next »

[baconman]

All of this Zelda talk (and my personal preference for the classic) has got me doodling design docs on the key ingredients for an old-school like demake. Another thing to put on my already-too-ambitious to-do list perhaps; but given the enthusiasm around here, maybe it could just be a takeoff point for somebody to run with. At least if it's not, then it gets out of my head for awhile, if I'm lucky.

Designing the overworld size by it's prospective, minimal content. So here, I'm listing what I think/expect might be the minimal amount of locations that would be featured as the "undermap"; or basically what each acre's (possibly secret) path would include...

Homescreen/Sword #1
Sword Upgrade #2
(Sword Upgrade #3?)
Letter
Potion Shop
Candle Shop
Bomb Shop
(Secret Heart/Shield Shop?)
Special Shop
Money Making Game
Fairy Pond
Maze Screen (think Lost Woods/Hills here)
Hint for Maze Screen / Solicited Advice

Level 1 (open)
Level 2 (open)
Level 3 (open)
Level 4 (requires L1)
Level 5 (requires L2)
Level 6 (requires L3)
Level 7 (requires Ls 5+6)
Level 8 (requires all L's 1-7)

?? x Big Gift (Heart Container, $100, Life Potion; or choice thereof)
?? x Minor Gift (usually $10/$30)
?? x Door Repair Charges
3-4 x Warp Zones

Even at one of those apiece (Warp Zones aside), that's a minimum of 28 screens to appear in the overworld, assuming every screen features *something* at least once. I'd guess an optimal around 40 or so, based on multiples of the last three, and the marginal chance of "nothing" appearing as well.

Essential items... things that the game just wouldn't feel complete without...

Sword(s)
Shield(s)
Bombs (for destroying walls and opening caves)
Torch/Candle (burning trees/bushes, lighting up the dark)
Whistle/Recorder (secret passages/mysterious effects)
Power Glove/Bracelet/Ring, whatever. The rock pushing thing. (guess why)
(Stepladder equivalent?)

Life Potions
Hearts/Food
Heart Containers
Bombs
Bomb Expansions/Containers
Cash
Keys
(Triforce-like objective item)

Some atmospheric environments, and things with which to shape them:

Grass Fields
Forests
Desert
Lake
Mountains/Caverns
Graveyard
Castle/Fortress
Dungeons

Rock Walls
_{Real
Fake
Bomb-Destroying
Whistle-Destroying
Switch-Destroying (think pushblocks)
(Ladder-crossable?)}

Trees
_{Real
Fake?
Fire-Destroying
Whistle-Destroying
Switch-Destroying}

Water
_{Real
Fake
Whistle-Draining
Healing (ala Fairy Spring?)
(Ladder-crossable?)}

Ground
_{Blank
Grass
Dirt/Sand
Dark/Cavernous
Dungeon/Castle tiles}

Blocks, Rocks, and Graves
_{Fixed
Switch-related
Pushable 1x (but not a switch?)
Pushable/Passage-Concealing (directly)}

Dungeon Walls/Doors
_{Real Wall*
Fake Wall
Bomb-Breaking*
Switch-Opening Door
Key-Locked Door
Enemy-Locked Door
Open Door
Entrance/Exit Screen}

Dark foregrounds?

Other dungeon factors to consider:
_{Boss Rooms
Item Rooms
Secret Treasure Rooms
"Life or Money?"
Rough equivalent of "Grumbles"
(Map and Compass... but are they really essential?)
(Transporting Passageways?)}

*However they're generated or laid out... I think a personally favorable option is that walls should be openly bombable by default, and then if it's a room or area that's meant to be divided or inaccessible that way, turn the "bombability" off. Boss rooms and item rooms are a good example of such.

Clearly, the protagonist/antagonist is crucial and pretty straightforward, although a mix of "antagonists" could prove to be more interesting for replay value, especially if each requires a distinctive sequence of attacks/moves. And then some enemy typecasts and movement patterns for good measure; although most are fairly similar in their "roam around and shoot" approaches, a couple having things like open flight, auto-aim fireballs, or hopping is pretty reasonably standard. Maybe some trap-like elements as well. "Random stupid AI enemies" can still be challenging in greater numbers. Something along the lines of Armos (for additional secret/item-concealing purposes) should be pretty essential too... perhaps combine with Darknut/IronKnuckles influence?
__________

Oh well. Felt good to ramble this out, anyways!

