It ain't over till it's Game Over

Source

It's only three more weeks until we finally get to play Super Mario Odyssey. Even now it's safe to say that it has been a very long time since a Mario Game has created such buzz. Of course every game the (now officially) former plumber has starred in was excellent and from the looks Odyssey will continue this trend, but it's been a while since even non Nintendo Fans looked forward to a new Mario adventure.
Odyssey aims to take everything we knew about Mario, throw it right ouf the window and start completely fresh. And I couldn't be more excited.

Still there was one piece of news lately that got me thinking. Some of you may have heard about it, while others are still blissfully unaware. Don't worry it's nothing spoilerish, so you can continue reading. The piece of Information I'm talking about was revealed by the game director Kenta Motokura.

If you die in Super Mario Odyssey you won't have to worry about your life count. Simply because there is none. So if you die you'll get send back to the last checkpoint and lose ten coins. And even if you don't have any coins left you won't Game Over. Simply speaking there is no Game Over in the game.

We thought about how a lives system would work in this kind of broad, exploration-focused game. In this sort of game, there would be a lot of different restart points. We decided not to use the lives system because it was not an element that was absolutely necessary. We also thought that it would affect some users’ desire to play because, while users who are good at the game would rarely see the (game over) screen that comes up when Mario runs out of lives, inexperienced users would probably end up seeing it frequently.

Source

Now some purists may cry out about this, but let's face the fact. When was the last time you saw a game over screen in a game? Well it was probably Breath of the Wild but just because the words are written on Screen doesn't mean that this is a true Game Over. So let me rephrase my previous question. When was the last time you saw a Game Over have serious consequences? Ahh now it gets more tricky to answer, doesn't it? So today I'd like to take a look back at the history of the Game Over Screen and how it's used today.

Money Please:

To put it simply that was the reason for the Game Over screens existance in the first place. The 80s and earyl 90s were the domain of Arcade machines. Home Consoles had started to grow in popularity, but if you wanted to play the best looking and most impressive games you had to head to your nearest Arcade. In the early days of the industry many games on NES and other consoles were simply watered down ports of the arcade version. That's why so many titles had highscores and simply felt ''arcady''.

So why was the Game Over important for arcade games? You paid to play. Yes just like with todays online gaming, in arcade halls you had to spent your hard earned money to play a round. And it influenced game design, just like microtransaktions do today. A Game Over simply meant you had to start and pay again.

Source

You may have wondered about the classic continue screen many fighting games still have. A countdown is, well, counting down from and you have to press a button to try again. Well in the arcade it worked the same, but instead of pressing a button you had to insert more money. The countdown was there to pressure you into doing so. You don't want to lose your hard earned progress, just because you hesitated for 9 seconds, don't you?

So during those days the Game Over Screen was tied to real consequences, namely losing your hard earned allowance. That's also partly a reason why so many arcade games are hard as hell. Harder games resulted in more Game Over Screens, which resulted in more money.

But with the rise of Home Consoles this started to change. Game Over couldn't have any monetary consequences anymore, so developers had to adapt. Now time lost was the measurement in which you payed for your game over. Which leads us to today.

Back to the starting line:

That's probably still the moste common Game Over penalty, if there is still a Game Over in your games. You simply get sent back to the beginning of the level to your last checkpoint or (in some very old games) to the start of the game. But while this method was quite popular in early days it quickly died down. Simply because it was very discouraging. While in the Arcade you had the chance to choose, pay for the continue or loose your progress, on the home console this choice was absent. This lead to frustrated customers quitting, which in turn lead to the developers gradually reducing the impact the Game Over had on the gameplay experience.

Another fact for the dwindling impact of the Game Over Screen was owed to the fact that games grew more and more diverse. Over the time the simply platforming gameplay, which dominated the early NES days, had turned into countless different genres. And with that new questions arose. How do you implent a ''Game Over'' into a sports game? Or you can't send the player back to the start of your game, if it's a hundred hour long RPG epic.

Source

The questions developers now had to answer was if they wanted a Game Over in ther game and if yes, how could they make it count? Many started to answer the first question with no. Games like Assassins Creed don't really offer a Game Over anymore. If you die you'll get briefly desynchronized before you can start again from a savepoint, which there are many off, meaning that in the end the only time you loose is on the loading screen. Even Breath of the Wild does this. When you attack an enemy camp and fail, you may see the words Game Over written in red letters over a black screen, but once you press Continue you'll start again at the same location.

The Idea is that a death shouldn't frustrate you instead. Instead it should allow you the learn from your mistakes and quickly use your new knowledge to this time conquer the task in front of you.

Game Over truly has become nothing more than some words written on the screen. So the question todays developers have to answer isn't really if they want a Game Over or not, but how much do they want death to count. How much should a death cost you?

To die, or not to die:

The Game Over has always been just the name for the most costly death. A ''normal'' death may send you back to the start of the level, but once you've used up all your lives it will send you to the start of the game. As we iterated the concept of finite lives and the Game Over has mostly disappeared from todays gaming market, but that doesn't mean the concept of a costly death has. But it's easy to make a death cost ''much''. It's not so easy to do this without creating a frustrating experiences for your customer. It's a thin line creating a death system that does punish your players but at the same time encourages them to keep playing your game. Luckily there are two games out there that impented that concept brilliantly.

