3 ms·
I love what he has to say about the original's unmarked bombable spots, making each rock face a mystery, a potential secret place. But there's a very hard game
by raldi 11y ago
I love what he has to say about the original's unmarked bombable spots, making each rock face a mystery, a potential secret place.
But there's a very hard game-design problem here: Completionism.
Modern gamers are obsessed with finding every last object, every achievement, 100%. If you play the original Zelda in this way, it becomes a tedious process of acquiring 12 bombs, running back to a particular screen, and bombing 12 blocks in a row checking to see if there's a secret cave... then, you're out of bombs and you have to commute back and do another round...
How do you preserve the mystery while avoiding the bomb-every-block tedium?
- vlunkr 11y agoYes, it seems that around the NES era, secrets were a huge deal. The idea that you could play Mario 100 times and then one day find a hidden block that you've passed by every time was exciting.
- exelius 11y agoAlso, how do you preserve the mystery in an age where you can google a JPEG that has every bombable location highlighted? Video games no longer have that thrill of discovery because the Internet has ruined it. I loved the original Zelda, but we can never go back to that. So while I appreciate the nostalgia, it's like saying newspapers were a better model of journalism than the web. True or not, there's no going back.
- raldi 11y agoYou could randomize it, or generate it procedurally.
- zoidb 11y agoI thought about that but I remember when one of the great things about this sort of gameplay was having a friend over and being the one in-the-know for all of these little secrets and helping each other out.
- red_admiral 11y agoEspeically if, like in minecraft, you can set your own seed - perhaps there's an interesting social graph problem in automatically assigning the same seed to clusters of friends but keeping them somewhat random globally.
- exelius 11y agoBut then it loses something, and you end up with Diablo. Not that Diablo is a bad game, but it's a decidedly different kind of game than Zelda.
- raldi 11y agoRight, that's what makes it a classic hard design problem. The best solution, to the extent that it even exists, is necessarily going to be imperfect, and will be found somewhere in the middle.
- exelius 11y agoThere is no "best solution" or even a "solution". IMO games are art, so trying to solve for a solution is a fool's errand. Even games like Call of Duty -- they're pop art, which is simply the artistic process as democratic exercise. Zelda, for many of us, represents that child-like wonder that we can never return to for the same reasons game developers could never make a similar game.
- raldi 11y agoI don't think we're disagreeing. There's no perfect solution; it's like designing a car or directing a film. Though I suppose I disagree with your assertion that one can never recreate or improve upon anything that evoked childlike wonder. Portal 2 did that for Portal; Mega Man 2 and 3 did that for their prequels, Empire did it for Star Wars, and as someone with powerful childhood memories of the mid-1980s Main Street Electrical Parade, I've been hearing good things about Disney's new Paint the Night.
- timothybone 11y agosure when appropriate randomize it in clever ways, but don't make it random unless it really should be random, cleverly placed secrets are part of why many players like these games, internet spoilers or not. See Myst.
- timothybone 11y ago>>>> How do you preserve the mystery while avoiding the bomb-every-block tedium? You don't, it's part of the fun.