hand of Power, which is obviously going to be the source of his new gameplay abilities in the game). Again, this is a fundamental difference between the way Nintendo sees the IP and the way fans do. Nintendo does not see value in Princess Zelda as a character the way fans do, especially Westerners. Nintendo does not see the need to make Zelda a PC just for the sake of it. Nintendo does seem to understand that Western fans see this value in Zelda as a character, so they've begun making Zelda playable in non-LoZ games such as Smash Bros., Hyrule Warriors, and Cadence of Hyrule. But that understanding has not yet translated to them seeing value in making Zelda playable in the actual LoZ games. When Aonuma asked at E3 2019, "Why do fans want Zelda playable," I believe he was being very sincere in asking that question. I think he legitimately does not understand this and it makes no sense to him. Is it possible that someone, say, in the American localization branch at NoA, has explained this to him in recent years, and has convinced him of the value in making Zelda a PC in the LoZ games? Possibly, but this is one of those cases where I really won't believe it until I see it.
So, back to the first question. What does it mean to make Zelda playable?
I don't see how a "select-a-character" feature could ever work. The whole point of these games is that Link is the silent protagonist, the self-insert, the avatar, while Zelda is a character. To do a "select-a-character" feature would mean Nintendo would have to change one or the other of these roles. Either Link becomes a character (which I would argue he already is, and has been for some time, but Nintendo stubbornly clings to the notion that he's supposed to be some kind of avatar—and I think they really believe this, even though it's not really true), or Zelda becomes an avatar. Zelda becoming an avatar completely destroys the actual value she has as a character, thus defeating the entire point. All of a sudden, she's no longer the enigmatic, barely-seen princess that we want to spend more time with. She becomes just another adventure game PC with a set of adventure game PC skills. I know people will say, "But that's what I want Zelda to be!" But is it, really? The moment Zelda becomes playable, the "magic" surrounding her is gone. The intrigue is gone. Do we really want that to happen? Do we really want Zelda to become another voiceless, personality-less protagonist like Link? And what would that mean to the entire structure of the LoZ series if it did? More on this last point later.
How about a character-swap function? Well, I don't see much value in doing this in a game like BotW, to be honest. At least not while randomly wandering around the Overworld (assuming BotW 2 even has an Overworld. But that's a topic for another time). If Link and Zelda had different abilities, how annoying would it be to have to switch between them every few minutes? I'd think that'd get very tiresome, very quickly. Would they have to be tethered together all the time? Would there be a "teleport" function to zap the AI character to the PC in an instant (this concern also applies if Zelda's role in the game is to be an AI companion)? And if they had the same abilities, what would be the point? I don't think anybody is calling for Zelda to just be a skin for Link, and of all the possibilities, I have to assume this is the least likely one for Nintendo to go with. And again, if they have different abilities, why wouldn't Nintendo just give all those abilities to Link to begin with? Almost certainly, they would. For Zelda to be a PC she has to be doing something that Link fundamentally can't do.
A lot of these concerns also apply to Zelda being a Player 2, with the added problem of technical issues in getting a game like BotW 2 to be two-player in the first place. To my knowledge there really hasn't been an open-world game of the size and scope of BotW that successfully did two-player local co-op, but I'll admit I'm not an expert in this field. I've asked around for some examples of such a thing, but nothing I was pointed to really seemed like it would be a good model for BotW 2 to follow. Zelda being Player 2 also pretty much guarantees she'd be a clone of Link, and like I just said, I don't think that'd satisfy anybody. The only real value I can see out of Zelda being a Player 2 would be for couples to play the game together. But if BotW 2 has a two-player mode at all, I would expect it to be like the other multiplayer modes in existing LoZ games and the other players would either control different versions of Link, or be like the 3D Mario games and control a cursor or a fairy or something (probably a fairy). For all these reasons, I doubt very much that Zelda will be a Player 2.
