New changes to the Pokemon formula are set to make the games better than ever for everybody.
Nintendo has attempted a homerun and struck out at the home plate as always… at least according to their most avid fans. The recently announced Pokemon: Let’s Go Pikachu! and Pokemon: Let’s Go Eevee!, releasing November 16th on Switch, is a spin-off from the main series set in the Kanto region that focuses on its special interaction with the wildly popular, albeit shortly popular, Pokemon GO. To facilitate this interaction and draw players from Pokemon GO into this new console adventure, gameplay mainstays have been radically changed to fit alongside Pokemon GO’s mechanics. The disappointed, at best, and vehement, at worst, responses amassing under IGN’s truncated version of Nintendo Treehouse’s Pokemon: Let’s Go Pikachu! and Pokemon: Let’s Go Eevee! video exploration tell the tale of what “Nintendo got wrong this time“, and the consensus says two things: the removal of wild Pokemon battles, and the experience sharing between all Pokemon. As always, this consensus doesn’t consider the whole picture.
These new spinoff games have some interesting changes from the main series. They’re the first main series’ styled Pokemon games to feature fully integrated cooperative play into the central storyline. They’re also the first to allow two of your Pokemon to travel alongside you outside of their pokeballs, although main series titles like Pokemon Yellow and Pokemon HeartGold allowed one Pokemon to do so. Pokemon that travel outside their pokeballs are also actual size for the first time in the series, and certain Pokemon, like Onyx, will be rideable. Beyond that, wild Pokemon encounters have turned into Pokemon GO encounters, so instead of weakening Pokemon through battle, you’ll entice them in with fruits and other objects before throwing a pokeball to capture them by using the JoyCon. These wild encounters still give your Pokemon experience, but instead of giving your Pokemon experience upon defeating a wild Pokemon, you’re given experience for capturing them. Additionally, wild Pokemon are visible moving about in the grass instead of only appearing during encounters, and differently colored auras surrounding these Pokemon display whether they are larger or smaller for their species. The Pokemon Box, which used to be accessible only in Pokemon Centers is now available in the player’s trainer bag, and Pokemon can be sent from the Pokemon Box to Professor Oak to gain candies that train your Pokemon’s stats. Finally, Pokemon you have in Pokemon GO can be transferred to a Pokemon GO Park area in place of the Safari Zone of previous generations.
This is, admittedly, a shockingly large number of changes in a single generation for the Pokemon series, but in a series commonly derided for being the same reskinned game sold time after time after time to children who don’t know any better, that may not be a bad thing. Let’s tackle these changes one by one. First off, the addition of a cooperative player has not fallen under scrutiny: it’s generally considered a great addition and with good reason. Players of this new Pokemon game can be younger, experience the game together, and learn from each other in a far more personable and natural way than ever before. As for having your Pokemon travel alongside you outside their pokeballs, the presence of this addition in previous versions gave the player a sense of comradery, bonding, and adventure that wasn’t matched in newer entries like Pokemon Sun and Moon that substituted virtual pet style grooming in its place. That is, of course, not to mention the way Pokemon freely traveling beside you makes the trainer/Pokemon relationship seem more mutual and caring as well as matching the anime adventures! This addition also faces little scrutiny in the community, but the transformation of wild Pokemon encounters into Pokemon GO encounters faced more backlash than it could ever warrant.
There’s nothing inherently wrong with preferring wild Pokemon battles to Pokemon GO encounters unless you intend to moralize the brutalizing of virtual, fake animals (which is a fine thing to do, in my opinion), but there’s nothing inherently right about including wild Pokemon battles in every Pokemon game. Though it may be difficult to fight the urge to resist any change in a beloved, nostalgic childhood series, some changes, like this one, can be good. Pokemon GO encounters force Pokemon to live up to its catchphrase, “Gotta catch ’em all!”, for the first time. In Pokemon: Let’s Go Pikachu and Let’s Go Eevee, players are rewarded, both with experience points and with the ability to customize their Pokemon’s stats (which would normally require rigorous, specific, and researched EV training), when they capture wild Pokemon. Surely, this is an improvement over a simple Pokedex entry that few ever read, right? I, for one, was elated by the change. The experience sharing may seem like a bad choice at first glance, deincentivizing the use of many different Pokemon in battle, but it actually counteracts the incentive to use a single Pokemon. Anyone who played Pokemon at a younger age should remember always using their starter Pokemon and how attached they became to their starter. By forcing experience points to be shared, this new game makes the hyperpowered starter Pokemon disappear, making battles more than brute force. And, if that brute force is ever needed, a helping hand in the form of a cooperative player is always at the ready.
