The Legend of Zelda: Phantom Hourglass

[FMW]

Nintendo, as a rule, is not a company that keeps particularly close to their fans. Though they will occasionally deliver exactly what fans ask for (Mario Galaxy) it almost seems like a coincidence when they do. Nintendo stubbornly follows their own muse, for good or ill. They turned Metroid into a first person game, they made a console with only one analog stick, there are countless examples of Nintendo flagrantly ignoring the demands of their customers to create something they reckon will be better. This is true of their Zelda franchise as well.

 

Nobody asked for the Wind Waker. Nobody thought Zelda games needed that crazy art overhaul, nobody thought Zelda needed sailing. When the Wind Waker came out in the west, it was met with a hostility no previous entry had been. Now Wind Waker eventually turned out all right for Nintendo - it turns out this was one of the times when they really did know better than the fans. It's now many peoples favorite entry into the series, and over time it sold rather impressively as well.

 

Nintendo, however, was worried. An interview two or three E3's ago revealed that after the Wind Waker didn't catch on like other entries internationally Nintendo got very nervous about the future of the franchise. I postulate that The Legend of Zelda: Phantom Hourglass is a direct reaction to perceived waning interest in Zelda as a whole. This is because Nintendo did something rather unprecedented in this game, and they listened to their fans. Now this could be coincidence again, but so many fan requests are met in this game that one can only assume the developers had a checklist of features and changes they were instructed must be included. Think about it:

 

Phantom Hourglass updates the recurring "story" of the franchise in a couple of fan pandering ways. You want a new villain? You've got it. You want continuity between games? Done. You want Link to have a voice? They didn't go quite that far, but the fairy sidekick was quite talkative and brought us closer to this ideal than ever before (or since). Also, Linebeck! Finally, this Zelda game includes an NPC who accompanies you on your journey and experiences his own character arc. He's got his own motivations and his own issues. This may sound mundane, but in the world of Zelda games it was an unprecedented event. Never before had a character outside of the hero, maiden, and villain triangle played such an important role.

 

Phantom Hourglass addresses the main fan complaints with Wind Waker's pacing. Sailing still isn't the most interesting or dynamic overworld navigation in a game, but it's clear that a lot of effort went into addressing complaints about it being boring in the Wind Waker. There's almost always something to do while on the sea, and you don't need to stop to change the winds either. The much loathed quest for triforce shards that padded out the back end of Wind Waker is gone as well, with all fetch questing delegated to the optional hunt for Courage/Wisdom/Power gems.

 

Phantom Hourglass is hard! The temple of the Ocean King (the recurring dungeon in this game) catches a lot of flack. Some didn't like the aesthetic, some didn't like repeating sections of it. What I've heard few address though is the fact that the last run through the Temple of the Ocean King is easily the most difficult mandatory dungeon sequence since A Link to the Past. The dungeon is no impossible feat, but the margin for error is surprisingly small. The tricks this dungeon pulls out are nasty! Timed, Stealth, Carrying things that prevent use of items, moving over invisible floors, spy enemies that will teleport a phantom right next to you, the list could go on. Wind Waker is perhaps the easiest Zelda game, and many fans have taken issue with this. Ask and ye shall receive I guess - the Temple of the Ocean King is a brutal grind that requires dexterity and extensive memorization.

 

So, where does this leave us? What have we learned? I think the moral of the story might be that Nintendo really does know best. Phantom Hourglass is a laundry list of fan requests all met at once and... well, it's not terribly popular. It sold all right, but it didn't set the world aflame. It didn't sell as well as The Wind Waker, nor was it as well received critically. Phantom Hourglass is, in terms of features, perhaps the most traditional sequel in the Zelda series. Why then does it seem like a step backwards?

 

And before you say it: The touch controls worked just. fine.