Source

The first one is Dark Souls (it was probably Demon Souls but I've never played that game. Like with everything in the Game Dark Souls really punished you for your death. Souls are the core currency in the games world. You use them to level up and buy things from merchants. Because of that they're pretty important. Now if you die you loose all your souls and are send back to the last bonfire (savepoint). Now because this would feel really frustrating because you will die a lot in Dark Souls the developers implemented a genious trick. You can reclaim your souls if you manage to come back to the place where you died earlier and pick them up. But if you die again before that they are lost forever. They give you a chance to make up for your mistake. This has two effects. Frist it makes a stressful game even more stressful if you have to get through the deadly traps of Sen's Fortress to reclaim your one million souls near the top, and secondly because of it Dark Souls never feels unfair. You always have the chance to get back what is yours. Another Game that used the same concept was Zombi U for the Wii-U. If you died there you're character would turn into a Zombie and you'd take control of a new survivor. If you then returned to the place your former Avatar had died, you could find him(or her) wandering around the area as Zombi. Now you just had to kill your former self to reclaim all your equipment. But just like with Dark Souls if you died again before that all was lost.

The second one is the predecessor to a game which released the other day. Middle Earth: Shadow of Mordor was kind of a sleeper hit in 2014. The gameplay was an Assassins Creed rip-off, but quite solid and Monolith managed to create a Mordor that was interesting to explore. The hidden star of the game was, however, the Nemesis System. Many of the Orks in Saurons Army did have unique character traits and even without the players input the Army would change. Orcs would fight eachother and rise in rank. I don't want to get into to much detail for this system, but there was one aspect of it that ties into todays topic. If an Orc managed to kill you during your adventure this would have real consequences. Not for the player, you would still get send back to the last checkpoint and could start again, but for the Orc. Not only would they gain scars from the encounter but if they managed to kill you they would then rise in rank and grow more powerful. So as a direct consequences of your failure your enemies grew stronger. This wasn't just a great way to attach a real weight to your deaths, but also served to motivate the player. Finally killing an Orc that managed to slay you earlier is an extremely satisfying feeling.

But how does this all tie into Mario you may ask? Well I talked about this two examples to show that just adding weight to a death isn't enough today. It would be easy for the developers of Odyssey to just implement a life system and if you saw the Game Over just throw you back at the start of the world and delete all your Power Moons, but that would be bad game design and feel extremely discouraging. Death can still have weight in video games, but you need to be the right game for it. It shouldn't be an afterthought, but instead needs to be an integral part of the experience. If it isn't then you're better off simply kicking it out.

But what are your experiences with Game Over in Video Games? Which Game Over did turn you insane? Do you miss a meaningful Live and Game Over System in todays games? Let me know your thoughts in the comments.

And as always

thanks for reading

The Switch, A flawed Masterpiece

Source

When Nintendo announced the Switch last year many people were skeptical. At first glance it seemed like a continuation of the Wii-U. A sequel to a very mediocre product. Now six months after the Switch launched we all can see how wrong this assumption was. The console is sold out nearly constantly.

It offers a small but excellent library of games and what's more important has cultivated the image of a product that people want to own. And while supply constraints and a conservative sales approach by Nintendo won't allow for the console to achieve Wii levels of success, it can be already said that the Nintendo Switch is a successful console. Still the only way I could describe the Switch was as a flawed masterpiece. They did nearly everything right this time. So today let us take a look at the flawed greatness of the Nintendo Switch.

Play your games everytime, everywhere:

The best thing about the Switch, apart from Zelda, is, of course, the fullfilled promise of a home console to-go. When the rumors about the concept first surfaced I found it hard to believe, but when I saw the first trailer I was sold. Now the only thing Nintendo had to do was to keep that promise they've shown us. It would've been desastrous if there was one game that you couldn't play on the go because it needed the Switch to be docked. Luckily everything played out just perfectly. Being able to grab your Switch and seamlessly switch (har har) from TV- into Portable-Mode is a huge deal. Even if it's only because you have to go to the toilet. The concept of no longer being bound to a specific place to enjoy your console games is just huge. And Nintendo marketed i perfectly. Every spot for the Switch has been great so far. They perfectly show the freedom you have when owning the product.

Source

This is why the lack of any other features except games is that much more baffling. Just let us take a look at one of the Switch commercials. Let's use the the latest Switch commercial.

Source

As you can see it does a great job of selling the appeal of the console to the customer. It truly shows that the console allows you to play games however you want. And wherever you want. Still that's all there is to it. Games. And even though the Switch has some of the greatest games currently on the market in it's library, is it really enough? Now don't worry this wont become a rant about the lack of games on the systme. Because I think there is no lack. The Switch has a pretty healthy library already with lots of different titles for all genres. Of course many of these are Indie games, but that's not the point. The Point is that the Switch is clearly positioned as hip and cool. Not unlike an I-Phone for example. Because of that it targets mostly young adults (aparft from Nintendo fans like us of course). Now you have to ask yourself are games really enough for those people to keep them satisfied in the long run? Maybe you already guesse what I'm talking about. Yes it's the lack of other software on the system. Not games, but things like a Youtube app, a web browser or Netflix. Things that even the Wii-U got. And here we are nearly seven months after the launch of the console and none of those things are even announced. And don't get me started on the virtual console.

This just feels like wasted potential to me. Just imagine being able enjoy Netflix on the go. Or maybe bring it to a friends place, who doesn't own the service. There are so many possibilities to position the Switch as a great entertainment product.