As for Pokemon visibly moving about in the grass, this will give players a chance to avoid encounters they don’t want while enlivening the areas they traverse and giving them fresh experiences each time they pass through. Additionally, the size auras tip players off that a Pokemon in the grass is special and, though this is only speculation, may indicate IV values for those Pokemon as well. With the increased rate of Pokemon capture, moving the Pokemon Box to a player’s bag makes sense as well: accessing it will become a part of the grinding experience that would be tedious if the player had to go to the Pokemon Center every time. Finally, the Pokemon GO Park is the feature equivalent of a cherry on top. Pokemon GO players will love it, and non-Pokemon GO players don’t have to use it and can even be supplemented by friends who play the phone game.
Overall, most of these changes and additions won’t just make Pokemon a game with a clearer focus both on battling AND on Pokemon collecting, but will also make Pokemon a more accessible, shareable, cleanly designed, and unique experience for everyone. The Pokemon Company has clearly put their ear to the ground and took inspiration from what has worked in the past, whether it be the traveling Pokemon companions of Pokemon Yellow or the Pokewalker being reborn in the new Pokeball+ peripheral, to make something entirely fresh and innovative, yet familiar at the same time. Nintendo may strike out often, but sometimes its fans can make bad calls, too.
Green Man Gaming inflamed the video game review world with its cost per hour metric, but it’s not really a bad idea.
A little-used online gaming store called Green Man Gaming released a hotly debated metric for its consumers last week: Average Cost Per Hour. According to Matt Kim from US Gamer, the metric is determined by the price of the game at the time someone views it divided by the average number of hours Steam connected users of Green Man Gaming have played the game. It goes without saying that, as a statistical measure, this metric is highly flawed. For one thing, this a volunteer sample and is not at all representative of all players of the game. It’s not even representative of Green Man Gaming players of the game which might be a more helpful metric considering that consumers using Green Man Gaming may share goals and perspectives. For another, Steam hardly, if ever, accurately tracks the amount of time a player spends in game and using current price as opposed to the price when purchased ignores the impact of investment on motivation to play. I can’t be the only person who’s spent more time in a game simply because it was more expensive for me. The list of qualms with this particular metric could run through this entire article, but instead of talking about how bad this particular version of the metric is for games, as was done in practicallyeverymajorarticle covering it, I’d rather discuss how an average cost per hour metric could be useful.
I know what you’re thinking, “Useful? How could something that practicallyeverymajorarticle believes distorts our understanding of a game’s value be useful? Doesn’t it harm developers and encourage the inclusion of time padding in otherwise succint and engaging experiences?” and yes, it does do all those things… in its current form on Green Man Gaming and in our current gaming culture. But have some imagination, this metric serves an obvious purpose! Not every gamer has a limitless pool of financial resources, and gaming is already far more expensive and specialized than practically every other entertainment medium out there! Finding ways to make gaming more accessible, like the explosion of the mobile market did, is critical for games to continue to develop as an artform. Yes, that’s right, more consumers and producers will make games a more mature artform, so giving an accurate average cost per hour metric could bolster our communities and platforms. There are many ways you could alter a flat average cost per hour into something more helpful.
Why not, for instance, create a value based rating system as opposed to a nebulous review score structure? The calculation for this rating system would be Appraised Game Value = Hours Enjoyed × Personal Cost Per Hour and Value Per Hour = Appraised Game Value ÷ Hours Played. For example, let’s say you bought a $60 game that you’ve played for 20 hours but every hour you played was abysmal and you regret the time and money you spent. That game’s really worth $0 after your appraisal, so the value per hour (what the game should cost) comes out to $0 an hour. If you enjoyed all 20 hours of the game, that’s a $3 value per hour, and if you enjoyed 15 hours of the game that’s a $2.25 value per hour. A value per hour rating system could then be compared with a cost per hour metric to aid in purchasing decisions. This eliminates the issue of cost per hour being used as a value system, and the meaningless “out of ten” reviews we’re all familiar with. This rating system also leaves room for higher order recommendations in the form of impressions, ordered lists, full scale analyses, etc. by separating the consumptive value of a game from its artistic merit.