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

i'm not sure what your goal is specifically, what do you mean by demake? it'd be hard to demake zelda1 unless you're going for atari 2600 style technology (demake means to make a game in lower technology than the original)

[baconman]

A simplification of concept doesn't suffice? Feel free to sub the term "simplification" then, because that's really all I mean by that, regardless of graphical results. Kind of debating whether a "shooting" weapon should be mandatory as well; the enemies are sure going to possess one after all, so it's not like it would go uncreated, anyways.

[Alistair Aitcheson]

I'm not entirely sure what you're going for here either. Are you trying to write down a simplification of the Zelda formula, or just list the common elements? I think one of my problems with the series is that much of what is seen as "necessary" elements aren't necessary at all (bombs, flute, 8 levels, location themes, etc.). This approach seems more like distilling the game down to its standard clichés, rather than distilling it down to it's most basic formula.

But then maybe that's what you're aiming for - I'm not sure ^^;

[Tiderion]

It sounds more like distilling the game down to its basic elements and listing the embellishments made on them. Then recognize the line that is not crossed by the addition of embellishments and use that as sort of a boundary for creation of a replica.

Sort of like how the acquisition of some items are necessary to the progression of the game and others simply add a tactical advantage. Why we stopped at 8 dungeons and didn't go to 9 (because 8 is the number of magic, duh). Etc.

[baconman]

Yeah, at this point that's exactly what it is... in fact, the whole thing could be done with simply 5 levels, too:

-1 (open)
-2 (open)
-3 (req 1)
-4 (req 2)
-5 (req 1-4)

But IMO, somewhere around 7-9 gives it some ideal lengthiness without dragging a world on forever. I went with 8, because GM's default assets ideally set it up that way (the 7 shiny gems, plus the final encounter), but numbers of things like that are fudgable; 5 would make a terrific "lunchbreak Zelda" (if such a thing were to exist). The other reason is to get a reasonable screencount of elements - it's not too often you'll find two rooms/secrets on a single screen. And there's a reason for that, it pushes you to explore other screens once you've already discovered something (or nothing) there.

The difference in a simplification of formula and a distillery of cliches is all in the execution. And the reason I use the descriptions above aren't to limit the potential of the subject, but to simply tie it into the execution of the original LoZ; so at first glance anyone who's played or watched LoZ can immediately understand what they mean (in effect). The settings for instance; you can call whatever you'd like a "forest." For instance (perhaps a bad example?), look at what Aquaria calls "a forest":



You can make something look however you want, but it still provides part of the overall visceral experience. When you're in a forest, it's unlikely that you'll uncover something by "bombing a wall," instead it focuses more of the effects of burning bushes/trees and sometimes the recorder. And if you see a rock there, out of place; it's pretty obvious that something's up with it, so pushing it is the natural thing to do (after all, you aren't going to activate a switch by "pushing a tree," right?*). Speaking of, the recorder itself could be practically anything as well, there's no reason why it should be limited to being musical, other than to associate it with a sound effect (relatively sound design).

_{*Not saying you couldn't do that either, but distinctifying the rock is what gives it attention here. A subtlely distinctive tree could serve the same purpose.
Alternatively, "burning a rock" would make little sense other than being a total surprise.}

Likewise, I'm sure there's a lot more potential searching tools than bombing walls and burning bushes. Examples and discussion of stuff like that is what I'm hoping this thread will promote - I see quite a few people mention "there's other stuff you can do," so have at it! What kind of other stuff would you enjoy doing to search for hidden rooms or items? Stuff that might take a certain degree of "grind" or trial-and-error; not little things like obvious lock-and-key stuff. LttP focused a lot... A LOT... on lifting stuff and ramming things with the Pegasus Boots (again, SNES showing off the controller; see SMB3 vs. SMW "Compare Those Games" for more on that subject). And what would make them so fun or distinctive?