The one option I see left that does have merit is the possibility of making Zelda a PC in specific areas that are blocked off from the rest of the game, like the partner characters in Wind Waker (which that game's Zelda should have been, by the way. Imagine how different the discussion around this would be if she had been, way back then). She would have a very limited, but distinct set of abilities that Link can't do, like analyzing ancient documents or something, or maybe opening doors like she does at the end of Ocarina of Time. She probably wouldn't have combat skills at all, or else she'd be very limited in combat. We have to keep in mind, whatever Zelda does has to be something that Link can't do, or, to put it another way, is something that Nintendo wouldn't want to have Link do. This is very important and something people frequently don't think about. So we shouldn't be thinking in terms of having Zelda cast magic or use archery, at least not in the sense of something to use to attack enemies or interact with the environment. According to Nintendo's established design principles, if they want to incorporate any such abilities into the game, they would simply have Link do them. We need to be thinking in terms of what the partner characters do in Wind Waker, because that, I think, is the template which Nintendo would follow if Nintendo shows any interest in making Zelda a PC.
But with that question behind us, we have to ask ourselves: would Nintendo really do that? Would Nintendo really overhaul its 35-year-established design philosophy for these games just to incorporate Princess Zelda as a playable character, something they've never shown the slightest bit of interest in doing before? I suppose it's possible that they have changed their minds about this, or been convinced of Zelda's value as a PC by their Western branches; I really don't know how much influence the localization branches have over NCL's internal development groups (I can't imagine it's too much). I don't think Nintendo's EAD groups, by themselves, are anywhere near ready to change their minds on this. Peach is not a great example to compare Zelda with because from the very beginning Peach has had a different ability set than Mario, so there's always been value in including her as a PC whenever Nintendo wants to use her abilities in a game. But Princess Zelda, as a character, has no ability set (the abilities she has in Smash Bros. and the Hyrule Warriors games are leftovers from Link in previous LoZ games), and whatever ability set we could come up with for her could just as easily be given to Link. There would have to be a powerful incentive to not do that and use Zelda as a PC instead for Nintendo to actually go through with it. I just don't see "But that's what Western fans want!" being that incentive. Nintendo is notorious for not giving fans what they want; they seem to view it as a measure of pride. Their whole thinking is that they tell us what we want, and then we like it. That's the relationship they want to have with their fans. Ironically, the louder fans gets about insisting that Zelda be playable, the less likely it is that Nintendo will actually do it, in my opinion.
Another problem, which I briefly hinted at earlier, is that Zelda as a character is different in every game, or at least in every sub-series. Whatever abilities this Zelda might have probably won't be shared by the next Zelda. This is a huge issue for the LoZ games and one that I don't think many fans have taken into consideration. If Nintendo goes through with this and makes Princess Zelda a playable character in an actual Legend of Zelda game, this is a forever decision; it can never be undone. With every LoZ game they make from that point forward, fans will be expecting to be able to play as Zelda for at least part of the game. This has ramifications up and down Nintendo's entire design process. Every LoZ game going forward will have to be designed for both Link and Zelda to have playable roles. Link's ability set is fairly constant and doesn't change too much from game to game; give him a sword and a box of items, and you're pretty well set. Some games might emphasize magic or archery more, but Link's moveset is basically set and what changes from game to game are his items. Going back to Mario games, for Peach, this is no big deal. It's the same character every time, with the same established ability set. If Nintendo sees fit not to include Peach's abilities in any particular game, oh well; there's always next time. But for the LoZ games this is a huge deal. Limiting Zelda's ability set to be whatever BotW Zelda's abilities are would greatly limit Nintendo's freedom in designing the next LoZ game. And if they change the next Zelda's abilities to be something else, which is probably the only thing they could do in such a situation, people are going to complain about that, too; see how terrified Sakurai has been for nearly 20 years now to give Ganondorf his own moveset in Smash Bros. because he's so concerned about annoying players who are used to Ganon's moves. On top of all this, setting the expectation that Zelda will be playable in LoZ games from now on (and make no mistake, that would be the expectation) will also hinder Nintendo's beloved freedom to design LoZ games going forward. We know how much Nintendo loves its freedom; remember how penned in they felt when designing Twilight Princess? They put the cart before the horse and showed us stuff before it was ready and then felt they were obligated to find some way to include that stuff in the final game, hampering their ability to "flow like a river" and develop the game wherever it led them. If there's one thing Nintendo does not like—scratch that, if there's one thing Nintendo absolutely hates—it's being "forced" to design games around what the fans want. And if people are vocal about wanting Zelda to be a PC now, imagine how much backlash there would be if she finally does become a PC and then gets shoved back into a prison tower again in the next LoZ game. I really don't think Nintendo wants to have to put up with the burden of figuring out something for her to do, gameplay-wise, every single game from now on. These games already take 6 years to make each; do we really want them to make the development process even more difficult for themselves? Also, let's not forget that, conceptually, the whole reason why Nintendo bothered to come up with the "reincarnated spirit of the ancient hero" storyline angle in the first place was to justify why Link is the same every single time, while the worlds and cast of characters around him change constantly. Would these same people really want to commit themselves to having to design every game going forward with a PC (or at least a part-time PC) whose gameplay role is different in every game? I just don't see it. And would people really be satisfied with Zelda going back to being an NPC again in the future? I don't see that, either.
