Can Zelda Wii U outdo the Witcher 3?

That's like asking a RARE made title to be good. Its just not gonna happen.

Action-adventure vs. WRPG

Totally works.

Zelda wont have by any means the deep story , extraordinary story control , the deep elements of side quests , the scale and above all geometry of the world , oeverall graphics , soundtrack , RPG elements etc etc ... of witcher 3 ... Forget that already.

Now if you asking if Zelda will have an open world as big as Witcher 3s ... i doubt that also but you never know. Dont forget that Zelda is an action/adventure game and Witcher 3 an Action RPG ... 2 totally different genres so the direct comparison wont favor Zelda in many elements Witcher 3 excels because of its RPG elements ( customization in both skills and loot and many more things usually RPGs getting )

Now about comparing hardwares ... the fact remains ... Wii U wouldnt be able to even think to play Witcher 3 at PC/PS4 or X1 graphical fidelity and would have been the inferior version by far. That directly answers your question if a Wii U game can even think to make a game to come close to what Witcher 3 offers as a whole.

Not using that crappy gimmick controller or using those shitty graphics.Though i will say that i am sure that zelda u will have better combat than the witchers shitty ass creed type fighting.

so basically nin is finally making an "Oblivion/Skyrim" "OPEN WORLD" game Zelda? They act like its new. How many open type world games do we have now? AND have had for years. IF NIN would quit coming to the party late, it might mean more..

Zelda as a large open world game is a completely new direction for the series and its creative team. Not saying they can't knock it out of the park with the first swing, but I think it's silly to expect them to.

Where exactly are you in the Witcher 3? Spoiler if it needs be. If you haven't played it, we should value your opinion....why exactly?

OT, What CDPR's done with The Wild Hunt Zelda could only ever dream of accomplishing in terms of world building. Zelda has a hell of a lot to prove. With each iteration it's become more and more not about the world, but the dungeons of which they fill with their typical, gamey tropes we've been seeing since the early eighties now. Light torches to make chests appear. Move boxes to reveal switches. Use the boomerang to hit switches. Predictable as clockwork, even if it's always cleverly implemented. You can look at the formula they established in the early eighties and look at the most recent Zelda and you will see the same tired shit, aside from the benefits that 3D affords to puzzles and mechanics.

Nintendo's done nothing notable with Zelda throughout all these years that really extend or break the boundaries of which the franchise has been so constrained to for 3+ decades now. Hurrah! I expect absolutely no different in this next game, despite its open world structure.

@MirkoS77: so tell me how exactly is Wild hunt so revolutionary and ground breaking with its gameplay formula then?

.go here

.use witcher senses to follow tracks/progress further

.fight monster

.get your reward

Thats like 90% of the sidequests

Different kinds of games but Zelda will be better for sure.

We'll have to see. It sounds like the plan is to make a pretty big change to the puzzle-solving.

http://kotaku.com/the-new-zelda-might-not-have-the-puzzles-you-expect-1590544423

Aonuma: So you know we've talked a little bit today about the puzzle-solving element in Zelda, and how that's kinda taken a different shape in Hyrule Warriors. But I think people have come to just assume that puzzle-solving will exist in a Zelda game, and I kinda wanna change that, maybe turn it on its ear.

As a player progresses through any game, they're making choices. They're making hopefully logical choices to progress them in the game. And when I hear 'puzzle solving' I think of like moving blocks so that a door opens or something like that. But I feel like making those logical choices and taking information that you received previously and making decisions based on that can also be a sort of puzzle-solving. So I wanna kinda rethink or maybe reconstruct the idea of puzzle-solving within the Zelda universe.

The side quests are fully fleshed out with characters and choices that intertwine throughout the narrative. Quests are not linear in how they can be accomplished. They start with a very basic formula, but throughout they expand into multiple paths that, at the conclusion, afford players with choices that are morally grey. Many times these quests come back to you hours later to revisit you and can affect the outcome of the game. 35+ different endings, IIRC.

On the flip side, we've not seen Nintendo change the Zelda formula in 30+ years. It's not surprising you'd use an argument of deflection to what the Witcher does instead of what Zelda doesn't, because there's no argument to be had in the fact that Nintendo has been reiterating the same thing for ages. If that's what you wish to defend, be my guest.

Have you been playing Witcher 3? At what part are you?

We'll see. They have a task in front of them, one that I don't hold much confidence in them accomplishing. Not because they don't necessarily have the talent, but because their philosophy on game design is the same as it was many, many years ago.

zelda is 15 years behind everyone else. There is no chance of it ever catching up.

@MirkoS77: I'm on act 2 and as far as my general opinion is concerned the game peaked at Velen. Novigrad and Skellege were kind of a drag in comparison.

I just thought it was fair game to boil down the quest structure seeing as you did the same with the zelda formula because we might as well compare apples to apples. Its not like Zelda has a series of novels to base it's lore and characters on or anything

Once Zelda went to motion control I lost interest,

Absolutely it can given how good Nintendo is on their best day. Personally I don't see The Witcher 3 as some impressive bar to beat, it's only remarkable in the technical department. It's quite ordinary when it comes to the playing it part.