Edited June 5, 2011 by Frosted Mini-Wheats

[Mr W Phallus]

Quite frankly I think that in terms of knowing what they want, the (media) customer is not always right. The customer is not a game developer. They know very little about balancing a game or level design, they just play a game and know whether they enjoy it or not. The thought process of the average customer (and I admit this is quite a big presumption) goes like this: 'Game X is my favourite game. One thing I really liked about Game X was feature Y, therefore any other game with feature Y will also be great.' One of the biggest problems of game design (and also Hollywood film-making) is that big companies, scared of taking big risks, revert to the same logic as the customer. 'Game X was lauded by critics and loved by the public. Game X had Feature Y and therefore if our game has Feature Y it will also be well received.' The biggest problem with this thinking is that it is incredibly reductive. The quality of a game is the sum of all it's parts. You can't just cherry pick the features of a good game that people talk about the most and expect those features to works just as well outside of the context of the original game.

 

Another problem with listening to fans is that fans rarely come up with anything new. But fans are always asking for the same old thing, right? How many times do we hear people asking for a remake or re-release of FFVII and Ocarina of Time? Surely fans don't want anything new, they just want what they already like? Well it's easy to see why game developers might think this, but the reason fans ask for things they are familiar with is because they don't know the first thing about making games. They're not experts on game design, the developers are. Most of them probably aren't even very creative. They're just no good at coming up with new ideas themselves. That's not to say fans can't come up with good, original ideas, just that on average they're not going to have the experience, know-how or creativity to do anything other than point to things they already like.

 

I think that Valve are the perfect example to demonstrate that the point that fans don't actually know what they want. When was the last time Valve let fans dictate a decision for them? Every single time gamers discuss Valve someone will bring up Ep 3. But instead of pandering to the fans, they decided to bring us other great games such as L4D and Portal 2. Remember the L4D2 boycott? From Wikipedia:

In a video interview posted on October 29, 2009, Gabe Newell said, "for people who joined the Boycott Group on Steam ... they're actually pre-ordering the product at a higher rate than Left 4 Dead 1 owners who weren't in the Boycott".

Even the decisions they make that don't provoke controversy are highly unpredictable; turning the Portal sequel into a full length game, abandoning the FPS genre to make DOTA 2 and so on. Despite this they are one of the most popular and successful gaming companies out there.

 

At the end of the day who would you trust to design a bridge, an engineer or someone who has crossed a lot of bridges?

Edited June 5, 2011 by Mr W Phallus

[Battra92]

Quite frankly I didn't know what I wanted when I played Wind Waker. What I played was a masterpiece. Haters will always hate it but that doesn't stop me from loving it.

[Yantelope]

Touch controls on Phantom Hourglass did work fine. 2nded.

[Slagathorian]

And before you say it: The touch controls worked just. fine.

 

Don't you think that's a personal opinion? I HATED the touch controls in Phantom hourglass. They were so bad I couldn't even play the game. Not only is the DS extremely uncomfortable to hold in one hand for any extended period of time, but a touch only controls was a horrible way to play Zelda. Tap on an enemy to attack it? Move the stylus all over the screen to move around? Hell every time I had to move up or to the left, my big hand got in the way of the tiny 4 inch screen. Why Nintendo didn't implement BOTH controls is a mystery to me. Dragon quest 9 game people the option to use whichever controls they want, and I doubt many people went touch.

[Slagathorian]

Touch controls on Phantom Hourglass did work fine. 2nded.

 

I absolutely hated them, they should have included both control options, ala DQ9.

[Mr W Phallus]

And before you say it: The touch controls worked just. fine.

 

Don't you think that's a personal opinion? I HATED the touch controls in Phantom hourglass. They were so bad I couldn't even play the game.

I dunno, I mean surely the fact that people considered the controls to work fine proves that they did work, whereas the problems you had with them could simply be because you're not very good at the game. I mean just because I suck at fighting games, doesn't mean that the controls themselves suck, you just have to master them.

 

I'm not saying this is definitely the case; I can't say I thought the 100% touch controls were especially well done, but I certainly don't remember them ever detracting from my enjoyment of the game.

[TCP]

My problem with the game was just having part of the screen blocked by these clown hands of mine. They worked great otherwise.

 

Actually on second thought that temple you had to constantly return to and redo was a fucking tedious affair!

I also thought the sailing didn't work as well as in Wind Waker. In Wind Waker it was like a traditional Zelda... Instead of exploring Hyrule Field, you're sailing the ocean. But plotting out your route in PH got in the way of that and took out some of the fun.

