Legend of Zelda is going multiplayer

  • 78 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Posted by erazor51 (318 posts) -

It looks like the Legend of Zelda will be more than a single player experience at some point in the near future according to Zelda producer Eiji Aonuma.

While speaking to GameInformer, he reopened the possibility saying that while he was talking about the making of Zelda more than just a single player experience, he confirmed that it is something we will see in the future, maybe next year.

If you put the pieces together, what Aonuma is hinting at is that the 2015 release of the new Zelda game will likely feature some sort of a multiplayer experience. Of course with all of the other things that Nintendo has been talking about with Zelda, knows what else might be in the cards.

The possibility of Zelda multiplayer is interesting and does again open the debate of the positives and negatives of such an experience. It could take a lot of doing to get a multiplayer Zelda experience right and for sure they would want to get it right. Still it has to be one of the things that players have asked for to be included in the franchise over the years, but if it were easy to do they would have done it by now.

Link: http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/35039-legend-of-zelda-is-going-multiplayer

#2 Edited by georgie556 (8 posts) -

i really hope not. just focus on making a great sp game like always.

#3 Posted by mems_1224 (45728 posts) -

There have already been multiplayer zelda games

#4 Posted by 93BlackHawk93 (5060 posts) -

Better be nothing integrated to the main story.

#5 Edited by BIOKILLER123 (567 posts) -

Zelda the fours swords and Phantom hourglass comes to mind. I don't mind if there was more multiplayer focus in future as long as it's done right.. Having said that, Zelda doesn't really need a multiplayer mode.

#6 Posted by blamix99 (1537 posts) -

hope they won't destroy the game with this stupid mp plan

#7 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (8571 posts) -

local co-op I hope.

#8 Edited by lamprey263 (22420 posts) -

This isn't a first for LoZ, there was Four Swords. Being that none of my friends have a Wii U and are content not having one, multiplayer currently isn't a selling point for me.

#9 Edited by PurpleMan5000 (6592 posts) -

Zelda U just keeps sounding worse and worse.

#10 Edited by LegatoSkyheart (24227 posts) -

Zelda has already gone Multiplayer.

Phantom Hour Glass's Multiplayer wasn't really all that bad...Four Swords if you had Four People was fun and enjoyable....but overall that game was lacking hardcore even Four Swords Adventure on the Gamecube is easily the worst Zelda I have ever played.

Also according to this article he said that This game will be more than just a Single Player Experience. Taking Nintendo's Take on WiiU games to heart, The Recent Mario Games are not exactly Single Player only Experiences either. granted they have Multiplayer Options, but you can play alone and still feel like you're not PLAYING alone.

Why and How you ask?

There's a thing called Miiverse maybe you heard of it. Almost All Nintendo games heck even Windwaker has integrations with Miiverse and they sometimes give you real time updates to who's posting what in the game related forums on there IN GAME. It's almost like how Dark Souls is with all of the Shadows roaming around you. In Windwaker, You see all of these Bottles with Messages in them some give you hints while some are just nifty drawings or pictures from the pictograph. These Bottles give you a sense that you're not alone playing this game, there are others and they are trying to contact you. This is probably what's going to happen in the New Zelda game.

#11 Posted by farrell2k (5106 posts) -

Zelda U just keeps sounding worse and worse.

I get that it is fashionable these days, but you don't have to pretend to hate Nintendo and Zelda.

#12 Posted by 93BlackHawk93 (5060 posts) -

Zelda U just keeps sounding worse and worse.

How?

#13 Posted by Heil68 (42598 posts) -

People are asking for MP in Zelda games?

#14 Posted by foxhound_fox (86844 posts) -

Four Swords was a good game.

#15 Edited by KungfuKitten (20661 posts) -

I dunno. Being able to create your own Hyrule character could be interesting. (Guy in trailer is not necessarily Link, hint hint.)

Maybe multiplayer would be a little like guild wars. You could see other people in the city, and talk to them and request help or to play together. And then you can venture out with your party of 2, 3, 4 people to play the game together.