I'm not sure what the question is. Which one will be the better Action/Adventure/RPG? Depends on what you like. They will be very different games despite sharing some things, and both will probably be good. I prefer Zelda to Witcher, myself. I believe Witcher will have a bigger world, more fleshed out story, better graphics etc. Zelda will have better gameplay. I care more about how fun a game is to play rather than how interesting it is to read/listen to, or the size of its world. To me, Zelda will always be "better".

Let's be real here, you've never even owned a Nintendo console.

• things zelda can learn from witcher3:

• 1. quest design. even dungeon design to an extent and making dungeons even more interesting. witcher 3s quests, even the secondary quests, are interesting.

¿What the hell? If there's an aspect where the Witcher 3 can't compare to a Zelda this is dungeon design. I mean, ¿is there even a dungeon in the whole witcher 3 game that demands from the player anything more than "use that spell to break a wall" in order to advance?

The only aspect where The Witcher 3 is better is in the background of those missions, the fact that they actually tell you an interesting story instead of being NPC's giving you random requests, but if there's something Zelda is untouched nowadays is in the design of its dungeons and how well crafted their puzzles are.

I owned a Wii and now I own a WiiU, real talk brah.

The quality of their recent releases and stressing difficult modes all while distancing themselves from the "industry" make me think it might turn out to be something special.

yes.

Zelda will destroy the Witcher like a boss. The Witcher is one of the most overrated PC games of all time. Zelda on its worst day is better than the Witcher on its best day. Zelda will also have epic combat, Witcher will just have epic sex scenes. Zelda also has WAY better horse. Witcher horse is boring.

And lasty, Zelda is on a whole nother playing field, Zelda gets scored on a Zelda scale, Witcher gets scored on a universal 1-10 scale, yeah, no contest. Zelda wins easy.

@Heil68:

I didn't know it was competing directly to The Witcher 3.

It may try to outdo W3, but it's extremely unlikely to turn out anywhere near as good. Nintendo is so stuck in their little rut of repetition that I just don't see it happening. It's always nice to be pleasantly surprised though.

I believe a link between worlds is a hint as to where they want zelda to be on consoles. A return to his roots is in order. Open world, tackle any dungeon in any order, and travel anywhere just like the original game.

I doubt it will be anywhere near the level of Skyrim or Witcher 3. But I do expect it to be like the original NES game but with modern day graphics.

Every Zelda is remarkably different than the last. Besides the few iconic aspects (triforce, zelda, dungeons) all other elements are always arranged differently. I'm not sure what this rut is but is sure as heck doesn't apply to console Zelda's. Can anyone with two eyes really say Ocarina of Time, Twilight Princess, and Skyward Sword are all the same game?

OoT was the only one of the three I enjoyed playing so to me they aren't getting much better with time. I have little faith that this game will live up to expectations but I will definitely play it should it turn out to be worth playing.

oh please, the last few zelda games have been average at best. more Nintendrone nonsense...

Well said. Witcher 3 doesn't come to even compare to Zelda. Witcher 3 is just being praised because it's been a dry year, and come next year when Fallout 4/Zelda WiiU come out. No one is gonna be talking about Witcher 3. Witcher 3 is all buzz right now.

@freezamite: oh yeah. in terms of the puzzles and overall designs of the dungeons there is no beating a zelda game (hence the phrase to an extent).

but they can also be a dry and overly long affair.

to develop that point a bit more there was the small dungeon with kiera mentz which i found quite fun to explore. no puzzles really in it but it looked old and interesting and the game had a bit of humor in it (the rats :P).

zelda dungeons are very clinical. they need to be to an extent.

but one thing that has annoyed me about zelda dungeons is the lack of variety. its you vs the dungeon and under the skin they are quite similar. i remember one dungeon in twiglight princess where it was someone house, basically, and i thought "oh this could be interesting". nope..standard structure of a zelda dungeon.

if a zelda could still keep that attention to detail and that clever structure...but just play around with it and make it more interesting it would be nice. not every dungeon needs a mid way boss or even an end boss. not every boss has to be limited to an end of dungeon (especially in an open world game). not every dungeon needs to be tackled by link alone. not every dungeon needs to be a dungeon nor do they all need enemies. they also dont have to stick to a rigid theme like fire or forest. witcher 3 had one example of making dungeons interesting in other ways. okami could also tech the master a thing or two.

i would also like them to be smaller but more numerous (especially in an open world game. i dont want to be in a dungeon for 2-3 hours. a link between worlds had very nice sized dungeons has to be said).

@SolidGame_basic:

Gameplay -perhaps.

Graphics - no

sound - maybe

world size - no

story - no

characters - no

and it only works with 1 GB of RAM.

Sad but true. I think Nintendo just really dropped the ball at the start of the Wii-U lifespan getting exclusives to market, and never recovered. I've had every Nintendo system since the NES, but passed on the Wii-U.

doubt it, but it would be cool if Zelda U has the same type of exploration.