Now on to fixing that pesky cost per hour metric. First off, self reporting is wildly inaccurate and Steam counts hours spent downloading and updating software in proprietary launchers, adjusting settings in menu, and many other superfluous moments into its record. What a cost per hour metric requires is an in-game timer like the one in Pokémon games and an “Are you still playing?” stop screen like the one used on Netflix. This wouldn’t eliminate every problem and is obviously a far way off (good luck trying to standardize all that) but it would drastically improve our data quality. Once we had that improved data collected in a publicly accessable forum, all sorts of demographic information could stratify the data according to the users needs. Imagine a Spotify style Discovery playlist that suggests games to you based on the playing habits of those with a similar library or similar favorite games! Imagine a specialized, social media style feed that performs a similar function. That, however, is beyond the point. Users could select which consumers to include in a cost per hour analysis or defer to an algorithmically generated analyis that matchs the user to those with similar tastes or view the full analysis that includes every player in the system. Each of these choices would give valuable information, but the order in which they’re arranged is important. I believe the default cost per hour metric should be blank and request you add users to track and only give the full player base or algorithmic analysis upon request. This would disuade the use of such a subjective measure of the game as objective and improve the metric itself as users develop it to reflect their own desires. Certainly a metric like that would be integral to purchasing decisions and celebrated/critiqued into fitness!
Despite all this, it is important to remember that even a value per hour score doesn’t relate every bit of critical information on a game. For a player, playing a game is like eating food. Appraised value and value per hour are to games almost what calorie content is to a meal. In both cases, that metric is terribly important for those with little to spend and degrades as a measure of utility as financial resources swell. Other methods of games criticism tell us more nuanced information like which ingredients were used, where those ingredients came from, how their flavors interact, and more, but no food critic has ever bemoaned a calorie count for degrading the value of their assessments. We shouldn’t let our critics either.
Besides, they must be a little impressed… Why else would they give a little-recognized retailer such great publicity coverage?
The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild is the sixth 3D installment of Nintendo‘s beloved Legend of Zelda franchise and a follow up to 2011’s Skyward Sword. Releasing on the Wii U and Nintendo’s new console, the Switch, Breath of the Wild sparked the same kind of joyous fervor that every new Zelda game musters. Heralded as a return to the “open air” design sensibilities of the original Legend of Zelda, Breath of the Wild is an open world adventure game with environmental puzzle solving elements. Contrasting with its most recent predecessor, Breath of the Wild is almost entirely free of linearity, giving the player the freedom to approach problems however they want. That being said, the story and meaning behind the game seems ambiguous and empty because of it.
To detail my experiences with Breath of the Wild, I’ve prepared a scoring system in which certain aspects of the game are weighted more than others. I’ve separated the system into two primary scores: Technical Proficiency and Artistic Proficiency. Each score will be explained below and numerous subscores from which they are derived will be supported with qualitative evidence. Please note that all scores are out of 100 and 50 is the benchmark for the average title on the market. A 50 is NOT a bad score, it’s an average score.
Technical Proficiency: 83/100
Technical Proficiency is a combined score composed of three main scores: Visuals, Sound, and Controls. This score is meant to detail the spectacle of the experience and how well the sensory artists and programmers crafted the game.