In fact, I'd love to discuss and throw around ideas regarding EVERY element above. You think something is essential but not listed? Something listed can be removed entirely without compromising the exploration/enjoyment potential of the core game? If anything, that's more the point of this thread - what can we learn from the visceral experience of LoZ, and how can we apply that kind of thing in our own projects/designs?


You might think I'm crazy, but I really do think the Map is an extraneous element, and one that compromises the exploratory aspect of the game. Or maybe just the personal experience, since I used to chart the dungeons on paper and consider doing that "part of the core gameplay." The LoZ manual actually gives you a section in the back for doing so!

EDIT: Oh, and the neat way each dungeon is shaped like something, that's really cool, too. Wouldn't it be even funner to discover the dungeon's shape, rather than being told what it is? Both LoZ and Link's Awakening do that; which I believe is part of their distinctive charm, something many other Zelda titles like LttP overlooked completely.

[Draknek]

Yeah, at this point that's exactly what it is... in fact, the whole thing could be done with simply 5 levels, too:

-1 (open)
-2 (open)
-3 (req 1)
-4 (req 2)
-5 (req 1-4)

But IMO, somewhere around 7-9 gives it some ideal lengthiness without dragging a world on forever. I went with 8, because GM's default assets ideally set it up that way (the 7 shiny gems, plus the final encounter), but numbers of things like that are fudgable; 5 would make a terrific "lunchbreak Zelda" (if such a thing were to exist). The other reason is to get a reasonable screencount of elements - it's not too often you'll find two rooms/secrets on a single screen. And there's a reason for that, it pushes you to explore other screens once you've already discovered something (or nothing) there.

A lunchbreak Zelda seems like a really interesting idea to me. Possibly it would have to be randomly generated, and even then I'm not completely sure how/if it would work.

[baconman]

Well... the overworld could stay fairly static, or be devised of alternatingly open/passage screens...

 
 
 
 
 
 
 

...so the "green" squares are open in all applicable directions, but the red ones make "paths" between them (IE: they're open on 1-3 sides only). All of the screen layouts come with their "sometimes hidden" passage and main layout predeveloped, and are randomly associated with their "undermap" screens. Then (some) are modified to include their secret locking type (like the door repairs, later dungeons, and gifts). Once a homescreen is determined, the enemy bundles are calculated via A* xx location type. The only trick part (?) would be establishing the perimiter/coastline. And even that *could* be done with a simple overwrite that takes place after the rest of the map gen.

Dungeons could be generated in a similar method, with all of the walls "blown open" by default. The game chooses a dungeon shape, blocking off and blacking out the appropriate "inactive" rooms, and then filling the (red blocks) of the grid with different door types*, which are then mirrored into the otherwise open rooms. A key room, item room, entry/exit room, boss room, etc. are designated first, and the rest are issued layouts based on a "block layer" or a "water/lava layer." Enemy bundles (and bosses' life) are determined by the dungeon's level, instead of A*.

*Only protected rooms like item rooms or boss rooms, and the perimeter of the dungeon are given impenetrable walls. Everything else that gets "walled off" can be blown open with a bomb.

Ideal world size/shape may vary, but here's what I'm thinking:

7 x 7 = 49 = 48 + 1 (homescreen)

Plus a square makes for an easy way to draw things. And in afterthought, perhaps each coastline should be randomized (water or rock, in varying shapes) and "overwritten" seperately.

[Alistair Aitcheson]

Okay, I think I understand what you're going for, and I'm all for discussing what's essential and what can be cut, and why.

Left to design a Zelda myself, I'd probably be pretty brutal with it. Than again, I would do that with any series given the chance! I don't believe in being too precious with a game design, even ones I'm a fan of or have nostalgia for.

I guess I'll start with the weapons and items, as in my opinion they're the most important. I'll go through why I think they're important (if at all) and how they could be used more effectively.

The sword is a simple method of attack that doesn't need too much thought from the player. The shield is unnecessary, in my opinion - I never use it when I'm fighting, and the sword usually knocks enemies back anyway. The mirror shield is a fun stimulus for cool puzzles, though, particularly when you can't see the whole room at once and have to remember bits of it.

