Everyone I know was so excited over their showing.
But I thought it was pretty meh. I mean they didn't once give us direct footage, only showing the TV from a distance. Not to mention that the bow seems to be Gyro controls again, with Star Fox also being confirmed for having them.
I just can't get hyped over hearing that this and SF are next year despite us not seeing anything close to a final product.
The dubbing was pretty shit too.
People were saying Aonuma was using the stick to look around at points, but I dunno, maybe not, I didn't mind it in OoT3D, good for aiming precisely I guess. Though I don't see why it wouldn't have support for the pro controller
You guys are retarded. They had it on a screen behind them. Of course the colors are going to look dull and the game low-res. It's being filmed and the frames and such are overlapping and, what's more is that is that the camera is not a direct feed. GameXplain enhanced the footage to see what it might really look like and it looks almost identical to this tech demo.
actually, did they ever claim it's a screenshot? Not trying to defend bullshots, but it kind of seems as if the models used in that picture are genuine, as if it's a shader-authentic and model-identical rendering of the ingame assets. The viewing distance is blown out of proportion, no doubt, and I can't comment on the density of features.
So, I suppose it kind of hinges on what you want to read into the image?
hmm, I still think I wasn't clear enough. I suppose what I'm trying is, the picture is maybe not so much pretending to be a screenshot, as it is a preview of the art direction. Even if the game might not meet these looks in action (questionable at this point, it's still early), it indicates that the next installment is not super deformed toons, and not grimdark. That its focus is on vastness, maybe a kind of desolation.
that's all predefined movements. The most you can do with that is QTEs. In large parts of the trailer the player character is not even in the view, so the horse riding has to be largely predefined
A naked and extremely hairy Williams will occasionally run across the field in front of you shouting things like "stay away from my daughter you fucking queer elf faggot" before disappearing into the bushes
>In large parts of the trailer the player character is not even in the view
you do know that you can place the camera however you want with developement kits? It's how most of those trailers are done.
It's not rocket science
so it's not gameplay then, got it. Visual feedback while playing matters. If it's a recording of the movements of someone playing, but entirely different visual feedback, it's just a machinima trailer
What the fuck you are even on about?
The first trailer was nothing but a teaser, showing off a part of the map, artstyle and some horse combat. It also teased the ability to jump off your horse and fires arrows in mid-air.
Now we got to see the developers play a bit. Just a small gameplay section. That's it.
Where's the disconnect?
sadly true. Looking at the way Nintendo dealt with the latest Mario Spinoffs and Smash games, it seems more and more like they're becoming a marketing company first and foremost. They also happen to make games, but their quality is almost secondary (I know, Nintendo games are usually pretty solid, keep it to yourself). They build hype. The games are only the mechanism to cash in on the hype, the pay-off
I understand what it is, but we disagree on what gameplay is. As far as I'm concerned, this was an elaborate form of motion capturing. Someone made input to trigger movements. Then that raw data has been used to choreograph a trailer. The actual gameplay (HUD, visibility, feedback) is gone. Makes for nice footage, but that's about it. There's no telling about the pacing, downtime, what the player can see, all that crucial gameplay stuff is gone. It's not even possible to tell if such a scene can actually occur in the game, or if it's entirely staged for the trailer
Yeah, because it was a cinematic teaser. It didn't show someone playing the game. It wasn't a gameplay trailer. It was just: Look there's gonna be a new Zelda, it'll have a big map and look like this.
So "cinematic teasers" are supposed to be unrelated to the product they're teasing? Learning something new every day here. I like especially the "and look like this" bit, when the biggest complaint people have is that the latest interactive demo doesn't "look like this"
Cinematic teasers never were a good representation for games. In fact, almost any video trailer isn't a good representations! Games are interactive, so to get a feel for a new game you'll need a demo. This isn't always possible of course.
no idea. Simply a trailer? Machinima? Staged gameplay doesn't sound too bad, to be honest. Gets enough of the concept across. Though I still think "gameplay" should include the interface the player will be dealing with, but that's nitpicking
It doesn't. The purpose of marketing is to present the product and make it known. "Hype" is a rather recent development, specifically built on getting the potential buyers to have a strong emotional investment, often to mask flaws in the actual product.
I don't like the term Machinima, it makes me think of unfunny World of Warcraft videos with Linkin Park music and Undead Rogues.