Of course I know that Nintendo always says their consoles are just that. Video game consoles. And I agree. They shouldn't change that. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't at least try to adapt a little. Adding Netflix, Amazon Prime and other similar apps would further increase the appeal of the system.

Play your games everytime, everywhere... if you can get a system:

Stock issues... that's a whole world of pain right there for any Nintendo fan. And don't worry I will talk about this in the future in more detail, but right now let us focus on the Switch. Where I live it's relatively easy to get one, but I've heard and read enough reports already where people drive hundreds of kilometers in search of a Switch. Or take Japan for example, where you can participate in a lottery for the chance of being allowed to buy a console. That's insane, there is no other way of putting it. Now the current situation can't be helped. After the failure of the Wii-U Nintendo was very cautios to not overship their product. After all there were just as many people predicting the console to fail as there were believers.

Source

In the end the Switch proved to be a huge success. Too huge for Nintendo. Even seven months after launch we regularly hear about shipping problems. Now this isn't a failure of the console itself, but of the company behind it. Still it damages the Switch. If you can't get the product of your choice for several months chances are high that you'll turn towards one of the competitors. After the fifth or sixth fruitless visit to your local electronics shop those PS4 may start to look rather tempting. Why wait for a console when you can have another with a bigger library for a cheaper price? In Japan this proves to be true as some reports suggest that several potential buyers have already lost interest in the Switch because of the stock issues.

Hopefully Nintendo is already ramping up the production for the holiday season. Because there is nothing more disheartening than not getting what you want on christmas. If the stock issues persist through November and Decemer this could really hurt the Switch as many potential customers may instead choose the competition and don't come back because one console is enough.

Overall these complaints are very minor, but they shouldn't be ignored. Because a small tripwire can lead to the fall of even the biggest juggernaut.  

Source

So what are your thoughts on the Switch so far? What things do you think Nintendo should primarly work on to improve? Or are you completely satisfied by the console. Anyways let me know your opinion in the comments.

and as always

thanks for reading

Why you should criticize what you love

Last week Nintendo specified the use Amiibos would have in the upcoming Metroid: Samus Returns for the Nintendo 3DS. And to say it bluntly, they are pretty dumb. Since releasing the figurines Nintendo has struggled to find a good use in games for them. Right now it's a hit and miss kind of thing. Either you'll get next to nothing or Amiibos work as physical DLC.

From the get go the Amiibo Idea, as great as it is, was facing a lot of challenges. Because everyone has a different threshold on when he thinks Amiibo implementation becomes intrusive there was never a way to truly win. But still Nintendo use of these figures has ranged from excellent to being a insolence to their customers.

Source

So what is the Problem with Samus Returns? Well it's simple. If you want to play the Hardmode then you better own the new Samus Amiibo that launches alongside the game on the 15^th of September. Just like the Black Airwing in Star Fox Zero, which was unlocked via the Falco Amiibo, this forces players, who want to face the biggest challenge the game has to offer, to pay 15$ extra. I have criticized that the first DLC of Breath of the Wild unlocked the Master Mode for that game because a difficulty should never be locked behind a Paywall, but only behind a skillwall. And this is exactly the same.

Like I said there have many different uses for Amiibos in the past. Some of the good and some of them bad. And I don't want to talk about that again or why the use for Samus Returns is bad. It has been said time and time again. And as you've probably guessed from the tittle this isn't todays topic. This news is only the catalyst because it once more showed the problems of modern fan culture.

Fan vs Fanboy:

Being a fan of something is great. It helps us connect with other, similar minded, people. It gives us lots of things to look forward. And it inspires us to create our own works of art. There are thousands of stories of people finding happiness and even love through a shared fandom. So yes being a fan is something great that should always be celebrated and never hidden.

Still being a fan also poses some dangers. The danger of losing focus on anything not related to your fandom is a very real one. Also identifying to closely with it will blurry the line between you and the thing you're a fan of. In that case any critique someone may offer to it will be taken personally. And that is the downfall of all meaningful conversation.

Source

This is especially true if you're fan of a company like Nintendo or Sony. Or any videogame publisher to be honest. Because if you take something personally it's only natural to lash out in defense. When the info about the Amiibo Use in Samus Returns got out many where quick to rightfully criticize it. But just as many quickly joined to defend Nintendo, calling all who had a different opinion hater or even threatened them. Now I'm not one to take these online threats seriously, but it shows the problem we currently have in the online age. Everything has to be about me. Social Media is one huge narcissistic shit show. If someone critiques something I like that must mean he critiques me.

That's the thought process that lies at the bottom of this problem. Identifying to closely with a company leads you to becoming blind for it's flaws and problems. And to be honest everyone and everything has flaws. Yes even Nintendo. Because first and foremost these companies only want your money. Some may call this a cynical world view, but this is the endgame for every company. Yes some of them surely care for their customers, but in the end all these ways of binding people to your brand only serve to get these people as customers. And if these customers happily consume without complaining then all the better.