[Johnny]

I dunno, I mean surely the fact that people considered the controls to work fine proves that they did work, whereas the problems you had with them could simply be because you're not very good at the game. I mean just because I suck at fighting games, doesn't mean that the controls themselves suck, you just have to master them.

 

 

 

I'm not saying this is definitely the case; I can't say I thought the 100% touch controls were especially well done, but I certainly don't remember them ever detracting from my enjoyment of the game.

 

I'm sorry but this is pretty terrible bullshit. A control scheme is supposed to work as well as possible for as many people as possible. If people (and Slagathorian isn't the only one having issues with it) are having problems, then that's up to the developers to create a better control scheme. Personally I thought the touch controls felt inaccurate as fuck. Not to the point where the game was too hard, but to the point where it was completely unenjoyable because I felt like I wasn't in control.

Edited June 16, 2011 by Johnny

[Slagathorian]

I'm sorry but this is pretty terrible bullshit. A control scheme is supposed to work as well as possible for as many people as possible. If people (and Slagathorian isn't the only one having issues with it) are having problems, then that's up to the developers to create a better control scheme. Personally I thought the touch controls felt inaccurate as fuck. Not to the point where the game was too hard, but to the point where it was completely unenjoyable because I felt like I wasn't in control.

 

 

This.

 

I don't need somebody telling me I'm terrible at video games. A Zelda game no less. The controls did not work for me, plain and simple. I don't ever recall hearing a SINGLE person complain about the controls in the other top down Zelda's, and most of those were on a console with a very limited amount of buttons.

[Yantelope]

I will also say that Phantom Hourglass should have been made with regular controls too. Sometimes Nintendo can force things. It worked fine but probably would have been a little easier with normal controls.

[Mr W Phallus]

I dunno, I mean surely the fact that people considered the controls to work fine proves that they did work, whereas the problems you had with them could simply be because you're not very good at the game. I mean just because I suck at fighting games, doesn't mean that the controls themselves suck, you just have to master them.I'm not saying this is definitely the case; I can't say I thought the 100% touch controls were especially well done, but I certainly don't remember them ever detracting from my enjoyment of the game.

A control scheme is supposed to work as well as possible for as many people as possible. If people (and Slagathorian isn't the only one having issues with it) are having problems, then that's up to the developers to create a better control scheme.

In my opinion, the job of the control scheme is to best suit the requirements of the game it is made for. Your description of the what a control scheme is meant to do sounds a lot like the streamlining/dumbing-down of video-games (especially RPGs) to appeal to a wider audience. I don't want video-games to appeal to everyone, what's wrong with having a learning curve? Going back to the fighting game example, the controls are not at all designed to accommodate newcomers - so much so that the introduced a easy mode with a different control scheme in MvC3. The problem is that simplifying controls limits the amount of control you have over a character (and makes the game a lot easier). Another example: if Mario had the same Hold Button + Directional Stick free-running controls as Assassin's Creed it would be a completely different (probably quite boring) game; since the dawn of video-games controls have played a part in controlling their difficulty. Designing a control scheme is not just about making the controls easy for anyone to master (in fact I wish game designers would get over the idea that everyone should be able to (or want to) play there games, we have genres for a reason) it's about giving the player the right amount of options, at the right level of accessibility so that the level of difficulty in mastering the controls is appropriate to the context of the game you are playing.

 

(and Slagathorian isn't the only one having issues with it)

Nor am I the only one not having problems with it. Why are the people who did have problems 'right' and the ones who didn't 'wrong'.

 

Personally I thought the touch controls felt inaccurate as fuck. Not to the point where the game was too hard, but to the point where it was completely unenjoyable because I felt like I wasn't in control.

Well I never had this experience myself, but inaccurate touch controls is certainly a problem. Surely this is more a problem of the DS hardware, though, or possibly the programming I guess, not so much a problem of the control scheme itself (by which I mean if accuracy was the only issue you had, then if they were accurate then the controls wouldn't have been a problem). Either way it is not a problem Slagathorian, or anyone else in the thread, reported having, so it hardly invalidates my point that the player could have been the problem, not the controls.

