Legend of Zelda is going multiplayer

  • 78 results
  • 1
  • 2
#51 Posted by Flubbbs (2839 posts) -

hype just dropped

#52 Posted by PurpleMan5000 (6632 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.

I hope you are right.

#53 Edited by LegatoSkyheart (24343 posts) -

@silversix_ said:

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.

I hope you are right.

I'm actually hoping for a Dark Souls like Experience. If there should be any sort of Multiplayer for this type of Zelda game it should be that.

#54 Posted by PurpleMan5000 (6632 posts) -

@PurpleMan5000 said:
@silversix_ said:

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.

I hope you are right.

I'm actually hoping for a Dark Souls like Experience. If there should be any sort of Multiplayer for this type of Zelda game it should be that.

You mean with invasions and whatnot or just the ability to leave messages? Wind Waker HD has the message feature, so I would be surprised if that isn't there. I wouldn't really call that multiplayer, though.

#55 Edited by R4gn4r0k (16139 posts) -

@silversix_ said:

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.

I hope you are right.

Best case scenario

#56 Posted by silversix_ (13666 posts) -

@LegatoSkyheart said:

@PurpleMan5000 said:
@silversix_ said:

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.

I hope you are right.

I'm actually hoping for a Dark Souls like Experience. If there should be any sort of Multiplayer for this type of Zelda game it should be that.

You mean with invasions and whatnot or just the ability to leave messages? Wind Waker HD has the message feature, so I would be surprised if that isn't there. I wouldn't really call that multiplayer, though.

If they add invasions there will be griefing and that is not allowed in Nintendo games

#57 Posted by hrt_rulz01 (5496 posts) -

Some games just don't need a MP component I think...

#58 Edited by LegatoSkyheart (24343 posts) -

@silversix_ said:

@PurpleMan5000 said:

You mean with invasions and whatnot or just the ability to leave messages? Wind Waker HD has the message feature, so I would be surprised if that isn't there. I wouldn't really call that multiplayer, though.

If they add invasions there will be griefing and that is not allowed in Nintendo games

You have never played a New Super Mario Game with more than one person have you? (especially NSMBU the person with the gamepad can be a real dick)

To Purpleman: Yeah, I mean A Link Between Worlds already has a Dark Link Mechanic. If they can expand it and make it to where A Player can "Invade" other people's worlds as a Dark Link or for you to have a Partner (like Spirit Tracks) it would be amazing. The Miiverse Messages almost seemed all but confirmed since nearly all WiiU games have that feature.

#59 Edited by PurpleMan5000 (6632 posts) -

@silversix_ said:

@PurpleMan5000 said:

You mean with invasions and whatnot or just the ability to leave messages? Wind Waker HD has the message feature, so I would be surprised if that isn't there. I wouldn't really call that multiplayer, though.

If they add invasions there will be griefing and that is not allowed in Nintendo games

You have never played a New Super Mario Game with more than one person have you? (especially NSMBU the person with the gamepad can be a real dick)

To Purpleman: Yeah, I mean A Link Between Worlds already has a Dark Link Mechanic. If they can expand it and make it to where A Player can "Invade" other people's worlds as a Dark Link or for you to have a Partner (like Spirit Tracks) it would be amazing. The Miiverse Messages almost seemed all but confirmed since nearly all WiiU games have that feature.

I really don't like the idea of randos showing up in my game in concept or execution. Having the ability to coop with friends for awhile would be ok, though. I would never use that feature, but it wouldn't ruin the game or anything.

#60 Posted by DocSanchez (1417 posts) -

I'm thinking co op multiplayer.

#61 Posted by Jag85 (4269 posts) -

Sounds like they're planning to revisit the Four Swords idea, now that the Wii U works similarly to the GameCube-GBA link-up.

#62 Posted by 22Toothpicks (11258 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.

Uhh lol?

All of these changes are long overdue and look to breathe fresh air into the series. I know it's your opinion but I imagine most people want this next Zelda to as different from the previous games as possible and not the same ol' Zelda. I can only hope it's at least much more differently than the pile of shyte that was Skyward Sword.

