(02-23-2018, 06:35 PM)chumpz Wrote: [ -> ]thats not what i meant, what i mean is put a very large map, thousand of dungeons, thousand of villages,thousand of side quests, npc, items, mini games just like xenoblade where you can play thousand of hours.. not a game that you can finish in just less than 24 hours of gameplay..
Thousands of dungeons? Thousand of villages? Completing the game in less than 24 hours?
You definitely need to speedrun Breath of the Wild to finish it within 24 hours, but seeing most of what the game has to offer within 24 hours? Breath of the Wild was already more than lengthy enough. Most Zelda games are long enough for me. I just replay the game if I want to see more of it.
I don't know... Having thousands of dungeons comes close to having prodecural generated content which I am against. I rather have a handful of well-crafted dungeons than thousands of boring and monotonous looking borings, all lasting for about five minutes while walking from point A to B while killing a few monsters on your way... That is definitely not how I want my experience. I want puzzles, immersion, atmosphere, mini-bosses, an unique final boss and foremost getting lost and stumped trying to figuring out what I should do next (something A Link Between World managed to recapture after a long long time in the franchise).
Even Skyrim does not manage to have thousands of cities. That would be insane and could only be achieved by generating them randomly. I don't believe that will lead to an immersive world.
(02-23-2018, 06:35 PM)chumpz Wrote: [ -> ]it will also be great if zelda games will have a DLC dungeons
The second DLC for Breath of the Wild includes a fifth divine beast dungeon, just so you know it. Adding more dungeons through DLCs can be a good thing. Through I don't think Ocarina of Time for example would benefit from it, the game is perhaps to linear for that. I have always wanted more galaxies for the first Super Mario Galaxy game. Turned out Nintendo skipped the whole DLC deal and just made a fully fledged sequel for it: Super Mario Galaxy 2. I couldn't be any happier at the time. It is fine by me if Nintendo keeps working on new entries in the series instead of adding DLC packages.
(02-23-2018, 06:41 PM)Admentus Wrote: [ -> ] Completing the game in less than 24 hours?
completing the game in less than 24 hours of gameplay not the literal 24 hours..
(02-23-2018, 06:41 PM)Admentus Wrote: [ -> ] all lasting for about five minutes while walking from point A to B while killing a few monsters on your way...
thousand of zeldas best dungeons like stone tower, water temple, forest temple etc.
(02-23-2018, 08:36 PM)chumpz Wrote: [ -> ]thousand of zeldas best dungeons like stone tower, water temple, forest temple etc.
Umm... I don't think it is possible to randomly generate these kinds of dungeons in that quality for a looooong time to come. The development industry would wish they could do so.
Sure, I would love to have a thousand of my favorite dungeons, it is just not realistic to wish for. It won't happen for a loooong time. I haven't seen a single game wherein quantity triumphs over quality. Unless developers manage to randomly generate dungeons with the quality of a typical Zelda dungeon, if prefer they stick to having a smaller amount of handcrafted dungeons.
(02-23-2018, 08:34 PM)chumpz Wrote: [ -> ]completing the game in less than 24 hours of gameplay not the literal 24 hours..
Even so, what exactly did you do in the game to complete it? Speedrun it? Sure, you can complete it within less than 24 hours, but you must have missed at least 95% of what the game offers. Not to mention it is incredibly hard to immediately rush to the final boss without any upgrades, armor, weapons and hearts. I assume you did that on Normal Mode at least? It took at least 200 hours for me to see most of the game.
You should explain you definition of "completed". I consider a game completed when you have done all you could do being worth your time (getting all 900 Korok Seeds for example is not a requirement in my eyes for completing the game, I only collected half of them in order to fully unlock my inventory). In the case of Breath of the Wild you should at least have done all the four divine beasts and all the primary quests, which still leaves plently more to do.
Hard to believe you can casually beat the game in 24 hours of gameplay.
The first zone let alone took me more than 5 hours.
I must have played something like 20 hours before giving up and I wasn't even gone into a dungeon.
im not talking about BOTW because i havent played it yet, im talking about past zelda games like skyward, majora, minish cap, ocarina, link to the past
*faceslap*
That's all I have to say... You should have mentioned that from the start...
Admentus Wrote:Sorry, but I am against procedural generation. Filling the world with random content isn't that interesting when compared to a world that is handcrafted with an eye for detail. Having a lot to do is awesome, but it should be fun foremost. I don't think procedural generation will ever beat a handcrafted world. Sure, the technology for procedural generation will improve, but so will crafting a world manually. I hate random generated dungeons for a fact, most of the time they are just flat stuffed with some chests and monsters, no fun diversions at all *glares at Persona 4*.
