Login

Zelda: Breath of the Wild director on cutting the Wii U's touchscreen features

The following comments were made by Hidemaro Fujibayashi, Zelda: Breath of the Wild's director, during an IGN interview...

''When we were developing the game for the Wii U, we had touch features implemented as you have seen. Once we began to develop the game in tandem for the Switch, we aimed to provide the same gameplay experience across both on Switch and Wii U.

In doing our testing without the touch features we noticed looking back and forth between the GamePad and the screen actually took a little something away from this type of Zelda game.

Without the touch features it actually turned out to be a really strong gameplay experience. After more experimentation and testing out, we realized that this is the best way to experience the game. That’s how we ended up with the current gameplay style in the production version.

There was no hesitation or reluctance in removing those features because we felt the way it is now is the best way to play the game.''

Categories: Media, Consoles

Comments

Top Rated Comment
blade_master
Mon Mar 06 17 08:02am
Rating: 7

The lack of button mapping is one of my biggest pet peeves right now. I keep going to use the bow and almost accidentally throwing my melee weapon away.

Having options never takes anything away from a game.

vonter
Mon Mar 06 17 10:20am
Rating: 2

Except when it's a Switch shirt.

I'm pretty sure everyone had figured this out by now, but nice that they finally straight up said "Yeah, we removed Gamepad features because of the Switch version."

Mon Mar 06 17 06:00am
Rating: 1 (Updated 1 time)

Rant incoming:

This makes me so angry. This statement means one of two things; both of which don't look good for Nintendo. The first is that they're total liars, and actually removed the touchscreen stuff because they didn't want the Wii U to have anything over the Switch version. The second is that they truly believe having no touchscreen is better, and are too arrogant to offer the touchscreen features as an option. Basically saying "Hey Wii U owners. You know how you bought this console for the touchscreen? Well you're wrong, that's rubbish. We're right. Here's the superior way." And they're taking a huge dump on the whole design of the console in the first place (just like they did after the end of the Wii's life cycle).

If the former is true, then that means they're fine with lying to their customers who spent large sums of money on their products, and if the latter is true, they're arrogant sods who don't care at all about any of their consumers who've been keeping their last home console afloat during it's entire life. Basically, Nintendo is now a scumbag company, and I'm glad I'm done supporting them.

*plays worlds smallest violin* Truely a human rights tragedy.

And that's why I don't comment here often. I just get idiotic replies from morons like you. I understand there are far worse things in life, I'm just explaining how this company doesn't care about its customers. Seeing as this is a website dedicated to said company, it seems an appropriate place to do so.

someguy
Mon Mar 06 17 07:35am
(Updated 1 time)

Not doing exactly what you wish they'd do =/= Nintendo is abusing their customers. And I'm glad I'm the idiot. You're the one angrily ranting about video games and calling people names. But I'm the one with the problem.

gamesnotoveryet
Mon Mar 06 17 08:20am
Rating: 2

Rant incoming:
This makes me so angry. This statement means one of two things; both of which don't look good for Nintendo. The first is that they're total liars, and actually removed the touchscreen stuff because they didn't want the Wii U to have anything over the Switch version. The second is that they truly believe having no touchscreen is better, and are too arrogant to offer the touchscreen features as an option. Basically saying "Hey Wii U owners. You know how you bought this console for the touchscreen? Well you're wrong, that's rubbish. We're right. Here's the superior way." And they're taking a huge dump on the whole design of the console in the first place (just like they did after the end of the Wii's life cycle).
If the former is true, then that means they're fine with lying to their customers who spent large sums of money on their products, and if the latter is true, they're arrogant sods who don't care at all about any of their consumers who've been keeping their last home console afloat during it's entire life. Basically, Nintendo is now a scumbag company, and I'm glad I'm done supporting them.

I agree with you 100%, and if your looking for anyone around here to agree or understand your point of view don't bother. "N" does this kind of **** all the time, and the fanboys defend it blindly to the death. "Oh, I don't want that feature, it would have been distracting anyway", or my favorite "Achievements/Trophies are useless, why do people like those?". Or another classic, "I don't want voice chat, it's distracting".