One thing that every company tries is to maximize it's profits. That's just how our capitalism driven society works. Our ''job'' as customers is not consumption, but instead acting as controlling organ to keep the companies in check. And that is something that being a blind fan undermines. Also it sooner or later kills itself. What I mean by that is that being a blind, always supporting fang will kill your love for the product. Because even if you are a huge Nintendo fan there will always be things about them that bug you, but you won't be able to say this outright. To admit that your favorite company has flaws, is the same as to admit that you are flawed because you choose them. So instead of voicing your opinion you start to simply accept everything, but the frustration won't go away. And because there are thousands more like you, your company doesn't see any reason to change their ways. One day there will be the point where even you are fed up with their antics. And that's when you cease being a fan. One thing that is important to realize is that you don't owe these companies anything. You don't need to defend them or protect them. What you need is to call them out on their bullshit before it can destroy what you love.

Let's just take a look at the X-Box One. When it was announced Microsoft planned on it needing to be online all the time. If you couldn't connect to the Internet you wouldn't be able to play. Luckily the fans lashed out and that stupid idea got canceled. But what if blind supporting Fanboys would have been in their place?

Source

Well like everything anti-consumer that isn't fought before it can take root the idea would have bloomed and quickly became an accepted standard. And like any standard it would get copied by other competitors.

You should always criticize what you love.

What I'm saying with that is not to never be happy about your fandom. Just that you should never grow blind for problems. Engaged fans help their fandom to evolve and grow. Also taking critique aimed at your object of passion personally is the dumbest thing you could do. It destroys all hope of ever reaching your discussion partner and only leads to hardened fronts.

Just remember. You don't owe those companies anything. Not your love, nor your money. This has to be earned time and time again. Or we'll end up with a 60$ game for which you need five different Amiibos to unlock the true ending. And one more if you want to play it Co-op.

And as always

thanks for reading

The Switch Online Rant

Source

Nintendo is a strange company. On one hand they create one of the best and most addicting Online Games in Splatoon 2 and on the other they actively try everything to keep you from playing online with your friends. On one hand they are stuck in the past and on the other they try to forcefully implement Smartphones and anything new and exciting into their products.

So this time let's talk about the absolute idiocy that is the Nintendo Online Smartphone app.

One Step Forward, One Step back:

With the launch of the Switch Nintendo also announced their new plans for their Online infrastructure. Originally it was planned that it would start in the fall of this year, but now Nintendo has pushed back the start to earyl 2018. But what are the key data of their new Online service?

Well first and foremost it's not free anymore. Like with X-Box and PlayStation Nintendo will now charge a yearly fee for Online Play. It's considerably lower than the competition, with only 20$ a year, but the value is also not the same. Of course you'll get to play online, but instead of an big title from a year ago or an actual Indie Game for free, like on X-Box or PlayStation, Nintendo will only offer a NES Game each month. Originally you couldn't even keep the games. It was planned that after, for example, July ended, you'd loose access to the game of that month even though you were still paying for the Online Service. Luckily Nintendo changed that after a lot of complaints. So not everything's bad I guess.

But that's only half of their new online infrastructure. The other half is, to put it bluntly, stupid as hell. Because thing like Online Lobbies or Friendlists have been outsourced to a smartphone app. That means that if I want to play Splatoon 2 with my friends I have to download the smartphone app, start it on my phone and then add my friends there. It's needlessly complicated. Totalbiscuit released a sceenshot of what is necessary if you want to play with some of your friends.

Source

That's is ridiculous.

Another thing is that as long as the app is running you can't do anything else on your phone. Got a message and want to check it? Not possible.

I'm sorry, but there is no justification for this. Especially as fans we should not put up with such lackluster execution.

Sadly this proves once more that Nintendo has absolutely no idea how online is working. To me it seems like if they tried to lessen the load on their Online Infrastructure via outsourcing. Still they want us to pay for it.

Splatoon 2 is a great game, but this online nonsense has really damped my enjoyment of the title. Sadly there isn't much we can do except for telling Nintendo directly how we feel about the situation. Maybe the listen.

Maybe...

and as always

thanks for reading

The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Sequel

Source

Warning: This Post will contain some Spoilers for Breath of the Wild.

When Breath of the Wild launched to probably the best critics of any video game in the last decade, it was pretty certain that from now on this game would serve as the blueprint fro the Zelda series moving forward. Just like with Ocarina of Time nineteen years ago. And just with Ocarina of Time I hope they use the engine to create an immediate successor, which, while using the same blueprint, goes into a different direction.

It's a well known story by now, but after the release of Ocarina of Time Eiji Aonuma wanted to create a new kind of Zelda game. Shigeru Miyamoto and Nintendo green lit the project, but only if Aonuma could deliver the new installment in the span of one year. Even during the N64 days this was a ridiculously short time to develop a game. They only managed this by using many assets from Ocarina of Time and creating a dense and focused game world. The result was Majoras Mask, which is lauded as one of the best Zelda titles today.

You may already have guessed in which direction todays Thoughtpiece will go. Yes I'd like to talk about a Breath of the Wild sequel. The Game was a huge project. The biggest development team Nintendo has ever had. And I'm sure with over five years of development it wasn't cheap to make either. It's not a wild guess to say that Nintendo is already hard at work and a new Zelda title is at least in the concept stage. They already have a working physics and graphics engine. Under this premisses a sequel to Breath of the Wild would be not to expensive to make and probably won't take five years either.

So as customers we now have to ask ourselves what do we want from a sequel? Should Nintendo try something different or build on the foundation of Breath of the Wild?