I think you guys
seriously underestimate where the technology will be in the future. I get that you're basing your opinions on what techniques are currently available to us, but down the road, we're going to come up with new methods that make current procedural generation look like crap.
Reminds me of the debate during the 5th Generation where people argued whether 3D games were worth it. At the time, you had so called "low-poly" games coming from Nintendo, Sega, and Sony, and even then sometimes at super low resolutions (240p on N64 for example). I don't think anyone ever dreamed that we'd get the kind of HD graphics we have now. It's like, when Toy Story came out
that's what people thought 3D should look like, only it took supercomputers to render everything over the course of dozens of hours. Now our phones can run better looking things in real-time. I don't think gamers of the 90s (certainly not me) expected we'd be where we are graphically speaking in 2018. Nowadays we don't even question whether 3D games can look nice or are visually worthwhile because we've come so far.
I honestly believe we'll see a push like that for procedural generation to make open-world games almost limitless. Come 2038, games like No Man's Sky will probably be primitive bare-bones examples of the technology (and certainly a guide on what to avoid). Imagine for a moment that each game might have it's own AI dynamically rendering new parts of the world, crafting unique sections on the fly. It's not farfetched to consider computer science will evolve enough to point where gamers can't distinguish what's man-made versus machine generated. We live in a world where most every modern person basically carries a hyper-connected supercomputer in their pocket; that was the realm of science fiction in the 70s, but a common-place reality today. So I don't really understand the doubt when given enough time, technology can prove itself beyond our own imaginations.
I see a lot of arguments that procedural generated content will look "boring" or "monotonous" but that's the
limitations imposed today. Free your mind for a second and contemplate that in the future we could blow past all of that nonsense. What's impossible now, might be trivial tomorrow. And at any rate, we won't get better procedural generated content if no one bothers to improve the methodology behind it. Not with that attitude
Sure of course I agree that given the time even produceral generation would be mindblowing. The issue only is, today the year is 2018 and we aren't that close to replacing crafting a world by hand. If I had to wait to 2038... That's at least another 20 years. I mean, a lot will happen in 20 years and there will be outstanding breakthroughs and without a doubt AI's will be smarter and better. Time goes fast, but not that fast and I am still stuck in 2018 for the time being. Having a breakthrough in quantum computer technology would surely speed up progress in AI development.
Initially the discussion at hand was whatever the next Zelda game should be procedural generated. And my answer to that is that it should avoid that for the time being. The next Zelda might be comming out within the next three years for we know and I don't believe that within three years our Artificial Intelligence technology has improved so much that developers not need to design their own game worlds manually anymore. I don't that the Zelda thereafter should either. Perhaps somewhere around 2030? If our AI technology has proven to be sufficient intelligent, then sure.
It is not about being against procedural generation for the sake of it, but because I am all for having the best in gaming experiences. And as it stands now I do believe a procedural generated game is incapable of bringing out the most of your experience in gaming. But that will surely change in due time.
Other than that, I certainly do agree, but in due time.
Admentus Wrote:Initially the discussion at hand was whatever the next Zelda game should be procedural generated
More specifically, whether the next
open-world LoZ game should be procedurally generated. Keep in mind, Nintendo hates to repeat themselves when it comes to Zelda. BotW shook up the linear formula much more than any entry before it, but going with another open-world game for the next title probably isn't their style. Even though BotW's design won a lot of praise, Nintendo likes to be very creative and unpredictable with the franchise, so it'll be a while before we see the next open-world one. Just enough time for technology to improve if they wanted. Remember, it took us 30+ years to get BotW, gonna be some time before the next one
Admentus Wrote:The next Zelda might be comming out within the next three years for we know and I don't believe that within three years our Artificial Intelligence technology has improved so much that developers not need to design their own game worlds manually anymore. I don't that the Zelda thereafter should either. Perhaps somewhere around 2030? If our AI technology has proven to be sufficient intelligent, then sure.
I think you don't give Nintendo enough credit. If they wanted to, I'm sure they could come up with pleasing and convincing procedurally generated environments. They don't mess around with their art direction, and I'm fairly sure they'd never consider releasing anything substandard with respect to LoZ. They know their fanbase pretty well, and they're not like other companies that try to churn out so-called "AAA" titles on a schedule. If anything, Nintendo is probably the one company with a strong enough vision to make it work even with the limitations we have today.