Cinematic gameplay would also fit, but cinematic has become such a negative term that I don't want to use it at all.
We're having a problem here
to me machinima comes from machine and cinema, and basically means using gameplay means and engine abilities to produce something cinematic, a video that's not obviously a game interface recording.
Not sure on the problem with cinematic. It's a bad word for games and gaming, but trailers aren't games. They're video footage. So in that context cinematic does strike me as a useful term.
Cinematic gameplay I'd have a problem with too, because it implies we're in the context of games, where being cinematic really is a bad thing. Cinematic gameplay is, to me, anyway, a different word for interactive cutscenes, or QTEs.
I don't think you understand what gameplay is as an industry term.
Aonuma was just saying that the trailer was directly made using animation from in-engine gameplay instead of customized animations for the trailer. Was it carefully choreographed gameplay? Of course it was. But as we saw in the new footage, that big elaborate flip Link does when shooting arrows is an actual in-game animation.
The only bit of that trailer that was "doctored" was probably the ability for the enemy robot to smash through environmental objects, and I doubt most people are expecting that to really be in the game.
Because the valley they showed was the only thing finished for the sake of showing it in the trailer.
The rest of the world hasn't had time to be worked on that much yet but people kept begging for more footage.
>I don't think you understand what gameplay is as an industry term.
While the rest of your comment is pretty thorough and agreeable, I want to say that "industry term" seems like the wrong phrase here. More like "marketing buzzword". Gameplay in games is interaction with the game, which goes in both directions (player entering inputs, game returning responses, in form of image, sound and possibly other feedback channels). Skipping half of that does not strike me as gameplay.
I suppose I'd understand it more as in-game animations, or motions that will occur like that during gameplay.
>is an actual in-game animation
how interactive is it? No telling. That's my problem when calling it "gameplay" here.
>and I doubt most people are expecting that to really be in the game
See nothing wrong with that picture?
Then why make the terrible mistake of doing the interactive demo in any place but this valley? Why would you show incomplete draft/placeholder terrain when you have a known interactive and fully fleshed out spot already in it?
They wanted to show that the world expands far beyond the valley.
People would probably be underwhelmed if they spent all the time in the same place. Then you'd have people shitposting that the world is tiny instead.
They did show a world map, didn't they? Also, in the first scene of the trailer, the viewing distance is massive. They could spend a lot of time just walking back and forth through that region. Hell, start the interactive demo somewhere in that distance, then move towards the place where the trailer takes place, to make that connection. Then show the pad map and the tiny distance travelled. That way people can relate to the size much better.
what's the point of showing off a place they've already shown? It'd would probably be worse than this.
Also, out of interest, what do you expect from open world when describing it as empty?
Placing enemies ever 5 feet and npcs ever 20 doesn't exactly make it better
>what's the point of showing off a place they've already shown?
>what do you expect from open world when describing it as empty?
bushes, lakes, forests, fields, hills, cliffs, rivers, ravines, big and small animals, trails and roads, road signs, people travelling, people working, villages in the distance, mountains in the distance
> lakes, forests, fields, hills, big and small animals, trails and roads
those were there, maybe not as dense but still there was something
I mean it's not just an empty patch of field like some make it out to be
>Placing enemies ever 5 feet and npcs ever 20 doesn't exactly make it better
As you can see in >>274779994 I would not suggest that. In fact you see me regularly around here argueing against amusement park open worlds, and for worlds with distances and consquences. So you certainly won't see me argueing in favor of sprinkling the landscape with NPCs or enemies.
I want to see landscapes I can navigate and explore, landscapes where I can follow trails and get somewhere, while seeing a shitload of cool, even tiny stuff on the side of the trail. I'm in favor of getting rid of minimaps an instead rely on NPC communication and scounting skills to figure out where to go. The original trailer almost suggested something like that, with its view distance, landmarks and structure. The more recent stuff looks "generic" and has an interactive map. In my eyes a downgrade.
Fucking agreed. I'm starting to get really scared for Starfox. We got nothing yet and it still will come out before Zelda U. I'm scared that Miyamoto only use this Starfox as an experiment for the shitty gimmicky gyro controls of the Gamepad.
Miyamoto better not fuck this up and bring back the glory of Starfox.
Yeah, I was happy to see it return as well. I wonder what items we'll be seeing that require magic again. Different types of elemental arrows (fire, ice, light; etc) are the obvious bet.