Overall Visuals Score: 89.25/100
Style Score: 87/100
Animation Score: 90/100
Purpose Score : 90/100
Breath of the Wild’s visual style is very reminiscent of Skyward Sword albeit cel shaded and less saturated this time around. Low color saturation coupled with very basic textures and high quality lighting effects causes many areas and materials to appear claylike in game. This is far from a bad thing however, and sets the tone for many of the playful and creative interactions to come. Beyond that, Zelda’s style is faithful to the previous installments with intricate gothic designs flooding the Zora Domain with cool colors, mysterious yet utterly human adobe structures rising from the Gerudo’s sands, primitive and searing stacks of stone radiating beneath the Gorons on Death Mountain, and towering wooden huts spiraling up rock spires for the Rito. Even beyond the four races, each linked to an aspect of Hyrule through both their divine beast and specific stature (water, earth, fire, air), there are many beautiful Hyrulean vistas inspired by real life locales. Marshes, forests, snow capped mountains, plateaus, and more exist in this game. Filled with stunning lighting and particle effects that could only live in a Zelda game, Breath of the Wild receives a 87/100 for visual style.
From leaping Lizalfos to slumping Hinoxes, galloping horses to flying herons, every animation in Breath of the Wild shows an incredible attention to detail that you’d be hard pressed to find anywhere else. Many open world experiences of its magnitude have countless animation bugs and glitches but during my playthrough, I not only failed to encounter a single one but also spent far more time watching animations than I ordinarily would have. Guardians in particular entranced me with their multiple legs moving in unison and flailing as they burst in blue flames. Nothing in Breath of the Wild feels stiff or lifeless, and for that it receives a 90/100 in the animation category.
There was never a time while playing Breath of the Wild that I felt the game hadn’t told me what was about to happen. From enemies reeling back to swing, shoot, and lob, to lines of electric energy on the ground, everything the player needs to know is visually related to them. Each collectable item even has a helpful sparkle small enough not to cause frustration but visible enough to help you find every bit of loot at your disposal. Map pins and markers are also available to give extra clarity to the location of places seen easily from a height but impossibly on the ground level. Leaves, cracked rock, the classic red barrels, and lustrous metal clues the player into the options they have when approaching any given situation. For this, Breath of the Wild receives a 90/100 in the visual purpose category.
Overall Sound Score: 79.33/100
Music Score: 79/100
Sound Effects Score: 77/100
Variety Score: 90/100
After the fully orchestrated soundtrack of Skyward Sword, fans of the Legend of Zelda’s memorable and soaring themes might find themselves disappointed with Breath of the Wild’s mostly minimal piano riffs and entirely synth based soundtrack. Nonetheless, Breath of the Wild’s music is full of memorable themes such as the swelling and anticipatory main theme, the frantic brass piercings of the Hinox battle theme, and the ponderous and heavy movement of the Talus battle theme. Despite this, Breath of the Wild’s musical strength comes from its sensitivity to the player’s actions. If Link is trying to keep quiet, the music will die down to add tension to the moment. If Link is approaching battle, the music will shift to a thematically appropriate theme for that enemy. Because of Breath of the Wild’s lackluster music (in comparison to previous Zelda titles), it receives a 79/100 in the music category.
Similar to the quality of animation in Breath of the Wild, sound effects abound with such a high attention to detail that I’ve yet to play a game that rivals them. From horses panting and clopping with each clop ringing in your ears at the exact moment a hoof strikes Hyrule, to shattering weapons and ticking guardian lasers, every sound effect you hear lets you know about your surroundings. Breath of the Wild develops a world so realized that each animal has a specific set of sounds as the leaves rustle and fall from the trees. Ambient and gameplay sounds are only one half of the equation though, and the voice acting is monstrous. It seems that a mostly talented voice cast working with less than direct translations received sub-par directing for their lines. Misplaced emphasis, awkward tone qualities, and much more could have been eliminated from the performance with a simple request for another take with different directions. For this reason, Breath of the Wild receives a 77/100 in the sound effects category.
In terms of variety in sound, Breath of the Wild is on very stable footing. Short piano riffs coupled with swelling brass movements and airy flute melodies meant that newer digital styles and older traditional Japanese styles could exist side by side. Most tracks present a different theme, from pentatonic desert meanderings for the Gerudo, to ethereal and soothing piano pieces for the Zora, soundtrack variety was not relinquished from the Zelda formula this time around. Coupled with the wide variety of sound effects for any occasion, Breath of the Wild earns a variety score of 90/100.
