Zelda Producer confirms the Champion's Ballad DLC concluded Breath of the Wild

[WiiUBricker]

In case you were hoping for more content after the Champion's Ballad DLC, unfortunately I've bad news as Zelda series producer Eiji Aonuma stated in an interview with japanese magazine Famitsu, that Breath of the Wild will not receive further DLC expansions. This is maybe not surprising after the news came out that a new Zelda is in development, so naturally it makes more sense for the developers to shift their focus on the new title and let Breath of the Wild get its well deserved rest. Still, Breath of the Wild likely will always be remembered as the game that revolutionized the Zelda franchise.

What about you? Were you hoping for more content or are you satisfied how the game concluded?

Source, via

 

[Flame]

no more DLC to be developed ?

and the Link we know and had is gone, a thing of the past...

i suppose this means..

Link is dead...

Spoiler

http://...REQBERAEREAREQBERAEREAREQBERAEREAREQBERAf/9k= http://...REQBERAEREAREQBERAEREAREQBERAEREAREQBERAf/9k=

 

[FAST6191]

"well deserved rest"
Barely even got going. I am all for laziness but that is taking the piss.

"revolutionized the Zelda franchise"
Making it a slight bit more open world?

 

[Flame]

"well deserved rest"
Barely even got going. I am all for laziness but that is taking the piss.

"revolutionized the Zelda franchise"
Making it a slight bit more open world?

it was a Breath of fresh air really...

butts and traps were nice. But the traps were changeling

 

[SG854]

"revolutionized the Zelda franchise"
Making it a slight bit more open world?

Are you saying the game is not much different than previous Zelda's?
Thats just crazy.

 

[FAST6191]

Are you saying the game is not much different than previous Zelda's?
Thats just crazy.

There is more of it, though in reality I would probably say empty magnification/spread thinner. Other than that it plays similar enough to many things that came before.

 

[SG854]

There is more of it, though in reality I would probably say empty magnification/spread thinner. Other than that it plays similar enough to many things that came before.

Thats why its called Zelda and not a another name. Its suppose to be some what similar. But this game made lots of changes.

Do you mean similar as in solving puzzles and fighting enemies? The thing that makes Zelda, Zelda.
That is the same but how you go about it is different. The environment is different, the physics are different, the AI is different, the structure of the game is different.

Thats like saying all music is the same because you hear notes being played, they all have notes, so they are all the same. And they are the same because you hear rhythm, all music has rhythm so all songs does nothing different. Well ya thats what makes music, music. But how the notes are structured, the type of notes being played, and the type of rhythm is what makes each song different. Unless your against music because its all the same, they are all just notes and rhythm.

 

[YTElias]

Thats why its called Zelda and not a another name. Its suppose to be some what similar. But this game made lots of changes.

Do you mean similar as in solving puzzles and fighting enemies? The thing that makes Zelda, Zelda.
That is the same but how you go about it is different. The environment is different, the physics are different, the AI is different, the structure of the game is different.

Thats like saying all music is the same because you hear notes being played, they all have notes, so they are all the same. And they are the same because you hear rhythm, all music has rhythm so all songs does nothing different. Well ya thats what makes music, music. But how the notes are structured, the type of notes being played, and the type of rhythm is what makes each song different. Unless your against music because its all the same, they are all just notes and rhythm.

drunk game
by ever same,and AND each you give a shot

 

[FAST6191]

I meant the Zeldas that came before. Though there are many games playing just like, and indeed a lot better.

"The environment is different"
Earth, Wind, Fire, Water, and Heart. With their biomes combined you get Zelda planet, just like most of the others.

So the basically human world physics now have a rolling rock preanimated trap. I guess they put more surfaces you can climb in, gliding is more useful than wind waker and expanded environmental effects beyond the relevant temple.

AI felt much like wind waker's better moments.

Structure wise micro dungeons, or indeed a move to almost exclusively that, vs more in depth ones?

Like what you like but it was neither revolutionary for Zelda nor for games in general. Or if it was revolutionary for Zelda then I have to think of more extreme words to describe the likes of II, the N64 era ones and maybe even four swords. It does not need to be that (innovation is not a synonym for good) to be a good game, though I certainly have my issues with this game, but I don't see it as revolutionary. I don't know if I would have gone as open world with the franchise as they did, or at least in the way they did, and in some ways I prefer it to the really pointless gimmicks of wind waker onwards.

 

[ShadowOne333]

But what about my 6th armor inventory page update?
I want to have all the armor available without having to sell and purchase shit everytime I want to change to some outfit.