It's always about choices & options, PERIOD. If someone wants netflix, offer it, if someone wants a web browser, offer it, if some one wants region free, offer it, if some one wants trophies, offer it, if someone wants to assign buttons, offer it.

There is no harm in any of this, and can only help sales in the end. If someone doesn't like something, don't use it. If others do, there is a potential sale. The same ones defending this crap, or the same ones who say "N" dropped Wii U support to early, and didn't provide enough tablet features, and here is a case where it was probably a great use of the tablet, but instead of giving it to those who supported the company with a Wii U purchase, they didn't want to loose any new NS sales, so you get the shaft again, and are coming back for more, as "N" always knows you will.

It must suck viewing everything through such a negative, selfish lense. I pity you.

and actually removed the touchscreen stuff because they didn't want the Wii U to have anything over the Switch version
Well, that's a cynical way of looking at it. It's more proper to say they wanted feature parity (since the Switch version also doesn't have anything over the Wii U version in terms of features; they could've added HD Rumble support, for example).

"The first is that they're total liars..."

What did they lie about? I highly doubt they removed it for this reason considering that the Switch launch was successful. They could have just canceled it.

"The second is that they truly believe having no touchscreen is better, and are too arrogant to offer the touchscreen features as an option."

Arrogant? Is that the write word for this?

"Hey Wii U owners. You know how you bought this console for the touchscreen? Well you're wrong, that's rubbish. We're right. Here's the superior way."

Half the Wii U games barely use it, even at all. It was a failed concept for the system. Matter of fact, some of the top Wii U games don't even use it that much.

"And they're taking a huge dump on the whole design of the console in the first place (just like they did after the end of the Wii's life cycle)."

The design was flawed and failed anyway. Why kick a dead horse at this point?

"If the former is true, then that means they're fine with lying to their customers who spent large sums of money on their products,"

Then ask for a refund.

"and if the latter is true, they're arrogant sods who don't care at all about any of their consumers who've been keeping their last home console afloat during it's entire life."

Star Fox, Super Mario 3D World, etc. are a few examples of them trying desperately to get touch screen to be relevant with the Wii U. But nah, one game determines how Nintendo feels about their consumers.

"Basically, Nintendo is now a scumbag company, and I'm glad I'm done supporting them."

So why are you here?

I get you man, no GamePad functionality is gutting especially because the way it was used in WWHD and TPHD really elevated those versions beyond the originals. It was a joy to use in those games and it would have been nice here. The pro HUD mode is really nice but the sacrifice of getting rid of the mini map is too much for me so having the map on the GamePad would have been ideal.

That said...they did stick to their word and released it on Wii U which honestly, from the perspective of them wanting the Switch to be successful out of the gate, was a bad move. It was good for customer loyalty and so they were really in a corner with it but honestly if they made it Switch exclusive they'd have another Switch sale from me and probably many others who stuck with the Wii U version. The fact they put it out at all is commendable and having some missing features absolutely does not scream customer contempt. It's still an incredible game on Wii U and it didn't eschew the GamePad entirely (motion controls, Off-TV). It's a shame it's not used fully but really, it doesn't matter. I'd rather they'd have gone for feature parity than completely ditching the Wii U game which could have very easily happened. To put down a game that's evidently had so much effort put into it just because it doesn't fully utilise the hardware is a bit unfair.

Either way, did anyone really buy the Wii U for the GamePad? I was always intrigued by it but honestly I just bought it for the games. When I think of the Wii U I think of MK8, DKC:TF, Smash Bros., Bayonetta 2...not the games that focused on the pad, and I never felt jipped.

I really could not care less. And they're right. As much as I enjoyed my Wii U, using the 2nd screen was clunky and nothing like the DS where is was easy to see both screens at once.

I agree that looking down and back up constantly was kinda... meh in most games. Though I will miss the touch features. Menu navigation is still better with touch controls

I don't disagree. And I'm not saying Nintendo shouldn't have done it. But to continue to play Devil's Advocate, the interface for BotW is smaller than I think many realize. It would not be simple to touch individual inventory squares without them updating them to be larger.