Overall Controls Score: 80/100
Controller Score: 80/100
Responsiveness Score: 100/100
Functionality Score: 68/100
Breath of the Wild is playable with a Wii U Pro controller or the Wii U Gamepad but the Gamepad is required for some gyroscopic gameplay sections within shrines. This fact coupled with the frustration of an odd control scheme and no remapping options gave Breath of the Wild a bit of a learning curve and a pressure for the player to play on the Gamepad exclusively. I played on the Wii U Pro controller for the majority of my game, but I would suggest the Wii U Gamepad if gyroscopic aiming seems beneficial to you and you don’t want to have to switch controllers during play. Despite that, the Wii U Pro controller worked flawlessly after the initial learning curve. Breath of the Wild receives an 80/100 for its controller score.
Lagging inputs, disconnections, and incorrect responses were absent from my experiences with Breath of the Wild, though this may differ if you intend to play on the Nintendo Switch with the Joy Cons disconnected from the system. Dodging, firing arrows, jump attacking, and much more all felt smooth in my playthrough. For these reasons, Breath of the Wild receives a 100/100 in the responsiveness category.
Breath of the Wild’s menus are odd to say the least. While most menus use a bumper systems to move between tabs, Breath of the Wild opts to force you through each page within a tab to get to the selection you want. Another frustration with Breath of the Wild’s controllers is the lack of a drop weapon button (this is particularly true for shields and bows, as melee weapons can be thrown), which forces you through the menu any time you want to pick up a new item. Receiving the notice that your inventory is full from a chest and not being given an immediate option to drop items is flabbergasting in this day and age. Another qualm with Breath of the Wild’s functionality comes from its wavering frame rates which drop for unknown reasons in many of the early areas and stutter when fighting Moblins or lighting large fires. For these reasons, Breath of the Wild receives a 68/100 in the functionality category.
Artistic Proficiency: 74/100
Artistic Proficiency is a combined score composed of two main scores: Gameplay and Story. This score is meant to detail the meaning of the experience and how well the writers, directors, and designers crafted that meaning into the game.
Overall Gameplay Score: 89.67/100
Agency Score: 84/100
Core Gameplay Loop Score: 96/100
Variety Score: 75/100
Breath of the Wild is a game largely about exploration, but that does not necessarily mean it has a lot of choice within it, or that it gives the player agency within its parameters. In this case, the journey is far more important than the destination as “all roads lead to Rome” which for Link is the final boss, Calamity Ganon, inside Hyrule Castle. To take on the many enemies now patrolling Hyrule, Link has a variety of damaging abilities to choose from, but some, such as bombs, quickly become obsolete when enemies have higher resistances in harder areas. Collecting and seeking out the many ingredients that grow in Hyrule allows the player to explore cooking and create dishes and potions to further customize their playstyle. Player agency is at its greatest in the many shrine puzzles that line the landscape and in the four divine beasts that serve as Breath of the Wild’s main dungeons. There the player can think laterally to solve puzzles in ways the designers may not have intended, and are encouraged to do so. Sadly, the most interesting story in Breath of the Wild took place before the events of the game, so the player has little agency or interaction with it. For these reasons, Breath of the Wild receives a 84/100 in the agency category.
Breath of the Wild holds within it many separate gameplay loops that can be undertaken at any time during play. The first is the exploratory loop: find the map revealing tower, reveal a region of the map, use the Sheikah Slate sensor to find shrines in the area, find a new map revealing tower, repeat. The second is the main storyline loop: find a city belonging to one of four major races (Rito, Zora, Goron, Gerudo), complete a preliminary quest in which you are introduced to the new champion of that race, go to the divine beast, activate all the terminals in the divine beast by solving puzzles using its unique movement mechanic. There are other loops as well, such as the Great Fairy clothing upgrade loop, the cooking loop, the breakable weapons loop, et cetera, but these two are the most important. The shear scope of these intertwining loops gives Breath of the Wild an inviting, constantly changing, and rewarding gameplay cycle full of reflex/timing driven interactions and thoughtful but intuitive stat assignment. For this Breath of the Wild receives a 96/100 in the core gameplay loop category.
