#Or maybe the next mainline game will feature a story for each of them following their separate adventures

[krafterwrites]

All of this HAS to be setup for something, and I get a feeling we're going to find out what sometime next year

[fleursetrebellion]

Why Breath of the Wild Doesn’t Have A Companion Character

Among Legend of Zelda games there’s a rift between two types of games in the series: those with companion characters and those without. And I think there’s an interesting topic to discuss in why some have them, and why some choose not to have them. To really get to the heart of this though, it’s important to recognize what the design of Zelda was originally made to do, and how that changed over time.

In the original Legend of Zelda, the game was explicitly made to be a game about freely exploring a mysterious world and uncovering surprising things around every corner. In some sense, the original design was intended to be the purest possible form and experience of an adventure. That adventurousness goes into every part of the game’s design. You’re never guided, you make your own path. You’re never pushed, you do only what you want to. And the game never stops keeping its secrets, you must uncover them yourself. There’s never a point at which the world is no longer mysterious. They even included a feature where the second time you play through the game, it shuffles around the map so that it maintains its secrets and you can give it a second try. But a big factor here is that players were explicitly meant to choose what they want to do next, not to be told. The game directs you, but only with hints and very subtle suggestions.

In this sense, having a companion with you simply doesn’t solve any problems. The companion character could be neat at best, but even still they would be an unnecessary element which keeps you from getting to the best part of the game: discovery. At worst they might even spoil secrets that you wanted to find yourself, or push you towards things that you didn’t want to do.

When it came time for the next proper sequel, A Link to the Past, some things had changed. The game started directing players more. Some secrets were given away, though most still needed to be uncovered. But the biggest change was that parts of the game started to push you through its critical path, always nudging you towards the next dungeon. There were lots of reasons for this, I believe biggest of all was that aLttP introduced a huge increase in scale, which made it harder for players to self-direct in such a big world. But to accomplish this they introduced the first step towards a companion character.

See, the game opens with the sequence of Zelda contacting you with her telepathy, and she directs you into the castle where you save her. But after that point Zelda no longer was poised to direct you through your journey. Enter Sahasrahla. This guy was an old man, like the ones who gave you cryptic hints in the first game. Except this time he outright guides you towards dungeons and tells you where the next objective is. His function was pretty limited, so he didn’t chime in much but he did was occasionally contact you through telepathy. Pretty hands-off, but it’s already a step towards a Companion Character. So to put it simply, they introduced Sahasrahla because they needed to tell you what you can do in the world. Otherwise you might not even know that there’s a dungeon to go find.

Anyway, the next main Zelda game after aLttP was Ocarina of Time, and that’s where we got the most iconic companion character of all. The reason for introducing a companion was complicated. It was an N64 game, and every designer at Nintendo was so excited to try out 3d game mechanics. But the shift towards 3d introduced all kinds of technical issues. Spaces became harder to navigate, game worlds became more costly to create, and most of all cameras became very hard to program. Ocarina of Time famously solved this camera issue with Z-Targeting. But it wouldn’t be Nintendo if they left that as “good enough”.

Maybe you’ve noticed but Nintendo has this habit, almost an obsession, of tying up loose strings. Anything done in one part of a game’s design must connect back to all other parts of the design, including the narrative design. They couldn’t just let you Z-target, they had to tie that into the game’s narrative design as well. So they came up with one narrative-friendly solution for all of the technical problems of the 3d world all at once: Navi.

How does Navi solve camera controls? Navi is Z-targeting! How does Navi make 3d spaces easier to navigate? Navi can chime in with hints and direct you towards doors! And how does she solve the problem that 3d game worlds are costly to create? Well, if the world is smaller, Navi can stick with the player and always let them know where the next objective is, driving players along the main path so they never stray too far and discover just how little is actually in this 3d world. (At least compared to aLttP.) And it worked amazingly! Ocarina of Time quickly became the classic we all know and love. Some other neat tricks that Navi has is that she can help make story moments more interesting by speaking for Link when he has to remain silent, which lent to the new more cinematic tone of the game. She could even give a sense of larger scale to the world with bits of lore, though let’s face it they weren’t really all that great most of the time.