Familiar but different: 

A direct sequel to Breath of the Wild would, in my opinion, the weakest way to create a new Zelda game. Exploring the same (maybe rebuild) Hyrule with different threats would be much better suited for a DLC to the original game. In Breath of the Wild the World was the star of the game. I think using it again, even though slightly changed, would lead to a huge fatigue factor with the player. In Breath of the Wild you had the feeling that you could discover something around every corner. A direct sequel couldn't offer the same, if the landscape wouldn't drastically change by some apocalyptic event. So a rebuild Hyrule is out of question, but what about another form of direct sequel. One that only takes the characters and moves them to a new location. Yes I'm talking about Breath of the Wilds Majoras Mask. Just like after Ocarina of Time Link got thrown into this new world Termina, the same could work for Breath of the Wild. Let me give you a quick overview of my idea.

Source

After their victory over Calamity Ganon Link and Zelda are hard at work to rebuild Hyrule. But their progress is slow and riddled with setbacks. The land is still infested with Monsters and different races are scattered and low in numbers. The knowledge of the past is mostly lost. But one day a strange traveler arrives and he tells the two about a Mask that can grant wishes. This Happy Mask Salesman tells the Story of the Mask hidden away in an island nation off the coast of Hyrule. Now Link and maybe even Zelda head out to find this Mask to grant their wish of a rebuild Hyrule.

Yes it's exactly what it sounds like, I would love to have a modern Majoras Mask. The genius idea of the three day cycle that repeats itself every time is still responsible for one of the most alive feeling video game worlds of all time. And I would like to see that repeated in the modern age. Just think of the possibilities such a game would create nowadays.

Just like Termin this Island could work as a sort of Mirror to Hyrule, which would allow them to re-use several assets from Breath of the Wild. It, of course, wouldn't need to be so vast and huge like it's predecessors game world, but could make up for this fact by re-introducing the time travel mechanic. It would increase the loop to five or seven days however. The possibilities created by this system are endless. Of course it's a lot of work, but with a big and experienced team I think it's possible. And the game wouldn't need to be done in one year. Instead they should take their time and maybe release the new Zelda during holiday 2019.

The three day loop in Majoras Mask really made the inhabitants of Termina feel alive. Even today. Just think of the possibilities with todays technology. It would also fix the problem of Breath of the Wilds side quest feeling very lackluster. Majoras Mask was a game nearly completely made up of memorable side quests. The dynamic of NPCs having not only their own daily routine, but this being influenced by your actions or non-actions, is what made Termina such a ''realistic'' world. In Breath of the Wild we already have a very realistic world. In my review I said this is because every action creates a logical reaction. Everything has weight. People seek shelter when it rains or are startled when you draw your sword. If Nintendo would take this foundation and combine it with the daily routines from Majoras Mask they could create the most realistic Open World so far.

Source

Just like Majoras Mask was a smaller, but more focused version of Ocarina of Time, the Breath of the Wild sequel could do the same. And seventeen years after the release of Marjoras Mask I think it's time to try the concept once more.

Into the Unknown:

Another possibility would for them to try something completely new. Just a new land with the same environments wouldn't do it. After all Hyrule pretty much covers everything already. Mountains (hot and cold), Forests, Jungle and Desert. You have it all. So why not go into a completely new direction. Breath of the Wild already introduced technology to the series. Why not make the next installment go full Steampunk? Instead of a natural Hyrule create a mechanical one. Give us something we truly have never seen before in a Zelda game.

Or create a world where Ganon won. A kind of apocalyptic version of Hyrule with Link roaming the wasteland as a lone wanderer. A kind of Apocalypse/Western mix.

Source

The problem with such a proposal for a sequel is that it would take a lot of work creating new art assets and models. While a Majoras Mask 2 could justify re-using a lot from Breath of the Wild this couldn't work here. If Nintendo has streamlined and optimized their development process I'm sure they could create such a game in around three years, if they used the same engine as Breath of the Wild.

With Breath of the Wild Nintendo gave us the most complete and definitive Hyrule for a long time to come. That's why now would be a great time to experiment with the Zelda series and step out of the High Fantasy comfort Zone they used as framework for so long. With Breath of the Wild they have already proven that they are willing to question some of the foundations of the series, so why not go even further with the next installment. But what they shouldn't do is trying to recreate Breath of the Wild in any way, shape or form. They did that with Ocarina of Time for a long time. And while there was never a bad Zelda games, one can only wonder what could have been if they stepped out of their comfort zone earlier.

Of course I know it's funny for me to suggest them trying something new and wanting a Majoras Mask sequel only several paragraphs before, but that is because Majoras Mask approach to an Open World is still unique even after seventeen years. At least I can't think of a game that tried something similar.

To new realms:

If a Breath of the Wild sequel happens, and I have no doubt it will, and no matter how they approach it, they should not cling to closely to the predecessor. Instead I hope they boldly try something new (or old) to create a experience that may use the blueprint, but doesn't feel anything like Breath of the Wild.  

Source

So what are your hopes and/or wishes for a Zelda sequel? Would you like something completely new? Or are your still enthralled by the wilderness of Hyrule? If you have any cool ideas let me hear them in the comments below.

And as always

thanks for reading

The Breath of the DLC Dilemma

Warning: This Post will contain some Gameplay Spoilers for Breath of the Wild and its upcoming DLC.