Yeah, I agree that BotW's interface was absolutely made for button controls, and it actually works pretty well. I have pretty much no issues with it whatsoever

I'm fine with this as long as they patch in touch screen functionality for the menus, i.e. settings, etc.

I don't need it for the map, but it would be nice to get patched in...I mean, BOTH systems do have touch functionality. It's just a bonus that I'd appreciate.

All you have to do is look at the Top 10 games year in, year out in the UK to understand the gaming scene here.

It reads like this.

1. Call of duty
2. FIFA
3. GTA
4. Assassin's Creed game
5. Call of duty clone
6. Maybe Pokémon
7. Another game from UbiSoft
8. Maybe ps4 exclusive
9. PC game
10. Maybe Xbox exclusive

Hmm people usually complain that for games that make use of the gamepad a lot it takes away from the experience (coughStarFoxcough), but now that we know that some of the features have been removed there is more complaining? I would rather complain about no button mapping on both versions rather than touch controls being removed on the Wii U version(I am playing the Wii U version). I can at least agree that there should at least have been a map on the gamepad screen when not using it.

blade_master
Mon Mar 06 17 08:02am
Rating: 7

The lack of button mapping is one of my biggest pet peeves right now. I keep going to use the bow and almost accidentally throwing my melee weapon away.

Yup I keep doing that too. Its just weird they didn't include have button mapping, especially when they allow you to switch the jump and run buttons. If they knew people would want to switch those buttons, why not have button mapping for the rest? =[

I can't really think of why a single player game would require a standardized controller set-up. I'd say maybe a future patch, but it'd be too late to make a difference for us.

To be honest, I also think that all consoles should implement button-mapping system-wide.

Definitely It just seems logical.. I wouldn't change much from default, but some things just feel natural to me that might not be for others.

Same here, except that I crouch instead of run, and I use my bow instead of jumping. It's also really annoying to do a running jump with the X and B being on the exact opposite ends of the face buttons to the point I stopped bothering trying to do that

Yeah, doing multiple button commands like a running jump is quite tough.

Fast switching a bow, where you have to hold ZR, the right d pad button and then also the right stick takes so much effort it is probably faster to just go the the inventory screen.

Ahaha, yeah, that one too. Luckily, I learned you can let go of the ZR the moment you hold the D-pad to the right, so it's a bit less straining then. Also, if you're already holding a bow (tapping ZR once with a bow equipped), you can just use the D-pad like that without any shenanigans

I'll have to try it out!

Are you playing on a switch or wii u btw?

Switch. In fact -- and this was kinda sad -- I put my Wii U away in a closet to make room for the Switch on March 2nd. RIP, Wii U.

(Well, it's not deceased, but I doubt I'll be going back to it any time soon, if at all.)

My wii u (and wii) are still out, but I doubt I'll touch them again. The wii is mostly out for gamecube games and the Wii U will be the smash/nintendoland machine. Really hoping we get a good minigame compilation for the switch.

On topic: did you get a pro controller. I've found it to be much easier to play with than the joycons.

Yup, I got a Pro Controller after I read that it worked on PC as well. (Like, literally. I read the article and immediately ordered it.) I was on the fence of getting one, but that little bit of news pushed me over the edge, and I'm very happy I did it. Not only does it feel much better than the Joy-Con (not that the Joy-Con feel bad), I also managed to nab one for 55 euros. (I also got Zelda for 55, yay.)

Speaking of the Pro Controller... Is your D-pad also a bit wonky? If you don't press one of the directions dead center, then it won't always completely register the press. That's the issue I'm facing, anyhow. (I have this problem more with Left and Right on the D-pad than Up and Down)

I haven't had any issues with mine. Dpad has been working well so far.

Alright, thanks. I've also asked around on Reddit and nobody there has had any issues either. I'm gonna try out my cousin's D-pad as a final check, and then I can say my unit is (slightly) defective and I should apply for an exchange

I'll retire mine when the Switch get a browser and netflix and crunchyroll apps. Until then, I'll use my old Wii U. :P

I dunno. . . . I've played the game and I think it actually would have been really useful to be able to quickly reach down and use the touchscreen at times, especially when you want to quickly get around the items.

Accessing your inventory on the fly, and picking items quickly with a swipe and a tap would be awesome. My biggest complaint with the game is the amount of time I spend paused, scrolling through inventory.