#16 Posted by bforrester420 (1007 posts) -

The focus on multi-player, especially online multi-player, is ruining gaming for folks like me that have no desire to play games competitively.

#17 Posted by turtlethetaffer (16380 posts) -

I hope it's separate from the main game or you can just ignore it. That way if they do mess it up it won't be in your face.

#18 Posted by speedfreak48t5p (6150 posts) -

The focus on multi-player, especially online multi-player, is ruining gaming for folks like me that have no desire to play games competitively.

Yeah, it's not like you can just ignore the game and play something else. These game companies force you to buy multiplayer games and sit down and play them.

Oh wait......

#19 Edited by PurpleMan5000 (6592 posts) -

Maybe the second player can control link's fairy and the multiplayer is like the multiplayer in SMG. That wouldn't be too bad.

@PurpleMan5000 said:

Zelda U just keeps sounding worse and worse.

How?

The non-linear gameplay, the lack of focus on puzzles, the multiplayer. Hopefully Aonuma is just over-exaggerating all of these changes.

#20 Edited by bforrester420 (1007 posts) -

@speedfreak48t5p said:

@bforrester420 said:

The focus on multi-player, especially online multi-player, is ruining gaming for folks like me that have no desire to play games competitively.

Yeah, it's not like you can just ignore the game and play something else. These game companies force you to buy multiplayer games and sit down and play them.

Oh wait......

My issue with the industry begins when traditionally single-player franchises include multi-player modes that negatively impact the duration of the single player experience.

Oh, wait...I already don't buy multi-player focused games.

#21 Posted by wiifan001 (18312 posts) -

This isn't 2002, multiplayer has been in a number of Zelda games.Other than the Four Swords saga, I haven't cared for any multiplayer in Zelda

#22 Edited by Silenthps (7274 posts) -

I'm guessing it'd be something similar to a Souls game's online features

#23 Posted by Bread_or_Decide (17088 posts) -

It may be more like dark souls, players can maybe drop in to help fight a boss or go through a temple or dungeon.

#24 Edited by lostrib (31485 posts) -

There have already been multiplayer zelda games

#25 Posted by Demonjoe93 (9406 posts) -

Zelda has done MP before already.

#26 Posted by PrincessGomez92 (3221 posts) -

Sweet, I love multiplayer.

#27 Edited by locopatho (20041 posts) -

Maybe the second player can control link's fairy and the multiplayer is like the multiplayer in SMG. That wouldn't be too bad.

@93BlackHawk93 said:
@PurpleMan5000 said:

Zelda U just keeps sounding worse and worse.

How?

The non-linear gameplay, the lack of focus on puzzles, the multiplayer. Hopefully Aonuma is just over-exaggerating all of these changes.

You've gotten the puzzle quote wrong. And the other two are just modern changes that this creaky series definitely needs. Four Swords was good but just a spin off, a proper MP Zelda could be tits. You'll still have like a dozen old style Zelda's to play even if you hate this one btw. It can't stay the same formula forever and ever.

#28 Posted by parkurtommo (25361 posts) -

@bforrester420: Name a game where you can PROVE that the single player campaign was negatively affected by it's multiplayer.

#29 Edited by bforrester420 (1007 posts) -

@parkurtommo said:

@bforrester420: Name a game where you can PROVE that the single player campaign was negatively affected by it's multiplayer.

I would think it's pretty intuitively understood that the more time is spend on tacking on a multi-player mode results in less development time/resources available for single player.

You can't prove single player was affected, because you don't know how good it could have been in the absence of a multi-player. The Uncharted games, for instance, could have been an extra few hours long without the multi-player modes added.

#30 Posted by parkurtommo (25361 posts) -

@parkurtommo said:

@bforrester420: Name a game where you can PROVE that the single player campaign was negatively affected by it's multiplayer.

You can't prove an opinion, dickhole.

How are you forming your opinion then?? wtf

Basically you're saying "I think multiplayer sucks because it detracts from the single player! IDK how, but it just does!"