Source

Breath of the Wild does a lot to break the conventions of the Zelda series. It is a complete new approach to the storied franchise and a sharp contrast to previous entries. Most of this convention breaks appear in the Gameplay department, but some are more outside of the game. Shortly before the game finally launched Eiji Aonuma announced the Breath of the Wild expansion pass. This DLC will include two packs, which would launch during Summer 2017 and during Winter 2017 respectively. It also included an expansion pass Bonus, which included three Treasure Chests found on the Great Plateau, where one of them included a Nintend Switch Shirt for Link to wear.

And while most of the convention breaks in Breath of the Wild were applauded by the fans this one was taken with mixed feelings. Maybe it was because it cam out of the blue and was announced only vaguely.

Source

Nintendo is always pretty secretive with information to their upcoming games. Well at least until the go into overdrive shortly before release and spoil pretty much everything. Here it was similar. We only got these vague announcements about the DLC, but were expected to pay 20€ upfront for something we can't fully enjoy till nearly one year later. It left a pretty sour taste in the mouths of many people. Generally it's always bad form when a expansion is announced before the game even launched. Even if it is not true it gives of the picture of Content being cut out to be sold to us separately. And now that we have the full overview about what the first DLC will offer, I have to say that this seems to hold true with Breath of the Wild. Everything announced for the first pack is something that could and should've been in the actual game from the beginning. So how about we first dissect the DLC and then talk about its problems afterwards.

A Trial for your Wallet:

The first DLC for Breath of the Wild offers exactly what was announced earlier. A Cave of Trials, a new Map feature and a Hard Mode. As well as some ingame Items. For one half of a 20€ DLC Pack this isn't much.

Trial of the Sword:

Source

The biggest and most important part of this content pack is surely the Trial of the Sword Challenge ''Dungeon.'' It can be entered by putting your Master Sword back in it's socket. You'll then be stripped of all your equipment, similar to the Eventide Island Shrine Quest. You then have to battle through 45 Rooms full of enemies, adapting and gathering equipment as you progress. The reward is the Awakened Master Sword, which now will deal 60 Damage all of the Time.

Source

It's a nice idea and the mixed visual of the Shiekah Shrine with outdoor content looks cool, but in essence it is just another Challenge Cave, which many Zeldas offered before as a part of the base game.

Hard Mode:

Source

The new Hard Mode is simply that. A Hard Mode. Enemies will now regenerate their Health, so you have to finish them off quickly. Also all monsters will move up on tier. This means the red variants will be replaced by blue ones from the get got and a new tier of enemy will be included. So if silver Lynels give you a a hard time, you can look forward to fighting gold ones. And lastly all monsters will be much more observant of their surroundings, so sneaking up on them should become more challenging as well. But the mode won't change any Shrine Locations or Puzzles. So if you hoped for anything like the original Zeldas 2^nd Quest or Master Quest then you'll be disappointed. So basically this is this games Hero Mode, which in older titles was also part of the game from the get go.

Source

Oh yeah also some platforms will float in the air carrying enemies and treasure to the skies above Hyurle.

Hero's Path: 

Source

And now for the last big feature of the DLC. The Hero's Path.

It will record all your movements across Hyrule for up to 200 hours. This makes it easier to spot areas of the world which you haven't visited so far and maybe allow you to hunt down those last remaining Korok Seeds or Shrines. Overall it's a great feature, but for the love of Miyamoto why is it paid DLC? Why do I have to pay for a feature that, by all means, should have been part of the game from the get go. A full priced game should never offer any paid extra content which makes it easier. Even if it's just single player. Which brings me to the next point.

Travel Medallion: 

Source

The Travel Rune is a new key item, which allows Link to mark any place in the World for Quick Travel. Firstly this isn't really needed. There are Shrines and Shiekah Towers all across Hyrule. 

Source

Still it is a helpful feature for some hidden Shrine Quests, where you have to perform an action at a specific time of the day. With the Travel Rune you can mark the place, adventure somewhere else and quickly return when needed. But why again is this paid DLC?

Masks and other Stuff: 

Source

Lastly the DLC will feature some new outfits for Link. This is expected and nice and actually the only part of the DLC, which I have not problem with. Well not entirely. While most of the Outfits look cool and are great Fanservice, but the Korok Mask is once again something that should have been implemented in the game from the get go.

Source

The Mask will simply shake when a hidden Korok is nearby. This is great and all, but once again Nintendo allows you to pay to make the game easier. 900 Koroks is a huge number and I have essentially given up on finding all of them (especially because the Reward is not worth it). But by making this Mask a DLC item Nintendo tells its customers. Do you have Trouble finding all hidden Koroks in our full price game? Well if you give us some more money we may be able to help you. It just leaves a bitter aftertaste in my mouth.

Hit or Miss:

So apart from the Trial of the Sword and the fanservice costumes this DLC includes only additions, which should have been part of the game from the get go. Gameplay wise it offers next to nothing. I don't think the Trial of the Sword will take more than one afternoon to complete and the new Hard Mode is hardly any incentive to start the game anew. And honestly selling the Map feature, the Travel Rune and the Korok Mask to us for real money is a pretty bad move by Nintendo. A someone, who hates scummy DLC practices I can't give Nintendo a pass, just because they are my favorite gaming company.

Nintendos DLC has always been kinda hit and miss and so far it seems like Breath of the Wild will fall into the miss category. Of course we don't know anything about the second DLC, which will launch later this year and include a new Dungeon and Story chapter, but honestly I don't think it will reach the magnitude of, for example, The Witcher 3 DLC.