#63 Posted by 93BlackHawk93 (5074 posts) -
@PurpleMan5000 said:

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.

Both FS games aren't spinoffs. Both are in the official timeline.

#64 Posted by locopatho (20044 posts) -

@locopatho said:
@PurpleMan5000 said:

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.

Both FS games aren't spinoffs. Both are in the official timeline.

I don't care about the timeline. Gameplay wise they are small spin off games.

#65 Edited by locopatho (20044 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.

I'm not shouting at you, just asking for examples. This is a place for discussion, what's the problem?

That games "seem top be getting shorter and shorter" means nothing without some proof. I'd be open to some. If you aren't bothered then, ok, leave I guess?

#66 Posted by 93BlackHawk93 (5074 posts) -

@93BlackHawk93 said:
@locopatho said:
@PurpleMan5000 said:

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

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.

Both FS games aren't spinoffs. Both are in the official timeline.

I don't care about the timeline. Gameplay wise they are small spin off games.

How so? They had the lore, the classic Zelda gameplay and followed the story of Vaati.

#67 Posted by SecretPolice (21243 posts) -

Zelda with MP, mang, that doesn't even sound right. Leave it SP and do your best job on SP. That is all. :P

#68 Posted by PurpleMan5000 (6632 posts) -

@PurpleMan5000 said:

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.

Uhh lol?

All of these changes are long overdue and look to breathe fresh air into the series. I know it's your opinion but I imagine most people want this next Zelda to as different from the previous games as possible and not the same ol' Zelda. I can only hope it's at least much more differently than the pile of shyte that was Skyward Sword.

Maybe Nintendo should just make a new IP with all of those changes so I can go on playing a series that I enjoy and others can play one that is more like the garbage Elder Scrolls and Souls series.

#69 Posted by locopatho (20044 posts) -

Maybe Nintendo should just make a new IP with all of those changes so I can go on playing a series that I enjoy and others can play one that is more like the garbage Elder Scrolls and Souls series.

Sorry to keep responding to you. I know we have diametrically opposed gaming tastes and that's fine, not trying to change yours...

But you get that you are in a tiny, miniscule minority thinking those games are garbage right? Particularly the Souls games are almost universally loved. Even on System Wars, where everything is hated. You understand that Nintendo would be lunatics to ignore the gameplay innovations and designs that are critically and commercially successful, yeah? With respect (sorta), you seem like a selfish luddite who demands the series stay as old fashioned and rehashed as possible, purely to please you... that's neither nice nor realistic?

#70 Posted by locopatho (20044 posts) -

How so? They had the lore, the classic Zelda gameplay and followed the story of Vaati.

They didn't have campaigns or worlds, they were just action based levels. Good games but not full Zelda titles.

#71 Posted by PurpleMan5000 (6632 posts) -

@PurpleMan5000 said:

Maybe Nintendo should just make a new IP with all of those changes so I can go on playing a series that I enjoy and others can play one that is more like the garbage Elder Scrolls and Souls series.

Sorry to keep responding to you. I know we have diametrically opposed gaming tastes and that's fine, not trying to change yours...

But you get that you are in a tiny, miniscule minority thinking those games are garbage right? Particularly the Souls games are almost universally loved. Even on System Wars, where everything is hated. You understand that Nintendo would be lunatics to ignore the gameplay innovations and designs that are critically and commercially successful, yeah? With respect (sorta), you seem like a selfish luddite who demands the series stay as old fashioned and rehashed as possible, purely to please you... that's neither nice nor realistic?

Garbage? Yeah, sure, I am in the minority there. I am not in the minority at all in thinking they are worse than Skyward Sword, a game that received better scores and sold more copies than Dark Souls and Dark Souls 2. Skyrim appeals to the lowest common denominator, imo. You can make it more reasonable with mods, but I have a lot of trouble respecting a game that lets you improve skills for stealth like lock picking that are completely pointless because the minigame is so easy. I also think the worlds in the TES series are just too big now. I liked the travel system in Morrowind, but I really don't like fast traveling exactly to where I want to go. What is the point of that? I don't like trudging through the woods for an hour to get there, either, though. I liked how Morrowind had a smaller, more reasonably sized map with no map markers, so I felt like I was actually exploring the map rather than trying to beeline a path to the destination. The TES games offer tons of choices, yet offer zero meaningful choices. You can level up, but everything else will level with you, so you don't really feel more powerful. The games are kind of light on bosses, which is lame imo. I don't know. I can see why some like the games, but they just aren't for me.