@Boddicker

lolwut

Well, the dungeons are an essential part of the Zelda games, but I think you're being unfair. I mean, every single zelda dungeon has its own puzzles (and in the newest entries they are more innovative than ever) and design even if it repeats the traditional pattern of "advance - fight a mini-boss - grab the dungeon's object - use it to advance further - beat the boss" and while I can perfectly understand why you may think that this is "more of the same" in terms of 3C Zelda I simply can't accept that you turn this into a "The Witcher 3 dungeon's are better than Zelda's" when not only they are the typical "advance through the corridors until you find the exit while you kill any monster you find" that has been done thousands of times in hundreds of games.

Dungeons in The Legend of Zelda also try new things, but not in their "overall structure". The Temple of Time in Twilight Princess is a corridor that you traverse with the help of the statues you can control, it may not be different in terms of "beginning - mid-boss - second half - final boss" but it's different in the whole conception of the dungeon itself.

Now, they could introduce some of the changes you mentioned, like dungeon bosses not being placed in fixed spots and all that, but I think you're giving those small details more importance than you give to things as basic for a game as the level design. I mean, Kiera Mentz and her fear for the rats may be funny, but in the end it's just one corridor after another without any other challenge than to kill enemies and use the witcher senses once you reach certain spots only to find an object to inspect or an illusion blocking your path.

I would also like a Zelda game with let's say 6 really big dungeons and then like 15 or 20 mini-dungeons in the style of the "ice cave" in OOT or Ikana's Castle in Majora's Mask and I think that since this will be an open world game with what seems to be a massive world to explore there are a lot of chances this will be the case, but Zelda dungeons are still untouched by any other dungeons released in any other modern game.

With the trailer you posted I had high hopes but after seeing the later downgrade of actual gameplay footage I don't see it being very successful. A world filled with monotonous uninspired terrain - that lack of effort just won't pass today.

@freezamite: i didnt say witcher 3 dungeons are better. you raise many perfectly valid points on the weaknesses of witcher 3s dungeons and, overall, zelda dungeons are indeed better. a lot better. i said "things zelda can learn from witcher 3".

doesnt mean zelda cant pick up a thing or 2 to make it even better again.

Skyward Sword was pretty bad so no i dont think they can outdo The Witcher

@skektek: lol wut? The most we got after that first trailer was some blury offscreen footage and you were able to tell that it was downgraded

Yeah it was blurry. But what else would you expect from a Wii U game?

@skektek: Well no shit it was off screen footage. Still didn't answer my question, how was it downgraded?

In gameplay for sure. The Witcher 3 is great and all, but the gameplay(especially the combat and controls) are nothing to write home about

ill never play either..as far as sales go..i would think the Witcher would win. I mean..how many Wii U are out there?? like 50? lol..:D

Spoken by someone who obviously hasn't played TW3.

The thing that differentiates TW3 from Zelda is that TW3 truly is a narrative driven, RPG experience. Choices and consequence much later on are where it's found. Zelda is an action "RPG" where its gameplay is found in the immediate feedback found within the dungeons, with the overworld simply being an excuse to get to the next clever (albeit new take on an old formula) puzzle dungeon. TW3, the characters and the world building are the gameplay, that truly don't become apparent until you see it through to the end.

Witcher 3 is grounded in its narrative. If you're looking for Zelda puzzles in it, you're going to end up disappointed. This does not mean Zelda is a better game, it just means that its priorities are different. So people go into Witcher with the expectation of it being Zelda, or course they're going to claim it inferior. Just like I could go into a Zelda game and claim based on the philosophy of game design Wild Hunt is built on Zelda's inferior.

Neither is better than the other, they are different.

Yes, I understand that, but what you wrote is:

things zelda can learn from witcher3:

1. quest design. even dungeon design to an extent and making dungeons even more interesting. witcher 3s quests, even the secondary quests, are interesting.
2. ...
3. ...
4. ...

things witcher games can learn from zelda:

1. nuts and bolts game mechanics. nintendo still remains one of the top developers in this area. witcher 3 movement and combat still feels sloppy compared to zeldas combat. the enemies in witcher look great but are not particularly interesting to fight. just dodge, block and smack it till it dies. zelda brings in positioning, timing and a little bit of thinking into many of the enemies design. combat is more fluid and responsive in zelda games (a common problem in games from the west at the moment, imho, is there is now too much animation data being pumped through making combat even more sloppy. looks great though). even just the basics like the movement of the characters around the map feel better in zelda games.

thats only 1 point but it is a vitally important point.

And from that, what I understand is that the simple corridors of The Witcher are something the Zelda series should learn from, and to that I can only disagree. Zelda's dungeons are in a different dimension compared to the ones in The Witcher 3, I agree that they should evolve a bit the overall structure of those dungeons, but if evolving it means turning them into simple corridors with enemies then they're better as they are now without any kind of doubt.

Zelda is not an Action RPG ffs!

@KungfuKitten: Metal Gear probably will outdo it