#31 Posted by Liquid_ (2241 posts) -

The focus on multi-player, especially online multi-player, is ruining gaming for folks like me that have no desire to play games competitively.

Ruining the game? Just play single player then? Not that difficult..

#32 Edited by bforrester420 (1007 posts) -

@bforrester420 said:

@parkurtommo said:

@bforrester420: Name a game where you can PROVE that the single player campaign was negatively affected by it's multiplayer.

You can't prove an opinion, dickhole.

How are you forming your opinion then?? wtf

Basically you're saying "I think multiplayer sucks because it detracts from the single player! IDK how, but it just does!"

Um, duh...aren't we generally expressing opinions here? Reread my edit and you'll understand exactly why I think it detracts from SP.

#33 Edited by bforrester420 (1007 posts) -

@Liquid_ said:

@bforrester420 said:

The focus on multi-player, especially online multi-player, is ruining gaming for folks like me that have no desire to play games competitively.

Ruining the game? Just play single player then? Not that difficult..

I'm getting a little bit tired of 8-hour (or less) SP experiences because developers feel the need to include MP.

#34 Posted by locopatho (20041 posts) -

@Liquid_ said:

@bforrester420 said:

The focus on multi-player, especially online multi-player, is ruining gaming for folks like me that have no desire to play games competitively.

Ruining the game? Just play single player then? Not that difficult..

I'm getting a little bit tired of 8-hour (or less) SP experiences because developers feel the need to include MP.

What game series drastically decreased in length because of multiplayer?

Uncharted 2 was bigger and more varied than the first, even though it added multiplayer.

#35 Edited by bforrester420 (1007 posts) -

@locopatho said:

@bforrester420 said:

@Liquid_ said:

@bforrester420 said:

The focus on multi-player, especially online multi-player, is ruining gaming for folks like me that have no desire to play games competitively.

Ruining the game? Just play single player then? Not that difficult..

I'm getting a little bit tired of 8-hour (or less) SP experiences because developers feel the need to include MP.

What game series drastically decreased in length because of multiplayer?

Uncharted 2 was bigger and more varied than the first, even though it added multiplayer.

Look, you guys aren't convincing me of anything. I've been gaming for nearly 30 years now, and games seem to be getting shorter and shorter in duration. That's my opinion, and if you don't like it, you can pound sand.

I'm going back to OT. This is precisely why I generally avoid SW these days...this place is far too contentious...everyone's looking for an argument.

#36 Edited by parkurtommo (25361 posts) -

@parkurtommo said:

@bforrester420: Name a game where you can PROVE that the single player campaign was negatively affected by it's multiplayer.

I would think it's pretty intuitively understood that the more time is spend on tacking on a multi-player mode results in less development time/resources available for single player.

You can't prove single player was affected, because you don't know how good it could have been in the absence of a multi-player. The Uncharted games, for instance, could have been an extra few hours long without the multi-player modes added.

How would, for example, Uncharted 2, have more hours of the single player campaign when the entire story was expressed in the missions provided? The only way to actually add on content to that would be to pad out the story... It's not black and white, man. Developers aren't all completely dedicated to one side or the other. They have a goal. In Uncharted 2 for example, their goal was to portray that story with an action packed, technically impressive experience, and it did exactly that. The multiplayer was completely separate, they weren't thinking "Oh don't forget guys we have some multiplayer modes to put in here so make the single player snappy" that's not at all what happens!

#37 Edited by LordQuorthon (5242 posts) -

There have already been multiplayer zelda games

This. It could be a Wii U and 3DS multiplatform that plays like Four Swords with both online and local multiplayer. It would be cheap to make, it would sell quite a bit and it would let them experiment with new gameplay elements.

#38 Posted by bforrester420 (1007 posts) -

@bforrester420 said:

@parkurtommo said:

@bforrester420: Name a game where you can PROVE that the single player campaign was negatively affected by it's multiplayer.