Games typically consist of one central gameplay theme or dabble slightly in many. Breath of the Wild is a perfect balance between those two styles. While it has fully formed puzzles as clearly presented and thoughtfully designed as (but more free than, in terms of possible solutions) those in Valve’s Portal series, it also contains rigorous combat against 18 unique enemy types complete with dodge, parry, knockback, freeze, shock, and burn mechanics that will keep the player on their toes. This is not to mention the horseback riding, gliding, climbing, and much more. Coupled with side quests of all shapes and sizes, from finding the hiding places of the forest Koroks, to recruiting people of all kinds to join together in a new village, Breath of the Wild offers a lot of variety to work with. For this reason, Breath of the Wild receives a 75/100 in the variety category.
Overall Story Score: 58/100
Characters Score: 60/100
Plot Score: 50/100
Coherency Score: 64/100
The characters of Breath of the Wild are archetypal at best and never develop past that base level of nuance. The four previous champions, Revali the Rito, Daruk the Goron, Mipha the Zora, and Urbosa the Gerudo, are all the simple archetype of their race; in the previous order, each Champion’s primary trait would be arrogant (skillful), worried (diligent), selfless (compassionate), and controlling (vengeful). We seldom interact with them and all the meaningful interaction Link has with these characters takes place before the events of the game and out of our control. I would like to say that the defeat of each character at the hands of Calamity Ganon was due to the deficiencies of their archetypes but we are never presented with the events surrounding their demises. As for Link and Zelda, Zelda feels she is incompetent in her destined mode and so seeks her own way to contribute, eventually realizing the constraints she must work within to succeed. Link, alternatively, worked within his constraints and so is the true hero of the story, albeit a mute and blank one. Despite this each have interesting visual designs and many homages to previous games raising the character score to a 60/100.
Breath of the Wild takes place in a Hyrule that has seen Ganon rule in a pure calamitous form for 100 years. The Great Calamity, the event in which Ganon rested control of the many mechanical Guardians and the four divine beasts that were meant to defend against him, took the life of Hyrule’s King, the four Champions, and nearly took the life of Link who was put to sleep in a resurrection shrine until he could fight again. Now that he has awakened, Link must complete the shrines dotting the landscapes to increase his power, free the four divine beasts from Ganon, and recover his memories before putting an end to Ganon in a final confrontation. Link’s memories run the pre-Calamity storyline in which the Champions, Zelda, and Link prepare for the return of Ganon. Zelda struggles with envy at Link’s acceptance of his destiny until she gains her own power through protecting Link. I could break down the symbolism behind both storylines but each is a form of the hero’s journey most would be familiar with, either from old heroic tales and myths, or the religions of many cultures. No particularly nuanced or creative statement is made with the story so Breath of the Wild receives a 50/100 for its formulaic offering.
Sadly, there is a major disconnect between the story of the game and the story of Zelda’s memories. Not to say this wasn’t purposeful, but I personally would have preferred if the pre-Calamity storyline took place within a linear progression so that we could see more character progression within the champions and get to know them personally. Then whenever we are truly alone in the open world environment of the game, the feeling of freedom can be a frantic and crushing experience as well as an empowering one. That change, coupled with a less successful Calamity age Hyrule would have greatly improved the game as a coherent product. Nonetheless, Breath of the Wild is slightly above par what most would expect in terms of polish and understanding of itself and for that it receives a 64/100 in the coherency category.
Despite a less than perfect storyline, lackluster music given the series’ fame, and some UI and frame rate issues, Breath of the Wild stands out on the merit of its gameplay systems and attention to detail alone. With gorgeous visuals and sound effects, each romp in Hyrule’s vistas will be a spectacle to behold and lead the player to something new. In the future, I hope that Zelda stories can take on the mechanical and narrative complexities they’ve held in the past while retaining the benefit of the open ended design used in both Breath of the Wild and the original Legend of Zelda. For $60, Breath of the Wild may not be the best game on the market, but at $40 or less it’s a great adventure that puts the player in the role of the Hero of Hyrule as they grow in power to a satisfying end. Open your eyes… adventure awaits.