 

I don't need somebody telling me I'm terrible at video games. A Zelda game no less. The controls did not work for me, plain and simple.

I didn't say you were terrible, I just suggested an alternate reason that the controls didn't work for you other than the reason that they are 'broken'. All I'm saying is that some people say the controls worked for them, other people say they didn't, is this the fault of the controls or of the people playing? As I said before I'm not saying either one is definitely the case, I'm just countering the argument that because the controls don't work for some people this means they are intrinsically flawed. The problems you had with the controls could possibly have been solved by you doing something differently.

 

I don't ever recall hearing a SINGLE person complain about the controls in the other top down Zelda's, and most of those were on a console with a very limited amount of buttons.

I much prefer the Phantom Hourglass tap to attack control scheme to the original Zelda combat. Whilst being able to move with the D-Pad would have been a useful feature in some circumstances, I wouldn't say the PH controls were any more flawed than the controls of older Zelda games. Oh and yes the original games had limited buttons, but they didn't for a console game at the time they came out, so who was going to complain about that?

[Johnny]

In my opinion, the job of the control scheme is to best suit the requirements of the game it is made for. Your description of the what a control scheme is meant to do sounds a lot like the streamlining/dumbing-down of video-games (especially RPGs) to appeal to a wider audience. I don't want video-games to appeal to everyone, what's wrong with having a learning curve? Going back to the fighting game example, the controls are not at all designed to accommodate newcomers - so much so that the introduced a easy mode with a different control scheme in MvC3. The problem is that simplifying controls limits the amount of control you have over a character (and makes the game a lot easier). Another example: if Mario had the same Hold Button + Directional Stick free-running controls as Assassin's Creed it would be a completely different (probably quite boring) game; since the dawn of video-games controls have played a part in controlling their difficulty. Designing a control scheme is not just about making the controls easy for anyone to master (in fact I wish game designers would get over the idea that everyone should be able to (or want to) play there games, we have genres for a reason) it's about giving the player the right amount of options, at the right level of accessibility so that the level of difficulty in mastering the controls is appropriate to the context of the game you are playing.

 

Working well does not mean they should be easy to the point of playing the game for you. You are assuming an awful lot about my opinions.

 

 

(and Slagathorian isn't the only one having issues with it)

Nor am I the only one not having problems with it. Why are the people who did have problems 'right' and the ones who didn't 'wrong'.

 

What? I am not trying to say people who had no issues are wrong for it, I am saying that because a large number of people had issues, it could probably have been made better.

 

 

Personally I thought the touch controls felt inaccurate as fuck. Not to the point where the game was too hard, but to the point where it was completely unenjoyable because I felt like I wasn't in control.

Well I never had this experience myself, but inaccurate touch controls is certainly a problem. Surely this is more a problem of the DS hardware, though, or possibly the programming I guess, not so much a problem of the control scheme itself (by which I mean if accuracy was the only issue you had, then if they were accurate then the controls wouldn't have been a problem). Either way it is not a problem Slagathorian, or anyone else in the thread, reported having, so it hardly invalidates my point that the player could have been the problem, not the controls.

 

It is the designer's job to create a control scheme that works well for the people they are trying to sell the game to. If a large number of Zelda fans (their target demographic) did not enjoy the controls, then that is on the designers, not the players. The player does after all not get paid to adapt to the control scheme, they are paying for an enjoyable gameplay experience.

 

[edited to remove huge quote tunnels]

Edited June 17, 2011 by Johnny

[FMW]

You know, this wasn't the main point of my post (or, really the point at all)... whatever - Let's jump in.

 

I verify that the touch controls in this game are mechanically sound. Every action necessary to complete the game can be executed reliably and accurately. I'm able to do everything, and I own the same game code that you all do, so that means that the game program isn't intrinsically inaccurate. However, this doesn't make the control scheme "good". All this proves is that it's "functional".