The other issue with making Zelda playable in this particular game is that it's a direct sequel to an existing LoZ game with an established Link and an established Zelda. It would be very, very weird for this Zelda to suddenly stop talking and start acting like a silent protagonist like Link, and I don't even have to mention how weird it would be for this Link to start speaking and acting like a non-protagonist character, and if Link acts the same even when Zelda's the PC, again, what's the point? Even in the trailer we can see that they still share the same dynamic as before, with Zelda as the one driving the adventure and Link as the silent bodyguard type going along with his princess's plans and wishes. If Princess Zelda is ever going to become playable, it would probably be best for it to be in her own spin-off series (which, oddly, is kinda what Nintendo is doing with Hyrule Warriors, as an example). I don't know what that would be... Legend of Link? Lol.
Anyway, I think the best bet for this Zelda to be playable in this upcoming game is if her segments are contained in Shrine-like obstacle courses—dungeons, basically, or this game's equivalent of dungeons—and her gameplay mechanics resemble those of the partner characters in Wind Waker (which, again, she should've been one of them in that game). This is more or less what I've been wanting for her since Wind Waker dropped the ball and we first saw that concept artwork of her holding a sword in TP (oh, what a disappointment that was). But even then I think I would prefer her to be an AI companion in such instances. Actually playing as Zelda seems like it would break a lot of the series' mystique to me. The legend is about Zelda, but it's not told by her. It'd be like making Sherlock Holmes the POV character of his books. A big part of Princess Zelda's appeal is precisely that we don't get to spend as much time with her as we would like. I really think there could be a big case of "be careful what you wish for" with this sort of thing. I do want her to be in the game more, and I do want to see her and interact with her in the game; what I don't want is for her to get separated from Link right at the beginning and be gone the whole game (which, sadly, is what I'm expecting will happen). This Zelda has already spent an entire game in captivity—an entire century, in the backstory—so I really hope Nintendo doesn't do that again, but they've given me no reason to assume any better of them. Still, despite that, I do think I would prefer to keep her in her role as the most important NPC in video games... at least for one more game.
Whew. That was a lot. And I haven't even gotten to my speculation regarding BotW 2! I think that's enough for today.
I expect Zelda to be playable in this. not as a reskin, i hope, but as a character with different mechanics
also, put Kikwis in the game
....*snicker* they look like ball sacks.
I'd actually love them back, they're cute.
I haven't read everything you've said so apologies if I missed something key, it's quite late (early) here and I don't have the time I'd like, seeing as I'm one of the people who upon seeing the trailer 2 years prior hyped myself for her maybe being playable I feel I can give my two coins as to what I mean, what I want and what I expect.