So far the 20€ they want for this season pass haven't been worth it at all. In fact I would go as far as calling the current offering of DLC for Breath of the Wild lazy and uninspired. It's definitely not worthy of such a great game. But what could Nintendo have done better?

Well that always depends of what you expect from a DLC. Should it build on the core strengths of a title and merely expand on them, or should it try something new and work on the problems of the main game?

I would argue that Breath of the Wild is a strong game on it's own and there isn't a glraring flaw that could be fixed by a DLC. So Nintendo should instead focus on building on the titles core strengths. Here is an example:

Kiltons Monster Madness:

Source

Kilton is a strange merchant fascinated by monsters. After you found him for the first time in Akkala, he'll appear next to villages during the night. He sells you unique items in exchange for monster parts. He also offers kind of a side quest. For slaying all Molduga, Hinox and Talux Minibosses on the Overworld respectively you'll earn a medal. But what if he would ask more of you? Kiltons Monster Madness could be him asking you to delve into specific monster infested areas to help with his research. These could be new (Caves, Underground Ruins, etc.) or preexisting locations, which have been overrun by Monsters. Small side missions where you have to fight hordes of a specific enemy. As reward you could get special weapons or items, which help you in fights against those monsters and of course tons of materials.

Another Monster Madness idea would be Link having to find and hunt a specific strong monster. Kilton tells you about a powerful Moblin/Bokoblin/etc. Boss, but he can only tell you the general area, where you'll find the guy. There you'd have to clear out enemy camps to find clues until you gathered enough to make the Boss appear. Of course he would be a very though version of his Monster Type and should pose a serious challenge.

Another Idea for rewards would be that those Bosses drop special materials, which you then can use to upgrade the Monster Masks and Dark Link Set making them even more effective.

And lastly what if Kliton asks you to observe Monsters and their daily routines. Link would have to follow a group of wandering monsters without getting spotted for a specific amount of time. The reward would be a better understanding of this enemy type, which also makes him more effective while fighting them.

This would be an idea for the more of the same kind of DLC. It expands on an already established character and offers a new incentive to fight monsters and head out into the world. Of course a real second Quest kind of Hardmode would be also welcome. Or anything that is more than some very basic features, which should have been part of the basic game from the get go.

Source

But what is your take on this whole Breath of the DLC Story? Are you happy with the first expansion pack? Are you mad? Or do you withhold your judgement until the Story DLC is unveiled? Let me know in the comments and if you have ideas about Breath of the Wild DLC I would love to read them.

And as always

thanks for reading

Why Breath of the Wilds Princess Zelda isn't a Damsel in Distress

Source

Warning: This article will contain Spoilers for the Story of Breath of the Wild

The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild breaks many conventions of the Zelda series. It's completely open design philosophy allows the player to experience the game completely at his own pace. Wherever you want to go you can go, only hindered by your own abilities and preparation. But as much as some things have changed some stayed the same. The Story is such a foundation. It's basically the same in every Zelda game, and I'm happy about that fact. And while some details may change the overarching plot of good versus evil and the trifecta of the TriForce is always the same.

And this is a good thing. The basic plot will always give you a feeling of familiarity, while the details can change to keep things fresh. The Legend of Zelda with it's different timelines and incarnations of Link, Zelda and Ganon is perfect for such an approach to storytelling.

Breath of the Wild is no exception to this. But with its completely open design the developers faced the problem of portraying the story properly. After all you could easily miss important parts simply by heading in the ''wrong'' direction.

All Open World Games have a problem with linear storytelling. If you're supposed to reach different places in a specific order to not mess up the story progression the game can't be completely open. Twilight Princess and it's semi Open World come to mind. While Hyrule in that game was huge for the time it only opened up piece by piece. So while you had kind of an open World it was segregated by the story progression.

On the other Hand you have games like Skyrim, where you can go anywhere anytime, but because of that the Main Story lacks any urgency. ''Oh no Alduin is back and feasts on the souls of Sovengarde... well first let explore this dwarfen ruin and after that maybe I will...''

Breath of the Wild solved this Problem by putting most of the Story in the past. It is not a perfect solution and the game has definitely some flaws in that department (the weak characterization of Ganon comes to mind), but overall this allows the player to explore the Story at his own pace and leisure and in the end still have a cohesive Story arc.

Well I have writtne a lot already, so let us finally come to todays topic. Amongst the critical praise for the Game one critique did catch my eye. 

Source

Some of you may be sick and tired of the topic, but I think it's worthy to discuss. Feminist Frequency called out the the fact that once again Zelda needs to be saved by link. They lamented the use of this tired trope. Once again Zelda is nothing more than a Damsel in Distress. Well that is simply not true. But before I talk about the power dynamic between Zelda and Link and why she isn't a Damsel, but a very capable Hero in her own right, let us take a look at her Character Arc in Breath of the Wild. Oh and once again this will contain Spoilers.

Source

Struggling with herself:

As mentioned earlier most of Breath of the Wilds Story plays in the past. You'll experience this by visiting specific places in the World and unlocking Links lost memories. These cutscenes play 100 Years in the past, shortly before Ganons devastating attack. Via these memories we get to know the four champions of Hyurles races and Princess Zelda. For me this portrayal of Zelda is one of the best and most fleshed out in the entire series. We learn that she is plagued by self doubt. While Link ascended the ranks, became the youngest Royal Knight in the History of Hyrule and drew the Master Sword out of it's socket, she still has to awaken her powers. Zelda can't even hear the voice of the Master Sword. When exploring Hyrule Caslte you can stumble across Zeldas and the Kings diary, which delve deeper in this subject.