After a few hours of playing Undertale and Shovel Knight with my friend Noah, something interesting came up in conversation. “Have Nintendo taken longer to release games recently?” he asked me. I didn’t know how to respond with the information I had, so I made a series of hypotheses. The first and most obvious thought was that yes; if you feel they have slowed down then Occam’s Razor trims our assumptions down to that feeling when no other evidence is present. The second and less obvious solution was that Nintendo have only slowed down their game releases in comparison to the rest of the industry which, through recycled game engines and assets, moves at a breakneck speed. In order to put these theories to the test, I created a spreadsheet that shows all North American release dates within the Legend of Zelda and platforming Mario series in chronological order. If you would like to view this spreadsheet it’s been made available here. A number of intriguing thoughts emerge from these release statistics.
Most prominently, Nintendo has NOT slowed its development of new Mario games and in fact has only increased the pace of its releases since 2005, which marks the beginning of my data for the “modern” Nintendo era. In fact, with staggered releases between consoles and handhelds, Nintendo have released Mario games within 3 to 9 months of each other relatively consistently. Despite their tendency to lag behind other companies in terms of hardware capabilities, Nintendo have picked up the oldest adages in corporate business, “If it ain’t broke, keep selling it.” and more importantly, “Reduce, reuse, recycle.” My conservative and outlier free estimates place the increase of pace at about 6 months faster while those estimates that include the outliers place it at a staggering 10 months faster! Either way, there’s more of Mario to go around these days, which may not sound as great to Princess Peach as it does to Nintendo’s core audience. An audience, I might add, who were even happy to purchase what could easily pass as a development tool being used by Nintendo to craft the games they were already buying. The Legend of Zelda game releases are quite a bit different.
It’s not surprising that entries into a crafted, artistic series like the Legend of Zelda take longer to make than Mario’s platforming escapades, but how long is too long? The Legend of Zelda poses a problem to this particular analysis because of the exclusion of the Phillips CD-i releases. These exclusions seem to be the cause of anomalously elongated release waits of up to 65 months! Including these outliers, it would appear that the Legend of Zelda games have seen marginally faster releases, only by about 2 months, in the modern era. Without these outliers, the metric I choose to utilize for the sake of this analysis, modern Zelda releases have slowed down by an enormous factor of 6 months. The results in terms of speed are arguable, but either way they fail to support a hypothesis of consistent stagnation in Nintendo releases. The anomalies in the Legend of Zelda series are of much more interest to me.
Both lags in release marked the first Zelda game on a new console and a brand new direction for the series as a whole. A Link to the Past was released on November 21, 1991 and featured a much more centralized story, an alternate world, and many other mainstays in the franchise. It is widely regarded as the best of the 2D Zelda games and perhaps the best game in the series as a whole. The second lagging release, and the longest wait for Zelda game to ever take place, happened before the first groundbreaking 3D Zelda title: Ocarina of Time. Both games released after considerable Zelda dry spells, on the same day, and to thunderous critical and commercial applause. While I’m not suggesting these two games aren’t the masterpieces many claim them to be, it might be wise to consider the environment, marketing, social condition, and fan base at the time of release. Perhaps those dry spells allowed these particular titles to flourish, or perhaps the extra development time truly did go a long way. Either way, Nintendo is still profiting off of titles like these today, and I personally find it doubtful that their newer, swiftly developed Mario titles with discover the same nostalgic power in their own old age.
What do you think? Is a quicker development pace good for the industry and gamers alike or do the best titles require careful, lengthy, and deliberate planning? Do you enjoy getting hyped for a far off game release, or would you rather have the fun within your reach pronto? Let us know in the comments below!
The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild has been in development since 2013 and was, for many, the deciding factor in purchasing a Wii U. Its release on March 3, 2017, will mark the end of Nintendo game releases for the Wii U and the beginning of the Switch’s lifespan as Nintendo’s flagship console. Marketed as a return to the design sensibilities of the original Legend of Zelda, Breath of the Wild is a new, enormous, and voice acted adventure in the Legend of Zelda universe. Ganon returns as the looming and spiritual darkness known as Calamity Ganon, and Zelda appears to reprise the powerful and central role she’s taken in the series along with characters of many familiar races such as the Zora and the Gorons.