 

Fighting games are an excellent genre to bring up in this discussion. These games are not easy to control. Basic actions require complicated inputs, and high level competitive play demands such precision that specialized joysticks are necessary. Does this mean that the games control poorly? No. From fighting games we can extrapolate that the goal of a control scheme is not always to provide the most invisible or intuitive conduit between player and avatar.

 

So now we have a question: Why do people struggle sometimes with functional control schemes like this one?

 

My theory is unfamiliarity. We don't hear much about "Nintendo thumb" anymore. Why? Partially because most buttons are softer to the touch now, but I'll bet is also because people use their thumbs more. I've seen kids who flip light switches with their thumbs. Weird to me, but it's natural to them - it's their dominant digit. All gamers have had to learn a certain amount of thumb dexterity, so thumb based control schemes come naturally. This control scheme requires different muscle movements than others, and I'll bet that's caused many an experienced gamer to dislike it.

 

I think I even have an example of someone disliking a control scheme because of unfamiliarity. An earlier commenter said that the DS is uncomfortable to hold in one hand for extended periods of time. Let me take a guess, are you holding your DS like this when you play?

 

 

I tried this at first, because that's the natural way to hold a DS. That's how it's always done. I ran into the same problem that you did, holding the DS in one hand made that hand hurt. However, I found an alternate grip that worked far better. I included a photo of it below:

 

http://s1221.photobu...02.jpg&newest=1

 

This grip worked perfectly for the game. The DS weight was distributed pretty evenly along my palm and my four fingers. My thumb up top rests on the R button, which is the only button really needed to play the game. I'll bet most people never even tried this grip despite it being the most logical way to access the necessary controls comfortably. Why? It's weird and contrary to years of learning.

 

So where does this leave us? We've established that this control scheme is functional. It's irregular and irregular control schemes throw veteran players off, but we've also established that it isn't always a bad thing for controls to be tricky. To my mind, this leaves us with a single remaining question this boils down to: does this game take advantage of the touch control scheme in a unique and fun way? Does this game present puzzles and interactions impossible otherwise? If so, that justifies the control scheme. If Nintendo created an experience impossible without with this technology, then they are absolved of guilt.

 

Just like weird fighting game controls actually allow for a profound level of depth impossible otherwise, these controls must serve a greater purpose. Being different for the sake of being different is not acceptable.

 

So do they? Think about the puzzles, items, and bosses. Think about the game structure and perspective. Consider how the touch screen contributed or detracted from the different parts. And then post.

Edited June 17, 2011 by Deanb

[FMW]

Quote from Phallus:

 

In my opinion, the job of the control scheme is to best suit the requirements of the game it is made for. Your description of the what a control scheme is meant to do sounds a lot like the streamlining/dumbing-down of video-games (especially RPGs) to appeal to a wider audience. I don't want video-games to appeal to everyone, what's wrong with having a learning curve? Going back to the fighting game example, the controls are not at all designed to accommodate newcomers - so much so that the introduced a easy mode with a different control scheme in MvC3. The problem is that simplifying controls limits the amount of control you have over a character (and makes the game a lot easier). Another example: if Mario had the same Hold Button + Directional Stick free-running controls as Assassin's Creed it would be a completely different (probably quite boring) game; since the dawn of video-games controls have played a part in controlling their difficulty. Designing a control scheme is not just about making the controls easy for anyone to master (in fact I wish game designers would get over the idea that everyone should be able to (or want to) play there games, we have genres for a reason) it's about giving the player the right amount of options, at the right level of accessibility so that the level of difficulty in mastering the controls is appropriate to the context of the game you are playing.

 

Response from Johnny:

 

Working well does not mean they should be easy to the point of playing the game for you. You are assuming an awful lot about my opinions.

 

Something Johnny said to Phallus earlier:

 

I'm sorry but this is pretty terrible bullshit. A control scheme is supposed to work as well as possible for as many people as possible. If people (and Slagathorian isn't the only one having issues with it) are having problems, then that's up to the developers to create a better control scheme. Personally I thought the touch controls felt inaccurate as fuck. Not to the point where the game was too hard, but to the point where it was completely unenjoyable because I felt like I wasn't in control.