Upgrades to the sword are uninteresting in my opinion. It's nice to feel rewarded for your progression by being given more attack power, but it doesn't offer you a new way to play the game. Instead of hitting baddies twice you have to hit them once. How about an item that allows you to attack enemies in different and creative ways? Curving arrows to hit bad guys from behind, perhaps? A lot of the special items are usually quite useless in fights, and if they could be made worthwhile that would be awesome.

Bombs are essentially a way of unlocking doors and entrances. It's a simple function which is used to facilitate bigger puzzles, and they can also act as temporary weights (although I don't think they ever do in the game, but it could be cool), and be thrown and dropped, offering space-based and timing-based puzzles. It'd be nice to see a new type of object for this function though, as bombing suspicious rocks and cracks has got a bit tired imho, and on its own is not a stimulating puzzle.

I like the idea of having areas where you can only see a specific part of the screen, and you need to use some kind of light manipulator to find your way around. That's what the torch does. Often it's a simple case of lights on/lights off, which I don't like. When you can't see all the lit areas all the time, that's interesting, as it forces players to make a choice.

Containers for bombs, cash, magic, arrows, etc. are largely redundant in my opinion, unless there's a specific resource management aspect to some of the puzzles. For example, if there's four things to hit but you only get three arrows. I normally find I just have plenty of everything, even with the smallest container, and if I don't I just have to grind to get some more. I don't even think money is interesting. Cool items offer new ways to play and approach challenges. With money you either have it or you don't, and if you don't then you're forced to grind for more. In general, ammunition is redundant in a game like Zelda unless it's seriously limited.

Bottles are nice, as there's a real decision-making aspect to them - you have to decide what to take into a dungeon and what not to. This thinking could easily be applied to key items, if the dungeons can be solved in multiple ways with different item combinations. Keys have a similar level of interest in situations where you have one key but two locked doors - you have to make a choice on which one you use it on.

One thing I point out about the items is that they shouldn't just act like coloured keys (i.e. "you need the blue key to enter the blue door"). That's one of the things I always thought set Zelda apart from Metroid. In Metroid purple laser opens purple doors, missiles open missile walls, gravity boots let you jump up to gravity boot-sized ledges. In Zelda, in most cases, you have to think about how you use the item. You get the arrows, but to get to a spot where you can hit the target you need to freeze the water below, which might involve forcing some freeze-ray statue to hit  the water instead of you. Much more complex!

I could go on forever! These are just my thoughts, and I know my favourite part of the series is not the same as everyone else's - I love the puzzles.

(If the above was too long, below is the bit I feel is key to designing a Zelda game!)

Unlike other puzzle games, Zelda puzzles aren't abstract. They're physical, and they require you to explore the environment to work out a solution. They remind me of real-world problem solving, like working out how to cross a boggy field without ruining your new trainers.

I like to see Zelda games as a big network of puzzles: you need to solve some puzzles before you can solve the others (i.e. by collecting the right item, or opening up an area). And there's lots of smaller puzzles as parts of bigger puzzles (solving rooms is part of solving the dungeons, which is part of the solving the overworked). You have to think your way though the world on a small scale and a large scale.

There's my thoughts so far - I'm sure there'll be plenty more to discuss, and I look forward to it! 

[baconman]

 

This post right here? This is EXACTLY what differenciates the original from the sequels.

Unlike it's predecessors, the sword upgrades in the first were always hidden, and entirely optional. You could grind through the entire game without even DISCOVERING there was a white or magical sword! In fact, until the last level, so was the sword itself!

Your perspective on bombing also indicates high exposure levels to "not original LoZ." All you could bomb open were caves (unmarked, btw!) and dungeon walls (also unmarked), and even still, the overworld's hidden caves were *always* on northern borders. They also never appeared on screens' edges, for obvious reasons. You had no reason to bomb side walls or bottoms, or anywhere there was an incline. However, you did have to bomb sometimes as many as 16 tiles across, in trial-and-error fashion; although there were spots, usually 2-3 tiles across, which hinted that one *might* be there (and you could explore that with just a single bomb attempt). Seemed to me like one out of every 4 of those paid off, too!