I would think it's pretty intuitively understood that the more time is spend on tacking on a multi-player mode results in less development time/resources available for single player.

You can't prove single player was affected, because you don't know how good it could have been in the absence of a multi-player. The Uncharted games, for instance, could have been an extra few hours long without the multi-player modes added.

How would, for example, Uncharted 2, have more hours of the single player campaign when the entire story was expressed in the missions provided? The only way to actually add on content to that would be to pad out the story... It's not black and white, man. Developers aren't all completely dedicated to one side or the other. They have a goal. In Uncharted 2 for example, their goal was to portray that story with an action packed, technically impressive experience, and it did exactly that. The multiplayer was completely separate, they weren't thinking "Oh don't forget guys we have some multiplayer modes to put in here so make the single player snappy" that's not at all what happens!

Then you could also argue that the development of these games could be turned around more quickly had those resources been dedicated to the single player game instead.

#39 Posted by MBirdy88 (7139 posts) -

@parkurtommo said:

@bforrester420 said:

@parkurtommo said:

@bforrester420: Name a game where you can PROVE that the single player campaign was negatively affected by it's multiplayer.

You can't prove an opinion, dickhole.

How are you forming your opinion then?? wtf

Basically you're saying "I think multiplayer sucks because it detracts from the single player! IDK how, but it just does!"

Um, duh...aren't we generally expressing opinions here? Reread my edit and you'll understand exactly why I think it detracts from SP.

what, you mean an unproven "what if" statement?

How the hell can local/online co-op in a zelda game be a bad thing? people have already pointed out that it has been done well in the past already.

Zelda does need to evolve alittle for gods sake.... having extra optional content that requires 2 or more players would be nothing but a good thing. ofcourse I understand people wanting to be able to solo... but at the same time... you are the same people that complain when Multiplayer only games don't have an SP ..... so I have no sympathy.

#40 Posted by nini200 (9377 posts) -

There have already been multiplayer zelda games

#41 Posted by PurpleMan5000 (6592 posts) -

I think a multiplayer mode where one player acts as dungeon master, choosing item locations, etc. for another player to run through could be kind of cool. Letting a player control the boss would be awesome if they would completely rework the combat system. It's probably just going to be another Link running around, though. Boring.

#42 Posted by bforrester420 (1007 posts) -

@MBirdy88 said:
@bforrester420 said:

@parkurtommo said:

@bforrester420 said:

@parkurtommo said:

@bforrester420: Name a game where you can PROVE that the single player campaign was negatively affected by it's multiplayer.

You can't prove an opinion, dickhole.

How are you forming your opinion then?? wtf

Basically you're saying "I think multiplayer sucks because it detracts from the single player! IDK how, but it just does!"

Um, duh...aren't we generally expressing opinions here? Reread my edit and you'll understand exactly why I think it detracts from SP.

what, you mean an unproven "what if" statement?

How the hell can local/online co-op in a zelda game be a bad thing? people have already pointed out that it has been done well in the past already.

Zelda does need to evolve alittle for gods sake.... having extra optional content that requires 2 or more players would be nothing but a good thing. ofcourse I understand people wanting to be able to solo... but at the same time... you are the same people that complain when Multiplayer only games don't have an SP ..... so I have no sympathy.

Why would I complain about games in which I have no interest?

#43 Posted by MBirdy88 (7139 posts) -

@MBirdy88 said:
@bforrester420 said:

@parkurtommo said:

@bforrester420 said:

@parkurtommo said:

@bforrester420: Name a game where you can PROVE that the single player campaign was negatively affected by it's multiplayer.

You can't prove an opinion, dickhole.

How are you forming your opinion then?? wtf

Basically you're saying "I think multiplayer sucks because it detracts from the single player! IDK how, but it just does!"

Um, duh...aren't we generally expressing opinions here? Reread my edit and you'll understand exactly why I think it detracts from SP.

what, you mean an unproven "what if" statement?

How the hell can local/online co-op in a zelda game be a bad thing? people have already pointed out that it has been done well in the past already.

