Current Events > Newly-translated Miyamoto interview about Ocarina of Time

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://shmuplations.com/ocarinaoftime/

Some neat stuff in there

It's like how George Lucas needed to tell the story of Anakin Skywalker. You're a man of your word Miyamoto so I'm looking forward to seeing what you do there.

That's not exactly something you want to hear. Considering how awful the prequels (and sequels) turned out, I've always felt that certain aspects of Zelda should remain ambiguous

HylianFox posted...

That's not exactly something you want to hear. Considering how awful the prequels (and sequels) turned out,

Well, they didn't know that's how it would happen at the time.

Wow, even Shiggy doesn't like Navi:

How about the puzzle side?

Miyamoto: I think the way we give hints is still a little too unfriendly. Speaking plainly, I can now confess to you: I think the whole system with Navi giving you advice is the biggest weakpoint of Ocarina of Time. It's incredibly difficult to design a system that gives proper advice, advice that's tailored to the player's situation. To do it right, you'd have to spend the same amount of time as you would developing an entire game, and I was very worried we'd be digging ourselves into a hole, if we pursued perfection there
If you read Navi's text, she says the same things over and over. I know it makes it sound bad, but we purposely left her at a kind of "stupid" level. I think if we'd tried to make Navi's hints more sophisticated, that "stupidity" would have actually stood out even more. The truth is I wanted to remove the entire system, but that would have been even more unfriendly to players. You can think of Navi as being there for players who stop playing for a month or so, who then pick the game back up and want to remember what they were supposed to do. It's a brazen excuse, I know. (laughs)

HylianFox posted...

If you read Navi's text, she says the same things over and over. I know it makes it sound bad, but we purposely left her at a kind of "stupid" level. I think if we'd tried to make Navi's hints more sophisticated, that "stupidity" would have actually stood out even more.

You then proceed to do exactly that with Fi

Cool.

Tyranthraxus posted...

You then proceed to do exactly that with Fi

The real problem with Fi is that she's just some emotionless robot of a character

Navi was rather bland (especially compared to Tatl) but at least she tried, sorta... I guess
Okay, Navi sucks. You could remove her and it would barely change the story at all. What makes characters like Tatl a vast improvement is that they actually are characters and have their own role to play rather than just glorified hint-giving devices

The balance between giving players the right level of hints without it feeling too obnoxious but also not leaving players confused with what to do has been such a difficult balance to get right. Especially in that early 3D era. So many games were obtuse.

Punished_Blinx posted...

The balance between giving players the right level of hints without it feeling too obnoxious but also not leaving players confused with what to do has been such a difficult balance to get right. Especially in that early 3D era. So many games were obtuse.

This is easily the hardest aspect of game design.

You want the game to be difficult, and thus satisfying for the players to finish
But you don't want it to be SO difficult that they become frustrated or just give up

You also don't want to give hints that basically insult the players' intelligence, it needs to feel intuitive

Tyranthraxus posted...

You then proceed to do exactly that with Fi

She was a hundred times worse. Hell after playing ocarina Idk what others problem with navi was.

Fi not only never had any useful information to provide but would forcefully repeat a variety of things you just heard the game explain on a reguarly basis.

Lacking any character, development or emotion just made it worse.

HylianFox posted...

This is easily the hardest aspect of game design.

You want the game to be difficult, and thus satisfying for the players to finish
But you don't want it to be SO difficult that they become frustrated or just give up

You also don't want to give hints that basically insult the players' intelligence, it needs to feel intuitive

It's fascinating to think about. Like you almost need to trick players into believing that they came up with the idea on how to progress.

I'm not sure even now if it has completely solved or if gamers are just used to the language of video games after playing them for so long either.

HylianFox posted...

This is easily the hardest aspect of game design.

You want the game to be difficult, and thus satisfying for the players to finish
But you don't want it to be SO difficult that they become frustrated or just give up

You also don't want to give hints that basically insult the players' intelligence, it needs to feel intuitive

Making a game that is frustratingly hard is okay as long as the player isn't confused about what to do. This is more of a problem with puzzles and less so with something like dead Cells where you know what to do you're just bad at it.

Punished_Blinx posted...

It's fascinating to think about. Like you almost need to trick players into believing that they came up with the idea on how to progress.

Metroid Dread, to give one example, does this by limiting the exploration options after you get new abilities as its way of nudging you in the right direction. I liked how that gave the sense of momentum, but I know long-time fans of the series miss that sense of exploration.

Tyranthraxus posted...

Making a game that is frustratingly hard is okay as long as the player isn't confused about what to do. This is more of a problem with puzzles and less so with something like dead Cells where you know what to do you're just bad at it.

True, knowing what to do and being able to do it are two different things...

Tyranthraxus posted...

You then proceed to do exactly that with Fi

Miyamoto had a lot less involvement with Skyward Sword than he did with Ocarina of Time. Miyamoto was the producer on Ocarina of Time, whereas the producer of Skyward Sword was Aonuma.

Having said that, I think Miyamoto was "Series Producer" for the Zelda series during Skyward Sword's development, and I'd be surprised if he didn't have the authority to say "this doesn't work, remove it".

FurryPhilosifer posted...

Miyamoto had a lot less involvement with Skyward Sword than he did with Ocarina of Time. Miyamoto was the producer on Ocarina of Time, whereas the producer of Skyward Sword was Aonuma.

Having said that, I think Miyamoto was "Series Producer" for the Zelda series during Skyward Sword's development, and I'd be surprised if he didn't have the authority to say "this doesn't work, remove it".

Miyamoto even when he isn't working on something has incredible authority and influence. The BotW developers did an interview where they talked about a moral dilemma where Miyamoto said the weapon breaking was bad and should be removed and there was a huge argument over whether they should stick to their original vision & risk disgracing themselves for disobeying essentially the top senior or to do what miyamoto said and retool the game to fit his preferences.

In the end they chose not to compromise but remained very apprehensive until Miyamoto played the final product and ended up liking the weapon breaking after all.

Finally got around to finishing it

Some pretty fascinating stuff, some of which I already knew (like Child Link being a late addition, or there originally just being the 6 warp songs before the ocarina had a bigger focus), but it's always a treat to get an insider's perspective.

Other things that stood out were the original 'Zelda' starting with the dungeon design, and the overworld being more of an afterthought. Also the fact that Miyamoto wanted the sword combat to be more sophisticated and challenging.

and then do exactly the same thing with Fi and Midna