I realize that Nintendo is not going to just copy TES, but I really see next to nothing there that would be of value to use as a blueprint. If they want to make a large, open world adventure game, that doesn't really fit what Zelda has ever been imo. Why not just create a new IP? Tons of people have been asking for that for as long as I can remember. It would be a huge success for them, and they would be able to keep the millions who enjoyed the direction Zelda took with Skyward Sword happy as well.

#72 Posted by Liquid_ (2254 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.

If you can't handle it then maybe it's for the best. Also you may want to not take the internet so seriously.

#73 Edited by santoron (7470 posts) -

@Flubbbs said:

hype just dropped

^^

I cannot imagine any way that this won't suck. Why on earth does Zelda need multiplayer?

Prove Me Wrong Nintendo!

Or better yet, change your mind before it's too late.

#74 Posted by locopatho (20044 posts) -

Garbage? Yeah, sure, I am in the minority there. I am not in the minority at all in thinking they are worse than Skyward Sword, a game that received better scores and sold more copies than Dark Souls and Dark Souls 2. Skyrim appeals to the lowest common denominator, imo. You can make it more reasonable with mods, but I have a lot of trouble respecting a game that lets you improve skills for stealth like lock picking that are completely pointless because the minigame is so easy. I also think the worlds in the TES series are just too big now. I liked the travel system in Morrowind, but I really don't like fast traveling exactly to where I want to go. What is the point of that? I don't like trudging through the woods for an hour to get there, either, though. I liked how Morrowind had a smaller, more reasonably sized map with no map markers, so I felt like I was actually exploring the map rather than trying to beeline a path to the destination. The TES games offer tons of choices, yet offer zero meaningful choices. You can level up, but everything else will level with you, so you don't really feel more powerful. The games are kind of light on bosses, which is lame imo. I don't know. I can see why some like the games, but they just aren't for me.

I realize that Nintendo is not going to just copy TES, but I really see next to nothing there that would be of value to use as a blueprint. If they want to make a large, open world adventure game, that doesn't really fit what Zelda has ever been imo. Why not just create a new IP? Tons of people have been asking for that for as long as I can remember. It would be a huge success for them, and they would be able to keep the millions who enjoyed the direction Zelda took with Skyward Sword happy as well.

Well yeah, Dark Souls games are get marked down for difficulty. This is not a bad thing. Majora's Mask got the same back in the day.

And even then, Dark Souls II is a single point behind Skyward Sword on Metacritic. That's fantastic but you call it garbage and say Nintendo have nothing to learn from it? And Skyrim that beats Skyward Sword with a 96 is garbage too? As if Skyward Sword wasn't padded and casualised and tutorialised to hell for the "common denominator" too?

You hate wandering an open world but also hate fast travel? You think Morrowind was fine and Skyrim is too big, when Skyrim is only 1.5 times bigger and infinitely more detailed/less copy pasted?

You mock the Elder Scrolls games simplicity and easy gameplay but have zero problem with Zelda games telling you hints and solutions literally non stop?

You claim that Zelda has never been a large open adventure game, when The Legend Of Zelda (NES), Link To The Past (SNES), Ocarina Of Time (N64) and Windwaker (GC) are all the biggest dam open adventure worlds on their respective systems?

Come on dude. Too much bullshit. Dislike whatever you want but don't talk crap either.