First and foremost, Zelda in botw is not a fighter, that could change in the sequel but if I'm being honest and as much as I might like it that's not likely, what we know of her is that she's very smart, and has some degree of magic, my personal belief is that the triforce was in her possession but after the events of the first game it no longer is, whether that means she can still use magic is up for debate but I don't think it's impossible,
I would prefer if she was controllable as a secondary playable character but being realistic I could see her just being a support character who assists link, certainly I think she will be a companion of some kind.
importantly, the trailer wasn't randomly put together, i believe it was done with purpose, it shows a dungeon under the castle, suggesting more dungeons, a glowing light seemingly connected to the arm sealing away ganondorf (almost reminiscent of the twilight effect) and Zelda following link, I don't think it's far fetched to presume these will be prominent features in the game, and her hair cut from a technical perspective would be easier to animate BUT also from a story perspective makes sense for a traveler.
No she isn't?
Peach has been playable in exactly two mainline mario games, and one of those was a reskin of a non-mario title for the NA and EU audience. Three if you really want to count super mario run.
The only major mainline title where peach has been playable is Super Mario 3d world.
A far cry from Luigi who has been playable in most of the 2d Mario's, both mario galaxys, 3d land and 3d world.
There's two main differences between Zelda and peach that need to be considered erode her lack of inclusions can successfully be used as a cop out, as well as a cheeky third
Number one, Zelda would need to be as story relevant as peach is in most Mario games (which is to say not very) but Zelda while often a damsel always has has story significance when she is written in, at least since ocarina of time)
number two, Zelda would need to be playable in games that use the mechanics associated with Zelda, peach has some platformers she's playable in but Zelda has no adventure puzzle games she can be played in, hurtle warriors is as much a Zelda title as smash bro's is a Mario one.
And the third which is splitting hairs a bit, it's called the legend of Zelda, surely after so many games, there could be ONE where she is playable? Because you can darn well bet if a game was called super peach sisters I'd expect peach and daisy to be playable.
a) to make it clear: yes I want playable/much more involved zelda and I never want a new title to resort to a "save the princess" goal ever again
b) but also, still just classifying zelda as being nothing but a damsel does a disservice to all the more recent games where she isn't simply a damsel.
Super Mario Bros is literally THE mainline that birthed all the rest, though. I know you know this so why only refer to 3D Mario as mainline?!
Great post. I'm all in favour of Nintendo retaining their stubborn mule attitude. After all, all these beloved games weren't created by the fans on the Internet, they were created by the people at Nintendo. So naturally, I want the latter to continue making games. Creativity by focus group or by pandering is the worst.
I for one don't really care for the idea of characters you swap between. It has the effect of depersonalising the adventure when you don't have a single playable character to be your avatar, regardless of how much personality that avatar has. Preferably stick with Link, but inverting it and having Zelda be the one character is potentially interesting. But have one character go on an adventure.
Even if you want to discount Hyrule Warriors (and given that Age of Calamity essentially put Zelda as the main character for a full on story prequel, I think that's a serious stretch), Cadence of hyrule has a full world map, towns, dungeons, puzzles, heart pieces etc to collect, and a playable zelda. It's basically a full 2D zelda, just with some extra rhythm game trappings, which you can even disable. Link, Zelda (and Cadence+ some other DLC characters) are playable.
I can't believe we're going to see rehydrated Ganondorf in this trailer, as well as hearing his voice as the screen fades to black and the title is revealed.
It's sad that this is fan art, because I can't imagine Ganondorf in BotW's artstyle looking any better. Love the classical look.
I think it's weird to argue Super Mario Bros. 2 USA doesn't count when creative and gameplay elements from it have stuck around in later Mario games... and it outlived Doki Doki Panic as the game to get future international re-releases
Interesting to think it may finally be fully revealed soon. Hopefully so. The complete silence since the short trailer years ago has been the longest running tease.
Now to listen to all these theory analysis videos I've missed out on in preparation...for the new ones that will come out as soon as anything new is revealed.
Still leaning towards Zelda being playable.
Now to listen to all these theory analysis videos I've missed out on in preparation...for the new ones that will come out as soon as anything new is revealed.
Still leaning towards Zelda being playable.
Moon...You know what I meant, 3D Mainline Mario games, Peach has been playable in a couple of side scroller Mario titles but she has never been playable in games like Mario 64, Sunshine, Galaxy or Odyssey and I don't see anyone begging for her to be playable in any of those.