Nintendo is really out of the loop with what gamers want.

Says the guys talking about a console that flopped and a game that is getting 10s left and right.

I hate this! This is messed up! Give us back the map & touch option. Let us decide how we want to play the game. I was looking forward to playing it so bad even thou I bought the Switch copy. O hate having to push the damn tiny minus button which should have been located south east of the joysticks for way easy touching & the pausing over & over again for map usage sucks. It worked big time for Xeno X & to think that I would never step back to map pausing ever again just proves me I was so wrong.

mlt-malavida
Mon Mar 06 17 10:43am
(Updated 1 time)

It could be a nice added bonus not so much for the map but for item management. But they clearly wanted to do one single version of the game for development sake. They're being honest and directly state this and as much I can understand it would be a nice touch, I definitely get their point of view.

Besides not all games have to use all features of a console.
Are we still arguing this in 2017?

Now if only they had removed those terrible motion controls through some of them shrine missions. A couple of them took way longer than they should have because the joycons weren't responsive.

Are you talking about the "Apparatus" type shrines? Interestingly, I never had any issues with responsiveness there. Though I do use the Pro Controller, so maybe the difference is in that? (It might be the interference issue the Joy-Con are currently facing, as you are probably gripping the controller all over to twist it in a certain way)

ridleysaria
Mon Mar 06 17 03:19pm
Rating: 1

It's too bad Nintendo didn't realize it isn't fun looking back and forth between a controller and the tv when they were designing Star Fox Zero.

Yes! It's weird that they don't know when it's good idea to use the gamepad and when it's not. It's really bizarre how they can't figure out something so obvious.

hamr
Mon Mar 06 17 03:51pm
Rating: 1

"we aimed to provide the same gameplay experience across both on Switch and Wii U"

TIL: Portability, framerate, and loading times have nothing to do with 'the gameplay experience'.

Actually, I wouldn't count any of those as gameplay. Portability is more on a system level, framerate is more about graphics and system power, and loading times is also due to the system. None of this really affects the actual game mechanics

hamr
Mon Mar 06 17 09:15pm
Rating: 1

"Portability is more on a system level, framerate is more about graphics and system power, and loading times is also due to the system."

TIL: People believe that system level functions are incapable of impacting gameplay in any way.

"None of this really affects the actual game mechanics"

So for the record, your contention is that the experience of playing the game is not at all affected by slowdown, lost inputs, frequent lengthy loading times, or the ability to play on the go?

When people use the word "gameplay" they refer to things like game mechanics, not literally "anything that has to do with playing the game". If we take that definition, then even the time of day in real life would fall under gameplay. (Playing at night is a different experience than during the day.)

hamr
Mon Mar 06 17 09:58pm
Rating: 1 (Updated 1 time)

"When people use the word "gameplay they refer to things like game mechanics"

The developer did not say 'gameplay', he said 'gameplay experience', which is specifically referring to a broader context.

But even if he had gone with the narrower term, it would not really matter, since when people use the word 'gameplay', they generally have no idea what they are referring to anyway, lol.

Being able to read, process, and respond to information is literally the most basic mechanical aspect of interactive media.

A game where you can see what you are doing is different mechanically from a game where you cannot.

A game that registers inputs without lag or drops from slowdown is different mechanically from a game where button presses are randomly ignored.

A game where you are doing something active is different mechanically from a game where you are sitting around starring at a static screen.

Spoiler

"Playing at night is a different experience than during the day."

And if he said 'we had to remove these features because we specially designed this game so that the experience of playing at night is the same as during the day', that would also be an excuse deserving of ridicule.

I think you're making a bigger point out of this than necessary. He said gameplay experience, and from context, it's clear what he means. He wanted feature parity between the two versions. (In as much as possible, with system-level functions like the Switching of the Switch being inherent to the system itself.)

I'm not saying the term is used entirely correct (ever) if you take it completely literally. But that's the thing with any language. Sometimes people use words that aren't entirely correct, and it sticks, and it's getting used more and more until it's a standard term with a particular meaning. Game mechanics (and gameplay) is such a term, where it's clear what's being referred to

hamr
Tue Mar 07 17 09:46pm
Rating: 1 (Updated 1 time)

"I think you're making a bigger point out of this than necessary."