 

[SG854]

I meant the Zeldas that came before. Though there are many games playing just like, and indeed a lot better.

"The environment is different"
Earth, Wind, Fire, Water, and Heart. With their biomes combined you get Zelda planet, just like most of the others.

So the basically human world physics now have a rolling rock preanimated trap. I guess they put more surfaces you can climb in, gliding is more useful than wind waker and expanded environmental effects beyond the relevant temple.

AI felt much like wind waker's better moments.

Structure wise micro dungeons, or indeed a move to almost exclusively that, vs more in depth ones?

Like what you like but it was neither revolutionary for Zelda nor for games in general. Or if it was revolutionary for Zelda then I have to think of more extreme words to describe the likes of II, the N64 era ones and maybe even four swords. It does not need to be that (innovation is not a synonym for good) to be a good game, though I certainly have my issues with this game, but I don't see it as revolutionary. I don't know if I would have gone as open world with the franchise as they did, or at least in the way they did, and in some ways I prefer it to the really pointless gimmicks of wind waker onwards.

Well i'm debating whether or not it does something different to previous zelda's, not whether this game is good or not.

"Earth, Wind, Fire, Water, and Heart. With their biomes combined you get Zelda planet, just like most of the others."
Are you saying that games that have these elements aren't worthy of praise, which is the vast majority of games. So you would rather Link live on a planet filled with helium, and swim in a sea of acid to add variety? But then someone will complain how acid is just like water but with acid instead and its not different enough.

The environment is different in how the landscape is designed. Death Mountain from Ocarina, is different from BOTW and even Twilight Princess.
Unless you think even real life places like Yosemite and the Himalayas are the same because they are both have mountains, and they both have rocks, wind, and are located on earth. Their landscape makes no difference so both locations are the same. If thats the case then you must think Earth is a boring place, not different enough for you, and traveling to these places is pointless because they are all the same.

"So the basically human world physics now have a rolling rock preanimated trap. I guess they put more surfaces you can climb in, gliding is more useful than wind waker and expanded environmental effects beyond the relevant temple.
Structure wise micro dungeons, or indeed a move to almost exclusively that, vs more in depth ones?"
There you go, your listing the differences.

"Like what you like but it was neither revolutionary for Zelda nor for games in general."
Well of course, any one can like whatever they like. It was revolutionary for Zelda because its a lot different from previous games. Im sure its not revolutionary for games in general because other games have already done what botw has done. But we are getting to the point right now where being innovative and doing something way different is getting harder and harder. Games have been out for awhile and many different things have been tried already. So if you dislike games for similarities, then you must dislike games as a whole, and also dislike movies, music, conversations with people (all people talk about is the same things over and over), real life environments, because if you try hard enough you can find similarities in everything. Life must be a boring daily struggle for you because there is not enough variety.

 

[FAST6191]

I am used to having my words twisted and interpreted oddly but that is quite impressive.

My main issue with the biomes was the general lack of memorable points. Elder Scrolls figured that out years ago*, something like Might and Magic even further back. They are not exciting enough by themselves to pull it off.

The changes listed I deemed so minor as to be basically inconsequential by any metric I use to categorise games. Other than the rocks everything there was there before in a proper capacity.

I am not seeing the massive differences from previous games, either in overall gameplay style or with enough minor changes to add up to something truly notable.

As far as games and innovation then there is still loads to explore and do. Every year or so it increases but as game devs really take to game theory like film makers did to their equivalents it is going to see something big -- the current darling of the game world in PUBG being an example of that. Every time I watch a presentation (the GDC post mortems are good ones) on such things I see devs almost rediscovering things known to various fields (even things like board games) decades before or arriving at the same conclusions by brute force.

 

[Smash Br0]

I was hoping for another armor page and 8 more Spirit Orbs, to max out both hearts and stamina.

 

[Sonic Angel Knight]

I was hoping for another armor page and 8 more Spirit Orbs, to max out both hearts and stamina.

I think they goofed on that part, so well that triggers those 100% completionist

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

 

[Smash Br0]

At least it's possible to hack in the missing two heart containers / 8 Spirit Orbs on the Wii U version -- I think?

I have no idea if adding in another armor page via hacking is possible, though...

 

[SG854]

I am used to having my words twisted and interpreted oddly but that is quite impressive.

My main issue with the biomes was the general lack of memorable points. Elder Scrolls figured that out years ago*, something like Might and Magic even further back. They are not exciting enough by themselves to pull it off.

The changes listed I deemed so minor as to be basically inconsequential by any metric I use to categorise games. Other than the rocks everything there was there before in a proper capacity.