We learn that Zelda lost her Mother at the young age of six. This robbed the young princess of her teacher, and even though the King noted that she never cried or faltered during the funeral, it left a huge hole in Zeldas life. Torn between her duty and her inability to awaken her powers Zelda would've needed the guidance of her Mother more than ever. Because of this the young Princess focused on studying the ancient technology of the Shiekah.

This is never outright stated in the game, but I believe this was because of Zeldas fear that she would not be able to awaken her sealing powers. Instead she hoped that the Divine Beasts and Guardians would be able to defeat Ganon instead. This self doubt also shows itself whenever Zelda lashes out at Link. He fulfilled his destiny. He wields the Master Sword. Every time she looks at him he reminds her of her own failure. Through this we get to know a Zelda, who seems much more relatable and human than her previous incarnations.

Source

Over the course of the story we also see that Zelda grows to care for Link. We see her grow as a person and finally, in her most desperate hour, she manages to manifest her powers to protect the one, who has always protected her. After Link is put to sleep in the Shrine, she then brings the Master Swort back to it's pedestal in front of the Deku Tree. At this time Zelda knows what she has to do. If Ganon is left unchecked he would destroy Hyrule. But she also knows that she alone can't hope to defeat the Calamity. This is clear, when she asks the Deku Tree to convey her message to Link. But when the Deku Tree stops her, telling the princess that she herself should talk to Link, the young women takes heart from this words. Determined she steps into Hyrule Castle alone to fight Ganon. And for one Hundred years she has just done that.

Zelda is a strong personality in this game, not because of that, but because we saw her growth first hand. At least if you collect all the memories. The player can understand her struggle and even if she is somewhat bratty in some scenes, it is all understandable. She is a young women, who has always struggled to fulfill her destiny. But finally she does just that and bravely steps up to defend her land against the Calamity. So where is she a damsel? Let's talk about that.

The definition of Strength:

On first glance nothing has changed to older titles in the series. Zelda is trapped inside the castle with Ganon and Link has to safe her. So she still is a Damsel in Distress? Yes, but only if you don't care to look any further than that. Only with a very superficial view on the game and the Story you could come to the conclusion that Zelda is a Damsel.

First of all the Dynamic has completely shifted. Not Zelda is being held captured by Ganon, but the exact opposite is the case. Zelda is keeping Ganon contained within the Castle, so that he can't destroy the rest of Hyrule. She is there as of her own free will. Sacrificing her own freedom to keep her beloved country safe. This far from Damsel behavior, which is often characterized by the Damsel having no own agency. She only exists to be saved by the Hero.

With Zelda we have a completely different picture. Not only does she has her own Story arc and character development via the Memories, but she also is the one to safe Link and all of Hyrule first. Without her Link would have perished one hundred years ago and the whole land would be destroyed by Ganon by now.

But she still needs to be saved by Link in the end I hear critics cry. Yes that is the truth, but so what? Zelda is no Damsel, but she isn't a Mary Sue either. She has limits. She is not a fighter. Link represents Courage. She represents Wisdom. Link fights Ganon and she banishes him. Both need each other to triumph.

If you're not convinced lets take a look at the situation without Zelda in the Picture. First of Link would've found a completely different Hyrule. Most likely everything would have been covered by Malice and most, if not all, of the Land would be dead. Certainly all other Races would've perished, which means Link would've been truly alone in this destroyed and hostile world. Ganon would've been able to take on his full powered form. Also Link wouldn't have the Light Arrows to fight the monster.

Now lets say despite all this Link manages to defeat Ganon. Without Zelda he would not be able to banish him. Ganon would simply regenerate and attack again until he finally overpowers the Hero.

You see Links and Zeldas relationship is co-dependent. One can't succeed without the other. Link may be able to defeat Ganon in combat, but he can't deal the final blow. Zelda may be able to keep the Beast in Check, but she can't damage it. None of the two is all powerful.

Source

Zelda is no Damsel in Distress in Breath of the Wild because she is portrayed having her own agency. She has her own story and path. She chooses to make the ultimate sacrifice in order to make Links victory possible.

And lastly I want to mention the true ending. This cutscene is one of the best pieces of Storytelling in recent memories. It only plays when you manage to collect all memories first. In that scene we learn that keeping Ganon in check for 100 years and then finally banishing him has completely depleted Zelda of her powers. She can't hear the voice of the Master Sword any more, nor does she have her sealing powers. But she is ok with that. She has finally come to terms with herself. And she is already looking forward. She and Link will rebuild Hyrule. And now she can finally research the Shiekah technology without any pressure. Even though she fulfilled her destiny there is still a lot more to do. Simply said Zelda isn't defined by her role as incarnation of the Goddess.

Calling this Zelda a Damsel in Distress only shows that you have a very limited understanding of Tropes and Storytelling and/or haven't truly played the game. Either way it is a pretty stupid complaint.

Like I said earlier Breath of the Wild has some weaknesses and is by no means a perfect game (even though it comes very, very close), but its incarnation of Zelda is one of the strongest and best developed female characters in the franchises history. It's just that the game doesn't hand these facts to you on a silver platter, but you'll have to work for it.