Zelda does need to evolve alittle for gods sake.... having extra optional content that requires 2 or more players would be nothing but a good thing. ofcourse I understand people wanting to be able to solo... but at the same time... you are the same people that complain when Multiplayer only games don't have an SP ..... so I have no sympathy.

Why would I complain about games in which I have no interest?

oh I'm sure if there was a zelda mmo (hypothetically since I doubt that would ever happen) you would be the first to complain just because its a franchise you like.

that being said.... address the rest of the post. I like zelda SP too. but the games are limited... have a 3D zelda with 2-4 player syncronised puzzles and bosses is moving in a direction suitable to add that layer of challenge... but that might just be me.... I mean its not like other nintendo games don't largely benefit from great multiplayer game amirite?

#44 Posted by parkurtommo (25361 posts) -

@parkurtommo said:

@bforrester420 said:

@parkurtommo said:

@bforrester420: Name a game where you can PROVE that the single player campaign was negatively affected by it's multiplayer.

I would think it's pretty intuitively understood that the more time is spend on tacking on a multi-player mode results in less development time/resources available for single player.

You can't prove single player was affected, because you don't know how good it could have been in the absence of a multi-player. The Uncharted games, for instance, could have been an extra few hours long without the multi-player modes added.

How would, for example, Uncharted 2, have more hours of the single player campaign when the entire story was expressed in the missions provided? The only way to actually add on content to that would be to pad out the story... It's not black and white, man. Developers aren't all completely dedicated to one side or the other. They have a goal. In Uncharted 2 for example, their goal was to portray that story with an action packed, technically impressive experience, and it did exactly that. The multiplayer was completely separate, they weren't thinking "Oh don't forget guys we have some multiplayer modes to put in here so make the single player snappy" that's not at all what happens!

Then you could also argue that the development of these games could be turned around more quickly had those resources been dedicated to the single player game instead.

Yes, but do you honestly think it's more important to release early than to add more content? (even if it's not the kind of content you would enjoy)

#45 Edited by bforrester420 (1007 posts) -

@MBirdy88 said:

@bforrester420 said:

@MBirdy88 said:
@bforrester420 said:

@parkurtommo said:

@bforrester420 said:

@parkurtommo said:

@bforrester420: Name a game where you can PROVE that the single player campaign was negatively affected by it's multiplayer.

You can't prove an opinion, dickhole.

How are you forming your opinion then?? wtf

Basically you're saying "I think multiplayer sucks because it detracts from the single player! IDK how, but it just does!"

Um, duh...aren't we generally expressing opinions here? Reread my edit and you'll understand exactly why I think it detracts from SP.

what, you mean an unproven "what if" statement?

How the hell can local/online co-op in a zelda game be a bad thing? people have already pointed out that it has been done well in the past already.

Zelda does need to evolve alittle for gods sake.... having extra optional content that requires 2 or more players would be nothing but a good thing. ofcourse I understand people wanting to be able to solo... but at the same time... you are the same people that complain when Multiplayer only games don't have an SP ..... so I have no sympathy.

Why would I complain about games in which I have no interest?

oh I'm sure if there was a zelda mmo (hypothetically since I doubt that would ever happen) you would be the first to complain just because its a franchise you like.

that being said.... address the rest of the post. I like zelda SP too. but the games are limited... have a 3D zelda with 2-4 player syncronised puzzles and bosses is moving in a direction suitable to add that layer of challenge... but that might just be me.... I mean its not like other nintendo games don't largely benefit from great multiplayer game amirite?

I haven't played Zelda since N64, so Zelda isn't a particularly good example. I was disappointed that Bethesda made an Elder Scrolls MMO rather than a new Elder Scrolls, but I never complained about it...I did what any rational consumer did and simply didn't patronize the MMO.

The rest of the post didn't interest me and wasn't relevant to my original opinion expressed, so I didn't feel the need to address points extraneous to my intent.