 

What I have to say to Johnny regarding this exchange:

 

Phallus may have misinterpreted your opinions and extrapolated them in ways you didn't intend, but he responded respectfully and intelligently to his understanding of your post. You called his opinions flat out bullshit. Who are you to chastise him for "assuming an awful lot" about what you say after you treat his words in such a way?

 

P.S. Sorry - I can't figure out how to use the image uploader or the "quote" tool. I trust y'all can figure out what I'm doing.

Edited June 17, 2011 by Frosted Mini-Wheats

[Slagathorian]

You know, this wasn't the main point of my post (or, really the point at all)... whatever - Let's jump in.

 

I verify that the touch controls in this game are mechanically sound. Every action necessary to complete the game can be executed reliably and accurately. I'm able to do everything, and I own the same game code that you all do, so that means that the game program isn't intrinsically inaccurate. However, this doesn't make the control scheme "good". All this proves is that it's "functional".

 

I already explained why the controls didn't work for me. Having moving the stylus around the edges of a 4 inch screen is the most asinine way to control a character, when the D-pad is MORE than capable of fulfilling that function. You can't talk me into enjoying them, I tried giving that game a chance two separate times, and both times were horrid.

 

The fact that your original post HAD to mention the controls, highlights the fact that they are a real problem.

[Johnny]

 

Phallus may have misinterpreted your opinions and extrapolated them in ways you didn't intend, but he responded respectfully and intelligently to his understanding of your post. You called his opinions flat out bullshit. Who are you to chastise him for "assuming an awful lot" about what you say after you treat his words in such a way?

 

Frosted I'm calling his opinion bullshit because he's flat-out blaming the player for the controls not working well for them. I felt that was disrespectful towards Slagathorian and everyone else who dislikes the controls. It's the job of the game developers to make the game enjoyable, not the people playing the game.

 

 

[Battra92]

 

Phallus may have misinterpreted your opinions and extrapolated them in ways you didn't intend, but he responded respectfully and intelligently to his understanding of your post. You called his opinions flat out bullshit. Who are you to chastise him for "assuming an awful lot" about what you say after you treat his words in such a way?

 

Frosted I'm calling his opinion bullshit because he's flat-out blaming the player for the controls not working well for them. I felt that was disrespectful towards Slagathorian and everyone else who dislikes the controls. It's the job of the game developers to make the game enjoyable, not the people playing the game.

 

But it's all right now

I learned my lesson well

You see you can't please ev'ryone so

You got to please yourself

Garden Party - Ricky Nelson

 

I had no issues with the controls on Spirit Tracks and I assume PH were similar controls. It's different but different isn't bad. I think the biggest issue is that people look at different and try to do the old style and have a hard time adjusting to the new scheme as well as unlearning old skills. There's also no crime in liking or disliking something. Nintendo tried something and it worked for a great number of people but not everyone. Them's the brakes.

[Mr W Phallus]

Just like weird fighting game controls actually allow for a profound level of depth impossible otherwise, these controls must serve a greater purpose. Being different for the sake of being different is not acceptable.So do they? Think about the puzzles, items, and bosses. Think about the game structure and perspective. Consider how the touch screen contributed or detracted from the different parts. And then post.

I was thinking about this when I was writing my earlier post, and it's been a while since I've played it so my memory is a bit rusty, but I can't think of any way that they would have been able to incorporate the touch controls that I thought went beyond functional and improved the game - the combat and the boomerang for example - and a traditional d-pad movement scheme, because to do so would require awkward switching between touch control and button control. Additionally, mapping movement to the D-pad would tend to bias right-handed players, because you would have to use your right hand for the stylus, immediately this makes the game much harder for left-handed players, unlike the existing controls which work exactly the same whichever hand you use to hold the stylus (IIRC). So yeh, some aspects of the touch controls were just functional, and may have worked 'better' had they been button control, but if they were button controlled they would have ruined the touch controls that really added to the game and my enjoyment of it.

 

Sorry - I can't figure out how to use the image uploader or the "quote" tool. I trust y'all can figure out what I'm doing.