Is Mario Bros a 3D Game like the 5 games I mentioned above?
Anyway, I am not saying I want Zelda to be a damsel in distress or anything because she is much more than that, what I am saying though is I don't particularly care if she is playable, that's my opinion and I am allowed to say it.
At the end of the day it doesn't matter what I think or what anyone else thinks because Nintendo will do what they want to do.
Just finished reading this, an excellent post.
This is what I mean, Zelda being playable is a lot more complicated than "Ehh, give her a moveset and make her a playable character". And also every still time we gear back to "Zelda should be playable! I want Zelda playable" just leads to pages of posts about that, pre-E3 hype discussion threads on Zelda is great and I love hearing people's theories on the world, if Dungeons are being brought back, etc.
Ooooh, I've been thinking these lines too as well! Nintendo has been killing it with vocal theme songs lately, with jump up superstar and the edge of dawn coming to mind.
was gonna do my own brief speculation/wish/"this would be cool" post like that but I'll just jump off of this point.
a version of this is what I'd actually be really interested in. going off of your earlier post where you suggested she and Link might be split up after she potentially falls down while Link is saved by the spirit hand/seal:
if Zelda lands in deep caverns below, you could have both Link and Zelda have to escape that cave/temple where dried ganon had been kept which would server as the game's tutorial segment for each characters unique skillset: Link has the new abilities from the arm = action; Zelda will have to make use of a smaller but still capable set of abilities AND her smarts (which would also tie into the whole Triforce of Wisdom thing and her character as established in BotW), so she gets to puzzle herself out of the deep cavern or maybe they both meet in the middle.
Either way you could have the ability to swap but after you've come back to the overworld, each character will be useful for specific locations and scenarios. The Zelda team knows people want her to be more active and have more agency, the reveal trailer made big waves just because she cut her friggin hair! The "I'm gonna get my hands dirty!" look.
Yes, they would absolutely mess with the Zelda building blocks because that's what they do! They just need a strong idea and the tech to make it work.
I'm hyped regardless.
It won't be received anywhere near as well regardless because the circumstances were SO completely unique with BotW.
New console launch title
The new console was something everyone was interested in on top of this
It was a radical evolution from the previous console games
It didn't just reinvent its own franchise but a whole hugely popular genre.
They can't replicate this with BotW2, even if it's "better" than the previous one.
BotW is hugely complex under the hood but it's also beautifully simple on the surface and that's why it worked so well.
Yeah! Also, another fun fact: Kate Higgins, who did the vocals for "Jump Up Superstar," also voiced Purah in the Champion's Ballad/AoC! So, maybe...?
(I don't know why I felt the need to bring that up, but hey; the more you know, I guess!)
Hurule warriors aoc isn't really a Zelda title to me, it's a spin of alternative timeline prequel thingy, main thing is the gameplay doesn't feel very canon to me, it's clear they just wanted an excuse to give Zelda a move set without considering a good way to do it, and because it doesn't play like a Zelda game it's not what I'm looking for,
Cadence is a cool title and incorporating Zelda into it was a neat idea but, it's not a Zelda game, at its core it's rhythm based adventure title, and the two share similarities but it's still not a Zelda title.
So what's the vibe here overall, do we see BotW2 at E3?
Personally, I think we're getting a trailer at least, otherwise they would have specified the game's absence like they did in 2015 for the original. They know people expect it and they can't just have Aonuma apologize for a third time since last September.
I find it weird however how there is no buzz about it, not even fake leaks from 4chan that we usually get this close to E3.
Personally, I think we're getting a trailer at least, otherwise they would have specified the game's absence like they did in 2015 for the original. They know people expect it and they can't just have Aonuma apologize for a third time since last September.
I find it weird however how there is no buzz about it, not even fake leaks from 4chan that we usually get this close to E3.
damn, this looks great. Now I'm going to be disappointed when he doesn't look like that in the game lol.I can't believe we're going to see rehydrated Ganondorf in this trailer, as well as hearing his voice as the screen fades to black and the title is revealed.
insert fun fact about Skyward Sword actually having had a Ada's Assignment/Separate Ways (RE4) style mode letting you play Zelda's mission cut due to time constraints (trivia from the Zelda Encyclopedia).