Also, there was no "pick up and throw" to it. You dropped one, and there it was. Attacking enemies with it required the risk of getting close to them. Plus, you started off only being able to carry 8 bombs, and could only go as high as 16 bombs max. And that's only if you found - and bought - both bomb expansion options, which were ALSO HIDDEN, in later dungeons. Ammo DID have limits (even money!) and scarcity. Scarcity also played into the value of Heart Containers too. You could discover a total of FIVE per quest, outside of bosses. FIVE. That's all. Can you imagine a modern Zelda game in which you could find only five "pieces of heart?"

That's exactly the kind of thing that sets the classic experience apart from the rest, and why it has it's distinctive following. Add to that the fact that only one game in history (arguably, I hope?) actually produced this environment. Zelda sequels were always some kind of "something else."
__________

Personally, I also enjoyed the Oracle series (particularly Seasons) for coming the closest to it, and I really liked the whole "Gacha Seed/Tree/Nut" thing in it, because it played like a re-explorable secret area. Too bad there was little risk involved, only grinding to buy Gacha Seeds and plant them.
__________

On terms of the potential project... I suppose "puzzle-oriented" Zelda has quite a big, valid following as well, and lucky for you guys, you DID get multiple (numerous) titles to quench your needs, as that's the direction the series evolved in favor of. Perhaps a mode or spinoff project more oriented on that style of gameplay would be worth a crack at, too.

I think one other thing that seperates classic LoZ from modern LoZ is that it did HAVE puzzles, but wasn't entirely puzzle-oriented, the way the more modern ones have become. Or maybe the answer is in providing just enough mix thereof. And I enjoy some puzzle-solving as part of the experience... but the newer titles' "puzzles" are really just using the items as a lock-and-key.

For instance, the blowtorch in Link's Awakening and the Mirror Shield. Sure, it's a "puzzle," but the torch is just a lock, and the shield is just the key. Shooting the Armos with the arrow in LttP was a cool thing the first time, because you could use that in other places, but again... the statue was the lock, and the bow and arrows are the key.

 

Now that I think about it, perhaps that's where the difference really is! Everything was always lock-and-key to an extent, but the classic used fewer "keys" far more often, and didn't make it really obvious where to use them! And they didn't just use a baker's dozen tricks one or two times apiece. You got bombs, you had nearly a whole world to explore with them. You got a candle, you had nearly a whole world to explore with it.

[Alistair Aitcheson]

You raise a lot of good points. My experience of Zelda began on the N64, then the Gameboy Colour, then Gamecube and finally the 16- and 8-bit games. So to me puzzles are the meat and veg of Zelda, and why I enjoyed it in the first place.

It's interesting that you mention that most modern Zelda games are very puzzle oriented - to me they usually disappoint, mostly because all the puzzles seem for too familiar now. That's why I think stripping away all the objects and clichés would be healthy, as it would encourage more imaginative and fresh puzzles. But I guess for this project it would depend on how you approached it - is it a network-of-puzzles game, or is it something else?

Regarding locks and keys, that hits the nail right on the head for me, as these are the puzzles that always disappoint most. The spinner in Twilight Princess, for example, was an awesome idea, but you only ever used it to put in spinner-shaped slots. If they're imaginative lock-and-key combinations they can be moderately stimulating first time (blue fire melts ice for example), but after that it can quickly become tedious.

Items should facilitate solving puzzles, rather than being the solutions to the puzzles themselves.

I like the free-form nature of the original, and that's why I still enjoy it, even though I don't enjoy playing later ones anymore. And I think there is a happy balance between our two tastes in Zelda games: a puzzle-oriented game with multiple solutions.

What if all the puzzles could be solved in a number of different ways? I'm not just talking about the individual rooms, but also your route through the temples, and through the game as a whole.

I think it's perfectly possible to have both interesting puzzles, and a freeform nature that encourages experimentation

[baconman]

Items should facilitate solving puzzles, rather than being the solutions to the puzzles themselves.

I like the free-form nature of the original, and that's why I still enjoy it, even though I don't enjoy playing later ones anymore. And I think there is a happy balance between our two tastes in Zelda games: a puzzle-oriented game with multiple solutions.

What if all the puzzles could be solved in a number of different ways? I'm not just talking about the individual rooms, but also your route through the temples, and through the game as a whole.