To quote a single post just click reply on the post you want to quote, to quote lots of posts click multiquote on all the posts you want to quote from then click the 'Post' button at the bottom of the screen, should take you to the full editor with all the posts you chose quoted. Alternatively just copy & paste the text you want to quote then surround it with

and /quote (second one in square brackets as well).

[Slagathorian]

 

Phallus may have misinterpreted your opinions and extrapolated them in ways you didn't intend, but he responded respectfully and intelligently to his understanding of your post. You called his opinions flat out bullshit. Who are you to chastise him for "assuming an awful lot" about what you say after you treat his words in such a way?

 

Frosted I'm calling his opinion bullshit because he's flat-out blaming the player for the controls not working well for them. I felt that was disrespectful towards Slagathorian and everyone else who dislikes the controls. It's the job of the game developers to make the game enjoyable, not the people playing the game.

 

 

Again, this.

 

Its Nintendo's job to create controls that people like, its not our job as players to like every control scheme that is thrown at us. I think its funny that the very first comment in this thread specifies: And before anyone says it, the touch only controls worked JUST FINE.

 

To me that was a weird piece of literature to include, when one is trying to make the argument that the touch only controls weren't a problem. Clearly enough people DID think they were a problem. The fact that we are all here having this discussion is proof that the controls were in fact a problem. Nobody is having problems with the controls in any of the other top down Zelda's.

 

I cannot for the life of me reconcile in my mind WHY Nintendo didn't include both options of control, ala Dragon Quest 9. And speaking of DQ 9, I'm curious if anybody here played that game with the stylus, or with the D-pad and buttons.

[FMW]

It is the designer's job to create a control scheme that works well for the people they are trying to sell the game to. If a large number of Zelda fans (their target demographic) did not enjoy the controls, then that is on the designers, not the players. The player does after all not get paid to adapt to the control scheme, they are paying for an enjoyable gameplay experience.

 

Now this is an interesting idea. We've established that non-traditional controls throw veterans off. If we extend this idea just a bit further then, we come to the following conclusion: "No entry in a franchise played by game veterans should force them out of their comfort zone regarding the control scheme".

 

Do you agree with this statement? I think it's a pretty logical extension of your idea. I disagree with the statement, but before I post an argument against against it I want to make sure I'm not going off on a tangent you didn't intend. God forbid I make too many assumptions about your opinions.

 

To me that was a weird piece of literature to include, when one is trying to make the argument that the touch only controls weren't a problem. Clearly enough people DID think they were a problem. The fact that we are all here having this discussion is proof that the controls were in fact a problem. Nobody is having problems with the controls in any of the other top down Zelda's.

 

You make me want to cry Slagathorian. I included that because I didn't want this to become a referendum on the way the game controlled. That's been hashed out in countless message boards across the net and at the end of the day it boils down to "I liked it"/"I didn't like it". I wasn't making the argument that the touch only controls weren't a problem at all. I was not talking about the touch controls. I was talking about the content of the game and how it compares to other Zelda games. I thought I'd made some connections that others might not have and were worth discussing. The main body of my post inspired exactly two responses, and those last few words netted... all of this delightful and productive discussion.

[Johnny]

It is the designer's job to create a control scheme that works well for the people they are trying to sell the game to. If a large number of Zelda fans (their target demographic) did not enjoy the controls, then that is on the designers, not the players. The player does after all not get paid to adapt to the control scheme, they are paying for an enjoyable gameplay experience.

 

Now this is an interesting idea. We've established that non-traditional controls throw veterans off. If we extend this idea just a bit further then, we come to the following conclusion: "No entry in a franchise played by game veterans should force them out of their comfort zone regarding the control scheme".

 

Do you agree with this statement? I think it's a pretty logical extension of your idea. I disagree with the statement, but before I post an argument against against it I want to make sure I'm not going off on a tangent you didn't intend. God forbid I make too many assumptions about your opinions.

 

I completely disagree with that statement.

 

 

 

 

 

 

To me that was a weird piece of literature to include, when one is trying to make the argument that the touch only controls weren't a problem. Clearly enough people DID think they were a problem. The fact that we are all here having this discussion is proof that the controls were in fact a problem. Nobody is having problems with the controls in any of the other top down Zelda's.