Nah, I am making a dig at a developer for giving a goofy answer to an interview question. That is about as small as points get.

"He wanted feature parity between the two versions"

In which case he failed because the two versions do not have feature parity, lol.

"In as much as possible, with system-level functions like the Switching of the Switch being inherent to the system itself."

By that logic, use of the Gamepad would also have been 'system-level' since that would also have been inherent to the platform's physical hardware, so again: his answer is goofy .

"Sometimes people use words that aren't entirely correct, and it sticks, and it's getting used more and more until it's a standard term with a particular meaning"

'Gameplay' and even 'game mechanics' are not standard terms and do not have particular meanings. That someone can argue things like 'basic visibility or control responsiveness do not impact either' is actually evidence that there is no clear consensus on what they refer to.

Well, I've said all I could and I still stand by that. You are of course free to think what you want, but to me, what he said makes perfect sense and doesn't seem goofy. (Now, whether it's just an excuse is of course up for debate; I want to give them the benefit of the doubt, but I don't blame anyone thinking it's just an excuse.)

Hm, let me ask one thing. Have you never truly heard of the debates of "gameplay vs. graphics" where they are typically two sides of the same coin? In all of those debates, "gameplay" is used in the way I described it, and "graphics" is used to describe polygon count, framerate and to an extent art style

Wed Mar 08 17 10:12am
(Updated 1 time)

He wanted feature parity between the two versions.

TIL: Portability, better framerates, and faster loading times are not features.

Have you never truly heard of the debates of "gameplay vs. graphics" where they are typically two sides of the same coin? In all of those debates, "gameplay" is used in the way I described it, and "graphics" is used to describe polygon count, framerate and to an extent art style.

Those 'debates' are usually messy affairs that involve dozens of people that just want to join in on the shouting and screaming instead of having an actual discussion and consequently spit out whatever half-baked 'thought' pops into their heads. They have no bearing on this discussion.

Anyway, framerate has a lot to do with gameplay. Even graphics do.

Would an action game running at 60 frames per second still function the same if it ran about as fast as a powerpoint slideshow?

How would you be able to distinguish, say, a koopa that walks straight from a koopa that walks back and forth on a platform if their shells weren't colored differently?

Would it be fair if you were playing a game and got hit by something, but couldn't figure out what it was because there was no animation or visual sign to actually let you know that something hit you or that something dangerous was approaching?

As you can see, graphics and framerate are very much a part of gameplay or the gameplay experience.

I was wondering when you'd show up! Any time I have a discussion with Hamr, you feel the need to jump in. ...Which is fine, except that last time you were being quite objectionable about it. I hope you can avoid that this time.

That said, I don't really know what else you want me to say. I never once claimed that these things aren't part of the experience of playing the game. But again, when people say "gameplay", they often refer to a particular thing

Wed Mar 08 17 11:35am
(Updated 1 time)

I never once claimed that these things aren't part of the experience of playing the game.

Well, BotW's director seems to believe that and you are defending the his statement, so...

But again, when people say "gameplay", they often refer to a particular thing.

What if I told you they were wrong? As Harm pointed out, people rarely ever use the term properly, and as I have pointed out, 'gameplay' isn't simply the mechanics of the game. The mechanics of a game would be... the mechanics of the game or the game mechanics.

And to reiterate what Harm pointed out earlier, the developer said 'gameplay experience'. Framerates, loading times, portability are certainly a part of the gameplay experience and the framerate in particular directly impacts the overall gameplay. Claiming otherwise is absurd.

Anyway, don't talk to me or my son ever again.

Anyway, don't talk to me or my son every again.
What?

Anyway...

This all just reminds me of the discussion about "Holland". Technically it refers to just two provinces of The Netherlands (North and South Holland), but almost everybody uses it to refer to The Netherlands as a whole. Is it technically correct? No. Is it clear what people mean when they say "Holland"? Definitely!