#75 Edited by PurpleMan5000 (6632 posts) -

@locopatho said:

@PurpleMan5000 said:

Garbage? Yeah, sure, I am in the minority there. I am not in the minority at all in thinking they are worse than Skyward Sword, a game that received better scores and sold more copies than Dark Souls and Dark Souls 2. Skyrim appeals to the lowest common denominator, imo. You can make it more reasonable with mods, but I have a lot of trouble respecting a game that lets you improve skills for stealth like lock picking that are completely pointless because the minigame is so easy. I also think the worlds in the TES series are just too big now. I liked the travel system in Morrowind, but I really don't like fast traveling exactly to where I want to go. What is the point of that? I don't like trudging through the woods for an hour to get there, either, though. I liked how Morrowind had a smaller, more reasonably sized map with no map markers, so I felt like I was actually exploring the map rather than trying to beeline a path to the destination. The TES games offer tons of choices, yet offer zero meaningful choices. You can level up, but everything else will level with you, so you don't really feel more powerful. The games are kind of light on bosses, which is lame imo. I don't know. I can see why some like the games, but they just aren't for me.

I realize that Nintendo is not going to just copy TES, but I really see next to nothing there that would be of value to use as a blueprint. If they want to make a large, open world adventure game, that doesn't really fit what Zelda has ever been imo. Why not just create a new IP? Tons of people have been asking for that for as long as I can remember. It would be a huge success for them, and they would be able to keep the millions who enjoyed the direction Zelda took with Skyward Sword happy as well.

Well yeah, Dark Souls games are get marked down for difficulty. This is not a bad thing. Majora's Mask got the same back in the day.

And even then, Dark Souls II is a single point behind Skyward Sword on Metacritic. That's fantastic but you call it garbage and say Nintendo have nothing to learn from it? And Skyrim that beats Skyward Sword with a 96 is garbage too? As if Skyward Sword wasn't padded and casualised and tutorialised to hell for the "common denominator" too?

You hate wandering an open world but also hate fast travel? You think Morrowind was fine and Skyrim is too big, when Skyrim is only 1.5 times bigger and infinitely more detailed/less copy pasted?

You mock the Elder Scrolls games simplicity and easy gameplay but have zero problem with Zelda games telling you hints and solutions literally non stop?

You claim that Zelda has never been a large open adventure game, when The Legend Of Zelda (NES), Link To The Past (SNES), Ocarina Of Time (N64) and Windwaker (GC) are all the biggest dam open adventure worlds on their respective systems?

Come on dude. Too much bullshit. Dislike whatever you want but don't talk crap either.

Dark Souls doesn't get marked down for difficulty. It gets marked up for it. There is nothing else that draws people to the franchise. It is completely bare bones.

I don't like the fast travel mechanic in Oblivion and Skyrim. I much preferred the system in Morrowind, where you had to use the travel networks between cities, had to search through caves for items without knowing what room of the cave they are located in, and if you got a disease a long way from help, you were kind of screwed. The games are too big to not have a travel mechanic at all, and not fast traveling is completely pointless when you basically already have the GPS coordinates of where you are supposed to go anyway. There isn't any real exploration, just "go here, do this, come back".

Zelda games do not put a marker on your map telling you exactly where to go like TES games do. Skyward Sword had dousing, but it's not like you had to use it. Nobody gives directions in TES, so you basically have to use the map marker if you want any idea of where to go. That is not exploration. Morrowind had exploration. Skyrim and Oblivion don't, unless you just want to wander around aimlessly at the beginning of the game, searching caves that have no loot.

None of the other Zelda games are remotely as large as this one appears to be. Maybe the new Zelda U isn't that big after all, though, and ends up being a solid game. It's way too early to tell at this point. I just don't really like the things Aonuma is saying about it and implying about his other games. It sounds like he wants to change everything that doesn't really need changed (the world design, multiplayer, etc) and fix nothing that does (the 1990s combat system, Z-targeting, easy bosses).

#76 Posted by VERTIGO47 (6242 posts) -

Dumb.

Zelda franchise has always been SP focus.

Stop catering to the ADHD crowds, Nintendo!! Yes I went there!

#77 Posted by 93BlackHawk93 (5074 posts) -

Yet Zelda purists bitch again.

#78 Posted by bbkkristian (14779 posts) -

dont really care either way, as long as the single player is the focus.