That sounds amazing. I almost wish I didn't know what I was missing out on. Next you'll tell me that there was also a Groose's story cut.
Nah.
I am more interested in how you play as who you play as. If Zelda being playable changes the gameplay in a significant way then I am all for it.
that build of the game is locked away in Fujibayashi's basement which is actually just a Groose shrine. Aonuma wasn't having any of it. (there is nothing officially about Groose content^^ just to be clear)
First of all I wanted to say I read your entire post and think it's an excellent analysis re: playable Zelda. While i get where you're coming from, there are a lot of assumptions being made and some areas I want to respond to.
Yes and no. Based on what I've seen in interviews, Miyamoto is really the main one who seems to think like this. Aonuma however does seem receptive to fan feedback, at least to an extent. Probably the most famous example is TP's artstyle being more "mature" compared to WW thanks to fan feedback. But take a look at this quote from https://www.dualshockers.com/shiger...avorite-aspects-breath-wild-recent-interview/:
Now sure, when Aonuma refers to "fans", he doesn't specify if he heard this from Japanese fans or Western fans, so it's hard to say if one has more influence over the other. But clearly Aonuma can change his stance on established conventions based on fan feedback. Which leads me to...
Yes, they could. And they did it fairly recently. That game was called Breath of the Wild. And yes, Nintendo has gone on record to say that they took inspiration from LoZ1's open world format for BotW so "technically" this doesn't count, but I'd argue the opposite. While LoZ is seen as more open than later games in the series, it still has an established "order" that must be taken before you can get to certain areas and dungeons. BotW is the first game in the series where you can truly go anywhere™ at anytime and in any order. If this isn't drastically changing up the formula then I don't know what is.
Yes, that is exactly what I want Zelda to be. I don't agree with the notion that making her playable essentially destroys her character. Quite the opposite really - if anything, spending more time with her could make her character even better. Let's be honest, before SS, Zelda was barely even a character to begin with. She wasn't someone we sympathized with or even saw enough to really care for. She was just a means to an end - destroy Ganon. That was it.
Starting with SS, Nintendo has really gone a long way in making Zelda someone we actually care about. We see her failings, her frustrations, and her growth. So why can't we experience that while we also play as her? I certainly didn't feel like her character was lessened in AoC. I still felt for her as a character, even if it wasn't a "true" Zelda game. To me, it makes no difference if she's playable or not from a character development standpoint. It's not a zero-sum game, we can have both.
Not necessarily. One game does not set a precedent. I don't expect every Zelda game to have the exact same mechanics as the previous ones so I'm not sure why that applies here. I CAN see to some degree that if Zelda were playable in one game but not the next there would be some disappointment from fans, but it would show that Nintendo is at least open to the idea and doesn't rule out future games with her being playable again.
(And yes, I am aware that BotW's gameplay mechanics have only really been around for one game and as such isn't a precedent based on what I said above, but Aonuma has gone on record to say that the "open air" style gameplay is here to stay.)
With all that said, this right here is the main reason why playable Zelda is something that that Nintendo is hesitant to do. Nintendo is gameplay first, period. They will (at least in their current form) never, EVER do it because of some moral obligation. They will not make her playable because it empowers women to see a strong female character in the co-lead. They have to come up with gameplay reasons first and then they build out from there. But even with that said, based on the quote I linked earlier, that's not to say that the outcry of "make Zelda playable!" hasn't planted a seed somewhere. Starting the conversation could lead to it one day, Nintendo just needs a Nintendo reason to do it.
The "what is Link doing if Zelda is playable" question isn't that hard to figure out. He could be captured or sent to the shadow realm or whatever, and that would give Zelda the opportunity to save him and Hyrule.
Or they could go with the double world route and have each one exploring different worlds to ultimately achieve the same goal.
Or they could go with the double world route and have each one exploring different worlds to ultimately achieve the same goal.
- Status