Wed Mar 08 17 05:25pm
(Updated 1 time)

Okay, except gameplay quite clearly means how the game functions, which encompasses everything from the mechanics to the level design, how these parts interact, and everything that affects these interactions (e.g. framerates, graphics).

When someone holds up the two versions of BotW and says the mechanics are the same, they would be correct.

If they said the overall gameplay is the same, they would also be mostly correct.

If they said the gameplay experience is the same, they would be wrong because the Switch version has features that the Wii U version does not.

Your example isn't comparable partly because 'gameplay' is too young of a term to have gone through any serious evolution and partly because most people have never even attempted to seriously define it.

Furthermore, 'Holland' is used informally and for convenience. It's not a scientific term. I mean, I guess, you could argue the same about 'gameplay' and the way the developer has used it in this instance, but that would make your prolonging of this conversation all the more absurd as it would only increase the humor found in Harm's original comment.

Concerning your other inquiry: see below.

"don't talk to me or my son every again."

wait what

Wed Mar 08 17 04:50pm
Rating: 1 (Updated 2 times)

Sorry, I made a typo. It should have said:

Anyway, don't talk to me or my son ever again.

Hope that clears up your confusions, my child.

"my child."

you can't be my parent, I'm not nice enough to be Canadian.

hamr
Wed Mar 08 17 01:56pm
Rating: 1

"You are of course free to think what you want"

That is good because I am going to continue to think that trying to ensure 'parity' between game versions by intentionally crippling one of them is some Harrison Bergeron nonsense, and if a developer advocates that, I am going to make a dig at them for it.

It is not a big deal, lol.

"Have you never truly heard of the debates of "gameplay vs. graphics""

Sure I have heard of them, even participated in them from time to time.

""gameplay" is used in the way I described it"

Which... is...?

""graphics" is used to describe polygon count, framerate and to an extent art style"

This is what I am talking about. Framerate directly impacts control responsiveness, latency, reliability. Companies (including Nintendo) do not shoot for a stable fps in most games because it 'looks nice', they do it because that it impacts basic playability.

If a game runs like a slide-show, that is an issue that goes beyond looks.

I don't disagree with this. I do think that framerate impacts the way you play the game for the reasons you mentioned. But as I said in reply to Megashock, this really reminds me of the whole "Holland" thing. People use a term that may not be technically correct, but it's just been used so much in this particular way that it has started to take on this particular meaning. While I didn't study etymology so I can't give exact examples, there are plenty of words that used to have a different meaning but because they were used a particular way, they evolved to take on this different meaning. Heck, even grammar rules change if people are insistent (and consistent) enough in doing it wrong

hamr
Wed Mar 08 17 02:49pm
Rating: 1

"I do think that framerate impacts the way you play the game for the reasons you mentioned"

That is good. The next logical step is to acknowledge that if framerate affects control input and control inputs is part of 'gameplay', then framerate affects 'gameplay'.

"People use a term that may not be technically correct, but it's just been used so much in this particular way that it has started to take on this particular meaning."

'People' are not the ones saying that control input is unrelated to 'gameplay'; in fact I have never seen anyone else ever say that.

'Gameplay' and even 'game mechanics' are not standard terms and do not have particular meanings.

I dunno, I'd say 'game mechanics' is pretty easily definable. The 'mechanics' of the game are simply the actions a player can perform. For example, the mechanics of Super Mario Bros. are primarily running and jumping, but there are additional actions the player can perform such as picking up and carrying various objects or jumping higher if they time their button presses as they land on an enemy.

'Gameplay' is simply the interactive portion of the game, i.e. every part where the play is in control of something that directly relates to winning or completion.

hamr
Wed Mar 08 17 02:35pm
Rating: 1

"I dunno, I'd say 'game mechanics' is pretty easily definable"

They might be easily definable, but most people do not.

The idea that 'graphics have no impact whatsoever on mechanics' in particular goes against pretty much any reasonable definition of them.

"For example, the mechanics of Super Mario Bros. are primarily running and jumping, but there are additional actions the player can perform such as picking up and carrying various objects or jumping higher if they time their button presses as they land on an enemy."

In the original Donkey Kong, Mario wears very bright clothes.

These bright clothes stand out starkly against the black background.