You make me want to cry Slagathorian. I included that because I didn't want this to become a referendum on the way the game controlled. That's been hashed out in countless message boards across the net and at the end of the day it boils down to "I liked it"/"I didn't like it". I wasn't making the argument that the touch only controls weren't a problem at all. I was not talking about the touch controls. I was talking about the content of the game and how it compares to other Zelda games. I thought I'd made some connections that others might not have and were worth discussing. The main body of my post inspired exactly two responses, and those last few words netted... all of this delightful and productive discussion.

 

If you didn't want to discuss the controls you shouldn't have ended your opening post by stating, like it was objective fact, that the controls worked fine.

Edited June 17, 2011 by Johnny

[FMW]

Come on Johnny, give me something to work with here. We can't have a discussion if you just "disagree" without justification. I'll walk you through my reasoning, and you tell me where I go wrong. Sound good?

 

You say that it is the designer's job to create a control scheme that works well for the target audience. The target audience of a sequel are people who played the previous installments. In the case of a really long running franchise like The Legend of Zelda, there have been a ton of previous installments - so many that it would not be unfair to call the target audience experienced gamers. Zelda is not "casual".

 

Now if it's the job of the designer to create a control scheme comfortable for the target audience, and the target audience has had thumb based control drilled into them by other games and also past Zelda games for over a decade, then the most comfortable control scheme will always be thumb based and similar to past control schemes.

 

Therefore it is fair to say that a non-thumb based control scheme in a Zelda game is a failure of design because it's going to be intrinsically less comfortable for the series fans than anything else. The same rational should apply to all franchises, not just Zelda. That's how we get to: "No entry in a franchise played by game veterans should force them out of their comfort zone regarding the control scheme".

 

You needn't agree with me, but I'd really appreciate it if you would identify the link in my chain of reasoning that you disagree with and explain. That way we can understand each other.

[Mr W Phallus]

Its Nintendo's job to create controls that people like, its not our job as players to like every control scheme that is thrown at us.

The problem here is that if Nintendo's job is to create controls that everyone (or at least the majority) likes, then following that up with the statement that the success of the controls ultimately depends on the player's reaction to it is setting them an impossible task.

 

If on the other hand, Nintendo's job is to create controls that some people like, then the fact that people in this thread did like the controls means that Nintendo were successful, and any argument that the controls didn't work is undermined.

 

The target audience of a sequel are people who played the previous installments.

Well you could argue that a sequel is half appealing to the fan base, half trying to bring in new players to the franchise. The use of Wind Waker's cartoon graphics and the DS' casual friendly touch controls point to Nintendo's 'get everyone gaming' attitude of this generation.

 

Having said that, I completely agree with everything else you're saying about designer's sticking to traditional controls and button layouts because that's what veteran gamers are comfortable with. It harks back to the original point of this thread, in that what gamers (think they) want, and are used to is not necessarily what is best for the game. We assume that the typical controller set up (which varies little within a single genre) is the optimal set up because we are conditioned to and used to using that layout. In reality, sticking rigidly to what we know simply stifles creativity and prevents us from seeing how improvements might be made. I'd much rather step outside my comfort zone and have to relearn how to use a controller than miss out on a potentially great game.

[Slagathorian]

Having said that, I completely agree with everything else you're saying about designer's sticking to traditional controls and button layouts because that's what veteran gamers are comfortable with. It harks back to the original point of this thread, in that what gamers (think they) want, and are used to is not necessarily what is best for the game. We assume that the typical controller set up (which varies little within a single genre) is the optimal set up because we are conditioned to and used to using that layout. In reality, sticking rigidly to what we know simply stifles creativity and prevents us from seeing how improvements might be made. I'd much rather step outside my comfort zone and have to relearn how to use a controller than miss out on a potentially great game.

 

 

It has nothing to do with sticking with the past. I like all sorts of new control schemes. The problem with PH's controls weren't that they weren't traditional, it was that they didn't work for me.

 

Not to mention, they forced the makers to put almost no enemies in the game. There were temples with something like 10 regular baddies in it. (Or so my friend said)