This, my friend, is where dungeon design comes into play. And maybe boss design too, for that matter. Ever notice how in later games, fighting a boss is generally just a matter of using that dungeon's item? Where in the first, it just provides a starting point for combating some of the bosses like the otherwise-invincible Digdogger? Though, there usually is a way to "slug it out" with other bosses, like Manhandla or Gleeok. That kind of thing is where I think stepladder play might be crucial; although the game can be build around that sort of thing, too.
__________

One idea I was kind of toying around with in another project (thank you Treasure Tower) is procedurally-generated math/word/logic puzzles, too. And password-cracking never gets old. Stuff like that would make for a better puzzle-network kind of game, IMHO; because you can pregenerate solutions, and then procedrually create the problem for the player to undo. So for instance, say the "solution" to a math-locked puzzle is determined to be 36. Then you just take the two factors (3, 12; 4, 9; or 6, 6) and that fills in the variable part of the room. But that may be best suited for a totally different kind of game; as it's not very LoZ-like.

For a puzzle-networking kind of game, something like that might be even more fun than a Zelda-oriented thing (though the puzzles can be as physical as they are academic). But focusing entirely on puzzles/puzzlesolving is exactly what takes the mystery and trial-and-error exploring that the original is renowned for. Multi-linear/open-ended gameplay is indeed a big attractor, however.

[Triplefox]

"lunchbreak Zelda" =

and

(the "follow-up" with a new theme and some improvements)

[Ben_Hurr]

This, my friend, is where dungeon design comes into play. And maybe boss design too, for that matter. Ever notice how in later games, fighting a boss is generally just a matter of using that dungeon's item? Where in the first, it just provides a starting point for combating some of the bosses like the otherwise-invincible Digdogger? Though, there usually is a way to "slug it out" with other bosses, like Manhandla or Gleeok. That kind of thing is where I think stepladder play might be crucial; although the game can be build around that sort of thing, too.

Yeah, I noticed this too.

It often seems like bosses in the newer games are *only* vulnerable to the tool you find in their accompaning dungeon.  And even then, the battle plays like a quicktime event out of God of War; Use tool on boss when vulnerable, mash with sword 4-5 times causing boss to reset, repeat sequence 4-5 times and boss is dead.

It's even worse if the boss doesn't change its attack pattern, and it feels less like exploiting a weak point and more like "Press B to win".

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

i probably should mention how i designed my zelda1-like (saturated dreamers) just so you can have something to compare this design to; note that many of these are gameplay spoilers for the game, so do not read this if you intend to play the game and spoilers bother you; there are no story spoilers here however

you play as a ship, not a person walking around

first, i decided that there'd be no dungeons (they're superfluous), but there are "bosses" -- 9 of them, each of which gives you a ship function ("sword", "light", "sound", and so on) -- each of these functions has many uses, and can be obtained in any order, with the exception of the "chain" function which the player gets in the intro of the game

the "chain" is a hookshot like item which can be used to pull things out of your way, or to pull yourself through strong water currents, or, after it's upgraded, can be used to pull bushes out of their sockets, it can also pull creatures to you and vice versa (depending on their weight)

the "light" can be used see in dark areas or, after it's upgraded, to burn down certain types of vines

the "sound" can be used to record the sounds creatures make and play them back, each sound produces a weaker version of that creature's main ability (so in effect this lets you copy creature abilities)

the "bait" can be used like the bait in zelda1: you place it down and creatures move towards it (although some creatures are repelled by it instead)

the "shield" can be used to deflect projectiles, which sometimes allows you to get through projective-heavy blocked passages

the "net" slows anything that goes in its range (including the player), and can be used to get past creatures that move back and forth quickly and block your way

the "fade" allows you to make one object passable on the map (this is the hardest function to acquire because it makes many of the game's obstacles ridiculously easy to get through, you can even use it to get through walls) -- but only one, and you can't make another passable unless you leave an area and return

the "sight" provides additional information about everything, and allows you to see invisible creatures and objects

the "engine" allows you to dive underwater (warping between two connected crater-tunnels) and allows you to dash faster temporarily -- some objects can only be moved by dashing into them; upgrading this increases your speed which can sometimes be enough to get you through water currents