People don't know what they want. They only have vague ideas that when implemented in any way they wouldn't like.
If a large open map had a shit ton to do, people will complain about tedium.
I think open-world wise with decent amount of content, Dragon's Dogma did it right.
There were plenty of empty areas but with single mini-bosses like dragons and chimeras. If Zelda did something similar, that would be nice.
>People don't know what they want
Different people have different likes. Only when you confuse them for one opinion will it get confusing.
>If a large open map had a shit ton to do, people will complain about tedium.
You're confusing an interesting world with mandatory interaction
Can we please make this a buzzword? It helps NOTHING when talking about open worlds
he was using the stick before the animu bullet time shit, so i'm pretty sure you can use both as an option. i don't even know why they showed him using the gyro as it looked pretty choppy at this point in the dev stage, but then again i also don't know why they bothered doing a showing when its only point was "look the map is big we can't show you anything else it isn't ready please understand"
Fuck, all of those chests remind me of those pointlessly annoying cutscenes you would get if you found a blue rupee in a dungeon from TP or SS. That shit better not make a return.
That aside, anyone else took Miyamoto's hint about gathering apples off of trees and eating them? Or seeing those wild horses and deer? Sounds like we'll have to eat for survival and that hunting and trapping is practically confirmed.
>I think open-world wise with decent amount of content, Dragon's Dogma did it right.
The only things that game did right were monster battles, class-leveling and pawn/ally system. Aside from night actually being dangerous, the open-world was one of the worst aspects of that overrated game.
>anyone else took Miyamoto's hint about gathering apples off of trees and eating them?
It's nothing new.
it's just a different area of the map. i don't know how people are confused by this. the E3 footage was their first showing, they were naturally going to be in the most open and visible area possible. this shit shown last night was in a mountainous area and valleys and what not. i don't really know why they did it, but i also don't know why they did this showing at all since the only thing it was good for was "hey, the maps pretty big"
their worst offense during the E3 footage is using different camera angles for the more "epic" look. that monster kill is more than likely a sequence too, but the field itself looks reasonable.
And OoT crevices, which were fucking pointless
>they all look the same
>every chest contains 5 or 20 rupees or a heart
And it doesn't help that rupees are fucking useless in OoT.
>it's just a different area of the map
That "different area" is in a vastly different state of progress. So there are only few conclusions available to draw. It will improve, or the trailer was a bullshot. I can't blame cynics for favoring the second option.
>i don't really know why they did it
That's the thing. It cast more doubts than it contributed anything positive.
>since the only thing it was good for was "hey, the maps pretty big"
Especially since you can draw the exact same conclusion by traversing the area from the trailer, without all the negative issues.
>the field itself looks reasonable.
I'd find it much more reasonable if they'd revisit again in an interactive demo. As it stands, we have a gorgeous looking field in an orchestrated trailer, and a bland field in an interactive one. That leads to uncomfortable conclusions.
>What's your unrealistic hope for this game, /v/?
No handholding outside of weapon/intro tutorials and difficulty options or a hero mode you can choose from before you begin your game.
Why? What do you gain from buying it sight unseen? What will change so dramatically a week or two after release, that it's impossible to buy the game then? You're basically falling for their marketing strategy, which is hype and an established IP, regardless of any quality
That the overworld will be just the right size, filled with monster and secrets that will not break the pacing and full of secrets you will enjoy explore and discovers and that their emplacement will feel antural and not artificially placed there just for the sake of gameply, breaking the suspension of disbelief and that the story won't make you give this strange feeling that while you are roaming around looking for idle stuff, the world is still on fire and WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU DOING LOSING TIME ON THOSE POINTLESS SHIT? PRINCESS ZELDA HAS BEEN KIDNAPPED, WHY AREN4T YOU RUNNING TO FREE HER?
What the fuck man, I'm just saying a huge Zelda fan and I'll probably get it real quick cause I like Zelda, chill out.