I am not seeing the massive differences from previous games, either in overall gameplay style or with enough minor changes to add up to something truly notable.

As far as games and innovation then there is still loads to explore and do. Every year or so it increases but as game devs really take to game theory like film makers did to their equivalents it is going to see something big -- the current darling of the game world in PUBG being an example of that. Every time I watch a presentation (the GDC post mortems are good ones) on such things I see devs almost rediscovering things known to various fields (even things like board games) decades before or arriving at the same conclusions by brute force.

Your saying twisting your words as if i'm out to get you. Your posts are not clear on what you mean. You never said it had good subjective memorable locations to you. All you said its the same because it has earth, water and so on, making it seem like any game that has these things is the same and not worth attention.

Sometimes your posts are hard to decipher. Is English your native language? You sound like someone that learned English by reading a lot of Shakespeare. Sometimes I don't know wtf your saying.

 

[Kioku]

Your saying twisting your words as if i'm out to get you. Your posts are not clear on what you mean. You never said it had good subjective memorable locations to you. All you said its the same because it has earth, water and so on, making it seem like any game that has these things is the same and not worth attention.

Sometimes your posts are hard to decipher. Is English your native language? You sound like someone that learned English by reading a lot of Shakespeare. Sometimes I don't know wtf your saying.

His posts are a bit cryptic because that's his thing. English being a native language isn't relevant imo. As I've seen some people butcher the language but I could still translate it with little issue.

 

[SG854]

His posts are a bit cryptic because that's his thing. English being a native language isn't relevant imo. As I've seen some people butcher the language but I could still translate it with little issue.

Is he doing it on purpose to try to be different or just messing with us.
Whether or not they are good with the language would be relevant if they wrote badly because that would be the reason why they write badly.

I can somewhat translate his cryptic posts. But sometimes I just can't. I have to reread just to know what he's even talking about and sometimes I just get it wrong. I somewhat get the gist of what he's trying to say, but its the finer details I just don't know what he's saying.

 

[SG854]

"Every year or so it increases but as game devs really take to game theory like film makers did to their equivalents it is going to see something big -- the current darling of the game world in PUBG being an example of that."
I mean look at this.

So there is this game theory according him, and devs should follow this game theory. Film makers follow film theory and thats what makes their films good? Something big will happen if devs follow game theory like film makers follow film theory?

They should make a game show where he speaks a sentence and people try to figure out what he's saying. The person that guesses right gets a point.

 

[FAST6191]

I was not accusing you of of being out to get me (it is just internet and does not matter), actually I was wondering if you had a raging case of the fanboy (we have a bit of an infestation, see also the review on this site) and trying to narrow it down.

You said the environment was different, I said it was basically the same. The line I quoted was a riff on captain planet's intro, though that might be a bit obscure today. While there is nothing new under the sun it can still be made compelling and I did not find that for this Zelda, one of the bigger reasons being a measure of memorability. That might even be a regression as earlier games often had some fairly decent set pieces. I might even be tempted to employ a phrase like "Zelda with some open world padding", possibly akin to something like a PS2 era "open world" driving game that basically smashed free play and a menu together rather than sending you on individual races from a list like previous titles might have.

Game theory exists, has done probably since the 40s but the 50s was really big and has since gone on to become a fundamental component of economics.
It is known to some but seems to rarely employed within the game industry, and where it is. When I see interviews with devs explaining how they play tested their latest patch to balance weapon damage it should not have happened that way -- design by iteration and scale model went away in general engineering decades and decades ago (I have books from the 1940s decrying this mindset as ancient, impractical and expensive). Film makers found this out as well and since then things got really nice. Musicians have similar, more conventional artist types get bored to tears with the likes of colour theory for good reason. It is not essential and subverting it can yield great results but you will typically be told "do it unless you can explain why you are not".
At the same time all the reviews of those things know all their relevant things (game theory is to games what cinematography is to films) and I see precious little mention and thought process of this.
When this clicks (and it will, mainly as it already did for board games, collectible card games, a handful of successful games already and I have books written by a handful of noted game designers covering all this and more) the notion of "we are getting to the point right now where being innovative and doing something way different is getting harder and harder" will be laughable. I imagine it will be more stark a difference than TV discovering long form drama like it has this last decade or so.

A part of the problem might also be that I assumed most here were also commenting on the other active Zelda thread of the time ( http://gbatemp.net/threads/nintendo-confirms-new-zelda-is-in-development.492141/ ) where more had been said on the matter. On the other hand I do note I have something of a penchant for swinging between considerable ambiguity and overly dense when it comes to my writing.