the "sword" allows you to cut bushes and certain break crystals and rocks -- you need to hit them to experiment to see if you can break them, some can be broken and some can't

keys are 'keytones' -- each time you friend a robot, it gives you a keytone which can be used to bypass one and only one "door" -- there are more doors than keytones, so you need to be selective for which areas you unlock

there are a variety of creatures in the lake (over 50 actually), many of which can obstruct your progress (so creatures can be arranged in puzzle-like configurations), each of which reacts differently to the different ship functions, so part of the exploration factor of the game is figuring out how each of your ship function affects each of the creatures

there are also a variety of map objects: teleport trees (which allow you to return to them instantly once you find them), spikes (which won't hurt you if you have the shield on), breakable, white crystals which disappear if you light three of them at the same time on the same screen, rainbow crystal stars which disappear when you've friended all the creatures in a room, water currents which only allow you to move in a certain direction, whirlpools which move the player around a set point in a clockwise way, things which slow the player when moved over, winds which push everything on the map in a certain direction (sometimes shifting winds) etc. etc.

(there's also other stuff like a lilypad-terraforming system, but those aren't related to the zelda1-like aspect of the game so i'll ignore those)

the goal of the game is to get to a certain part of the map, which is marked on the map from the beginning, but which has all kinds of obstacles on all sides. in order to get there you have to collect enough ship functions or keytones (or some combination) to get there, but you don't have to collect *all* the ship functions to get there, various combinations are possible.

the map is quite large -- currently 845 visible areas plus secret areas (each area is 1600x1200). it's arranged in a circle and you begin the game at the center. most of the map is optional to explore, there's no one function or no one area you always have to go to (besides the final goal). i myself don't yet know all the ways to finish the game or the shortest possible path.

[gimymblert]

IMO

What makes zelda cool is that initially items were good toys before being keys, gameplay was based on opportunity to have fun with them. Same with the character movement. Zelda 4 made good use of items by allowing them to combine (ie run + sword, arrow + bomb or run + feather) and because there was only 2 slot it was always rewarding because you had to make a risk reward choice (arrow + bomb is powerful but leave you weak at contact distance, and bomb can threaten you too), it favor adaptation and ingenuity.

Modern zelda degenerate that into key first and filled the game with boring lock opportunity with meaningless and useless rewards. It became a collect-a-thon. TW i'm looking at you ... badly è_é

One key insight in this (awesome) thread is that scarcity + limited inventory lead to meaningful opportunity and rewards and remove grind.

The insight is that


EDIT:

It's also much easier to design a structure (lock and key for example) than a toy.

The toy like aspect of game resist design thinking, it's about the feeling, feeling can't be design, there is no rules for that. Toy aspect is what makes most game fun, the structure only support that. If you have a good toy, a good kinetic feel, then structure is just a formality.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

i don't disagree with that but this thread is for *designing* such a game, and if as you said the 'toy' aspect of it can't be designed and isn't part of a design structure, then it's kind of irrelevant to the thread. making a tool or item fun to use should definitely be done, but it's not something that you can design ahead of time, it's something that you get from polishing and tweaking its controls and interactions and feedback.

[gimymblert]

I didn't respond to your post directly, I was referring to previous post about what makes "a zelda" and how the first differ (the back and forth with baconman and Alistair). It was about highlighting how seemingly structure pattern (items in lock and key) was fundamentally different. I was echoing Baconman concern and offering a take on his insight.

Sorry for the confusion.


But I still think a good structure is important to support the Toy nature of game by planning ahead situation. Loose structure can kill a good toy in a game.


edit:
That and your previous post in let talks zelda made me think that game have lost some "toys aesthetics" replace by challenge aesthetics.

[baconman]

edit:
That and your previous post in let talks zelda made me think that game have lost some "toys aesthetics" replace by challenge^{item-based lock-and-key} aesthetics.

Fix't.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

i'm still unsure that you can plan the 'toyness' of a game -- most of the fun toy-like parts of SD (such as swimming around in pools of lilypads as they float around in response to your movement) weren't really planned, but just sort of arose as i coded the game