Let us say that Nintendo changes the graphics around and puts him in dark-colored clothes instead (and they make his hair and mustache black instead of blue). Now you can still see him, but he kind of blends into the background.

Let us say we do the same thing to the barrels and the fireballs, and now they sort of blend into the background too.

Everything else is the same -- controls, physics, enemy AI and behavior, level structure, gamespeed, etc. All that has been done is a simple color swap on some of the sprites.

Is your ability to interface with the core game actions of running, jumping, and dodging obstacles the same or different now?

Wed Mar 08 17 05:37pm
(Updated 2 times)

The idea that 'graphics have no impact whatsoever on mechanics' in particular goes against pretty much any reasonable definition of them.

The definition of 'game mechanics'? I would say that graphics do not impact the mechanics at the most basic level. Regardless of the color of Mario's clothes, he still has the ability to run and jump.

Actually, now I'm not even sure if I would say that the color of his clothes would have an impact on gameplay, lol. I mean, everything would still function the same. Being unable to distinguish the various objects on a screen would certainly affect the gameplay experience, however.

If a developer decided to make an awesome platformer, but then went ahead and intentionally made everything the same color, I think it would be appropriate to say that the gameplay is great, but because you can't see shovel, the game (or gameplay experience) sucks.

I know this kind of contradicts some of what I said earlier, but I guess that kind of proves your point, lol.

hamr
Wed Mar 08 17 08:01pm
(Updated 1 time)

"I would say that graphics do not impact the mechanics at the most basic level."

How do you separate a game's mechanics from a player's ability to interact with them?

"I mean, everything would still function the same."

Given that the game would become literally unplayable, I have to question your definition of the word 'function'.

"If a developer decided to make an awesome platformer, but then went ahead and intentionally made everything the same color, I think it would be appropriate to say that the gameplay is great"

If that actually happened, in practice would you say that, though? How would you be able to tell?

How do you propose to offer a meaningful take on the game's interactivity when ultimately you would just be pushing random buttons and staring at a static screen?

And if good 'gameplay' is for all practical purposes indistinguishable from bad 'gameplay' (or even a blank cartridge that features no game at all), of what use is the term?

Nah. I would have far preferred having a map/inventory on my Gamepad at all times.

Also, having only ONE save file slot, for ZELDA of all franchises (pretty much the FIRST game to have battery backup save files on a home console that I know of), is inexcusable. And not being able to map items to buttons sucks.

I like the game, it's probably the best game Wii U has gotten, but they DID once again make some very facepalm worthy design choices, for things like that.

On the other hand this game has a lot new systems the previous games didn't had. I suppose the alternative would have been save stations, but do to the map being so big they probably feared people losing a lot of progress.

I don't know the technicality behind not having more save files per account, but I think the 5 save states they give you may be a reason. But I'm not a programmer.

I just don't like it on principle. Many games on Wii U did this, including Duck Tales and Pikmin 3. It wasn't a thing, really, before this past gen. I'm just not a fan, and think in this day and age, multiple save files should be a thing.

The game is mostly brilliant (even though, goddamn is it hard), but that is ONE thing I really dislike.

I mean passwords, cheats, exploitative glitches that couldn't get patched, LOCAL multiplayer or even LAN setups. All in all I don't know the reasoning for finding multiple save files being an issue, but apparently it is. I also don't like it but at the very least I did circumvent the problem making another account without a Nintendo Network ID.

I just hope in the event of a patch it erases the save file, since that sort of happened with Smash with the replay data. I could see it being an issue if they had to tweak a physics system somewhere and the save state makes it problematic.

Simple solutions are no more. I think.

It all comes down to how you design it. If touchscreen were to be utilized but did not want to distract the player from their primary screen (the TV), what I would do is simplify the input. For example, when you wanna select items/weapons on-the-fly, use a HUD UI that appears when you touch the screen and "dial" your way to that weapon similar to the one in Skyward Sword or Hyrule Warriors, except make that popup menu smaller (dockable to top, bottom or side of screen; let player choose) so that it doesn't block the entire screen.

Search

Today's VIP

vookatos's avatar
Joined: January 2013
Veteran

Social Services

Want to join this discussion?

You should like, totally log in or sign up!