#46 Edited by bforrester420 (1007 posts) -

@parkurtommo said:

@bforrester420 said:
@parkurtommo said:

@bforrester420 said:

@parkurtommo said:

@bforrester420: Name a game where you can PROVE that the single player campaign was negatively affected by it's multiplayer.

I would think it's pretty intuitively understood that the more time is spend on tacking on a multi-player mode results in less development time/resources available for single player.

You can't prove single player was affected, because you don't know how good it could have been in the absence of a multi-player. The Uncharted games, for instance, could have been an extra few hours long without the multi-player modes added.

How would, for example, Uncharted 2, have more hours of the single player campaign when the entire story was expressed in the missions provided? The only way to actually add on content to that would be to pad out the story... It's not black and white, man. Developers aren't all completely dedicated to one side or the other. They have a goal. In Uncharted 2 for example, their goal was to portray that story with an action packed, technically impressive experience, and it did exactly that. The multiplayer was completely separate, they weren't thinking "Oh don't forget guys we have some multiplayer modes to put in here so make the single player snappy" that's not at all what happens!

Then you could also argue that the development of these games could be turned around more quickly had those resources been dedicated to the single player game instead.

Yes, but do you honestly think it's more important to release early than to add more content? (even if it's not the kind of content you would enjoy)

It's an either/or...they can either add content to their SP game or devote the time/resources they save on sequels or new IP. Developers have been vocal about the increasing budgets necessary for contemporary games, afterall. Faster development turnaround is one means of shrinking these capital expenditures.

#47 Posted by General_Solo76 (85 posts) -

I doubt it would be for the main SP game though. Probably just some tacked on nonsense like most games have nowadays. In all honesty, they shouldn't even bother with it when it comes to certain games, and Zelda is definitely one of those games.

#48 Posted by PurpleMan5000 (6592 posts) -

@MBirdy88 said:

oh I'm sure if there was a zelda mmo (hypothetically since I doubt that would ever happen) you would be the first to complain just because its a franchise you like.

that being said.... address the rest of the post. I like zelda SP too. but the games are limited... have a 3D zelda with 2-4 player syncronised puzzles and bosses is moving in a direction suitable to add that layer of challenge... but that might just be me.... I mean its not like other nintendo games don't largely benefit from great multiplayer game amirite?

I can't think of any Nintendo game that benefits greatly from having coop. The new Star Fox game would, so hopefully they put coop into that one. Zelda? Do you really want levels where you have to rely on somebody else to play the game correctly in order for you to beat a boss or solve a puzzle? I don't.

#49 Edited by MBirdy88 (7139 posts) -

@PurpleMan5000 said:

@MBirdy88 said:

oh I'm sure if there was a zelda mmo (hypothetically since I doubt that would ever happen) you would be the first to complain just because its a franchise you like.

that being said.... address the rest of the post. I like zelda SP too. but the games are limited... have a 3D zelda with 2-4 player syncronised puzzles and bosses is moving in a direction suitable to add that layer of challenge... but that might just be me.... I mean its not like other nintendo games don't largely benefit from great multiplayer game amirite?

I can't think of any Nintendo game that benefits greatly from having coop. The new Star Fox game would, so hopefully they put coop into that one. Zelda? Do you really want levels where you have to rely on somebody else to play the game correctly in order for you to beat a boss or solve a puzzle? I don't.

... I'm not talking forced... that would be very out of context... but an additional portion of the game that doesn't effect the direct story... or a sub-adventure why not?

and yes I do.... I play MMO's for that very reason..... beating challenges with others adds a lot to games. I am use to relying on others in tough situations.. it has its frustrations... but we arn't talking about MMO's level difficulty here are we? we are talking about Zelda games with a difficulty aimed at young children.

Mario maybe? donkey kong? granted platformers.... but how about thinking outside of the box....

#50 Posted by silversix_ (13547 posts) -

let me guess a fairy that follows link is the 2nd player and all you'll be able to do is collect gems with waggle controller. Nice multiplayer, Nintendo.