I mean, I'll probably get it within the first week if not preorder despite anyone saying it's bad or anything I might feel could be bad about it because I'm a huge sucker for Zelda
>I'm just saying a huge Zelda fan and I'll probably get it real quick cause I like Zelda
And that is why devs prefer "established IP". Guaranteed sales, regardless of actual product quality
they weren't going to win regardless of what they did, is the problem. the game is nowhere near out, the fact they showed anything is bizarre. their options came down to showing something new but unfinished and getting results like this thread and the others that have taken place, showing the exact same area once again and having people cry that it's nothing new, or showing nothing at all and having people bitch that they missed an opportunity to build hype for a game that isn't out for at least a year.
really, everything about this was going to end up bad. i get the cynicism, and in today's era of video games i understand why people are afraid of a downgrade or whatever, but everyone is judging something that, if we're lucky, will be out by this time next year. knowing nintendo, it probably won't. the only thing i'm taking away from this at all, looking at it realistically, is that the game world is big. there is 0 reason to judge anything else. they didn't even show you a glimpse at "real" combat, no inventory screens, nothing. most of that is more than likely not even ready, if you want to really analyze things, given how bad links animation was for dismounting and doing that bullet time shit.
i love 4chan mostly for the engaging conversations about zelda that completely go off topic
>The only bit of that trailer that was "doctored" was probably the ability for the enemy robot to smash through environmental objects, and I doubt most people are expecting that to really be in the game
I don't know, Aonuma was pretty confident when he talked about those apples...and miya said last time they were there but they seemed to not be during the showing, so for all we know there could even be seasons in this game with different shit happening at different times of the year.
The claim is that all motions shown are animations as they occur right during gameplay, like a person actually "controlled" the player character and recorded these motions, then played it back with different cameras. So it's not just in-engine, but also not "scripted" in the sense of a cutscene. That's the claim, anyway.
>where is that claimed?
>Why do you need a new word for this?
There's a difference between a fully mocapped cutscene, and recording motions the player can actually perform
In engine does not mean real time. They can use the game's engine, run it on devkits with far more power than the actual console and apply a whole bunch of effects and higher poly counts than they usually would, it's still in engine.
it's clearly not actual gameplay though, the game would be unplayable like that. He's saying it's running a Wii U, which is a dubious claim. And no, there isn't a difference, you just need a new word for something that has been standard practice for years. It's an in engine trailer.
>apply a whole bunch of effects and higher poly counts than they usually would, it's still in engine
Never heard that definition
>the game would be unplayable like that
As someone suggested, the gameplay was recorded in normal perspective, then the motions played back with custom cameras.
wouldn't it be helpful if they would have used THAT region, from the trailer, to show it when played? At this point I got to admit, I side with the bullshotters. The interactive demo does not resemble the trailer, which makes me question the trailer's credibility
>never heard of that definition
oh I guess it doesnt exist then. Look at the "in engine" uncharted 4 trailer versus the "real time on PS4" demo from yesterday, there's the difference.
You just need to look at the Zelda gameplay demo from yesterday to see that it looks objectively worse. Why would you continue to defend it? If you think it looks fun and you're gonna buy it then cool, I think it looks fun too! Just stop pretending the Wii U is some kind of powerhouse or that people are out to get you by presenting you with facts.
I don't doubt that people record a variant of engine with modified meshes and textures on powerful systems. Calling that pre-rendered in-engine though, never heard that.
>Just stop pretending the Wii U is some kind of powerhouse or that people are out to get you by presenting you with facts.
What? I made no claim about the Wii Us capabilities one way or another, nor do I give a damn about it. After the interactive demo I'd even question whether the old trailer is actually using any gameplay engine. I never claimed otherwise. All I did was give you prove of people claiming it's gameplay, and on the WiiU. That's not reflective of my opinion.
At this point I consider the game vaporware until release
no, you don't. it's off fucking screen from a distance vs direct capture. it's like judging a game's visuals from a DSP video. if you want to call nintendo retarded for doing a showing in that fashion then nobody could tell you otherwise, but you're arguing about camera footage from 10 feet away in a section of a game that isn't even the same time of day as the first set of footage, is a completely different style of terrain and layout, etc.
because it works. Why do you think People laugh at Halo and Bungie? Because it's a very disrespectful business model. Nintendo has a bit of a history of being more about games than hype.
Because it's not even close to completion.
Jesus it's fucking less finished then the new Miyamoto Star Fox of course it's not a finished product much less a demo.
They'll probably have something playable for E3 so calm your tits until we see finished shit, same with how I view Uncharted 4, I loved 2 and hated 3 and I simply don't trust the Naughty Dog hypemachine to deliver.
smash bros is the only series they've done it on and that's because the fanbase are rabid autists that even the developer of the games hates.
what are you talking about with mario kart? the only thing i remember was a few preview things on game sites.