Ever since The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time catapulted the series into the third dimension, Zelda games have taken the same basic form. The player progresses through a mostly linear story with cleverly designed dungeons full of puzzles and enemies of every sort. Through this progression, side quests make themselves apparent, occasionally but rarely venturing beyond simple fetching mechanics or time consuming minigames. Some 3D Zelda games, such as The Wind Waker and Majora’s Mask, offered a different approach to this basic formula but did little to truly revolutionize it, falling back to old design strategies when the bulk of the game reared its head. Breath of the Wild is clearly different than the 3D Zelda games of the past in terms of philosophy and design.
Even in name, The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild breaks tradition and forges a new path for the series. Instead of being named for an item or character like every other 3D Zelda game, Breath of the Wild lets you know it’s something different before you even open the box. For years Nintendo has commercially cultivated simple yet careful reconstructions of their classic designs, but now they’re ready to give us a taste of something new, a breath of fresh air. The many innovations we’ve seen so far in Breath of the Wild’s press releases include intelligent horses, a wide open world design, upgradable and exchangeable equipment, environmental hazards, a fully realized physics engine, crafting/cooking elements, and the Sheikah slate.
“Real horses don’t run into trees very often” was the phrase Eiji Aonuma, the producer of many Zelda titles including The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild, used to help those present at the 2014 Game Awards understand how horse riding would work in the upcoming Zelda title. In Breath of the Wild, horses serve as a much faster way to traverse the enormous landscape, and the intelligently automated animals should make going from place to place and participating in horseback combat far less cumbersome than in previous titles. Another difference between Breath of the Wild and other Zelda games is that you can tame and ride a variety of horse of varying strengths, not just Link’s trusty Epona. From recent footage, it appears that five horses at a time can be assigned and called to Link through stables that double as inns and are spread throughout Hyrule. There has been no word as to whether the true Epona is available in the game, but all the horses we’ve seen so far can be named and Epona is more than a worthy title for your equestrian comrade.
The world of The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild is said to be twelve times larger than than the map of Twilight Princess. This isn’t an incredible feat, Twilight Princess has a corridor-like map that it would be criminal to call expansive, but it does bode well for an open world experience. Climbing mountains, exploring caves, crossing bodies of water on rafts, riding through open fields, and hunting in dense forests are all possible in Breath of the Wild. According to Eiji Aonuma, this exploratory design isn’t simply smoke and mirrors; players are free to attempt the final boss of the game right from the beginning! The ability to play however you want to is definitely a fine addition to this Zelda title and a freeing addition at that.
Link is normally constrained to a few choice weapons, spells, and tunics, but The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild allows Link to pick up the weapons of fallen enemies, similar to the mechanic present in the Wind Waker, and keep them for his own. This also means that weapons deteriorate, or at least ordinary weapons do because the most recent Breath of the Wild trailer revealed the resting place of the Master Sword. As for armors, we’ve seen a variety of different ensembles for Link to wear such as a full suit of armor, his blue tunic, and a chill resistant tunic.
The Sheikah Slate is set to replace Link’s traditional spells with runes that bestow different powers. The runes that have been revealed to us so far are magnesis, which allows Link to move metal objects with a magnetic power, remote bombs, which do exactly what they sound like they do, stasis, which freezes an object in time, and cryonis, which creates ice pilars. All of these runes are significantly less restricted than the magic in previous Zelda titles. This should allow the player to customize Link to their personal preferences as they explore Hyrule.
The environment of Hyrule is full of nourishing ingredients that Link can combine into helpful foods at certain campfires. These foods replenish just about anything when used through the inventory menu. Some can even help you withstand the cold and hot regions of the map Link has trouble surviving in without a certain set of clothes for protection. Other crafting and upgrading elements haven’t been confirmed although they might be in the game. One thing The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild does include is a bonafide physics engine that lets baddies and Link alike flip, flop, and fall. Environmental puzzles involving pushable boulders, flaming grass, the classic exploding barrels, and rolling bombs are all also present in the game.
With all of the new additions to the Zelda franchise it’s important for fans to voice their opinions on the changes and what they want to see in the future. What do you think? Is there something you want to see in this Zelda that hasn’t been revealed yet? Will you attempt the final boss available for battle right at the beginning? Is voice acting the right decision for a Zelda game? Will you miss the linear designs of the past or are you eager to jump into Nintendo’s new Western gaming inspired masterpiece? Let us know in the comments below!