And then moving into Majora’s Mask we saw something... weird. Majora’s Mask was developed in a hurry, and they didn’t completely have time to rework any ideas from scratch. So when the game abandoned the cinematic style of OoT, favoring a much more classic open-exploration style of play, they still didn’t really have the time to come up with a new Navi. So, even though Majora’s Mask is much more similar to aLttP in structure than OoT, Navi stayed. Or rather, her concept stayed under a different name.

But the N64 is done. The GameCube is announced and the new tech is amazing. The best console specs in that generation, as it would turn out. That meant fewer limits on the world size, the tech for 3d cameras had time to mature, and Nintendo learned how to communicate space in 3d. So we saw the first even return-to-form for a Zelda game. Mostly it was a return to the style of aLttP, but we even saw one interesting feature return from the original Legend of Zelda. That is, in Wind Waker, the world was organized as a grid of spaces.

It was kind of a brilliant piece of design. In the first Legend of Zelda you could never see beyond the edge of the screen, each time the screen scrolled over was a new chance to surprise. But even still, they were able to make sure you could still navigate the world without getting too lost by making the world... kind of small. I mean, no doubt it was full of interesting content, but there weren’t actually that many screens in the original Zelda’s world. And that made it easier for players to recognize landmarks, remember all of the things they wanted to come back to, and remember paths through the world. And in Wind Waker they found a way to replicate that sense of exploring a limited set of spaces on a grid. Except this time the grid was a massive ocean, and each screen was the size of an entire island. You never got confused exploring the ocean because there are only a few really important islands to go to. And you never got confused exploring an island because you can see the whole thing at once!

And that isn’t the only return to form. Wind Waker favored open exploration over the linear epic storylines of OoT. It cut down on Z-targeting and allowed for more free navigation and puzzle-solving even if there were enemies around. And, back to the topic at hand, it didn’t have a companion character. At least, it sort of didn’t. The King of Red Lions acted as this sort of Sahasrahla-like character (complete with telepathy). He would direct you to certain island (annoyingly locking you into an island once at the beginning) but he could never tell you how to explore each island. He was pretty hands-off. And there were certainly more cinematic moments in the game which featured companion characters, like Makar, Medli, and Zelda at the end. But it was never anything on the scale of OoT.

With Twilight Princess there isn’t much to talk about besides the fact that, for reasons that I can’t really explain, Nintendo chose to return to Ocarina of Time’s style of play. Not that this was a bad thing, OoT and TP are both classics, but it seems strange that they would return to OoT’s style having made almost no improvements at all. The companion and the strict guided-ness of TP got slightly more overbearing than OoT, but it wasn’t so much as to ruin the experience. And the story and characters were good enough to make us be okay with it. (Seriously, who doesn’t love Midna?)

And then... Skyward Sword. There’s a lot to unpack here.

First, the game wanted to use motion controls, you can’t fault it for that. I think most of us wanted to try out a motion control Zelda, even though it kind of seemed like nobody could do the sword thing properly. And in classic Nintendo style they started tying up loose strings. The motion controls become a character. Thus Fi joins the roster!

Second, Skyward Sword was made by a new director for the series mainline games. Maybe it was that Hidemaro Fujibayashi wanted to continue following in line with the Ocarina of Time style of play, or maybe it was that Nintendo wasn’t confident letting him go Wild on his first game (hah hah). But he pushed towards this more directed structure. More directed even than Twilight Princess was.

And with these two things together, Fi came out as... Well, she was the motion controls (a feature that wasn’t well-received) and she also heavily directed the player more than any other Zelda game (also not well-received). And the result was that she become a frustrating, hand-holding, symbol of whatever feature the player personally didn’t like in the game. I mean personally I like Fi. I think she’s cute, and her final scene made me cry. And I mean, (unpopular opinion) the motion controls were kinda fun. But there’s no doubt that she’s overwhelmingly hated.

And then we come to Breath of the Wild, the truest Return To Form in the series. The design is almost exactly, point for point, the same as the design of the first Zelda game. Except this time, we’re fully leveraging the power of 3d graphics. You can see distant objectives, which helps you self-direct. The world is broken up into recognizable regions, so no worry about getting lost. And the concept that you only have to do what you want to do is turned up to 11. The only things that the game forces you to do are learn how to play, and beat the final boss. Every path you take is a path you choose.

So given all of that background... of course there’s no companion character in BotW. Why would it need one?

[entergamingxp]

Gears Tactics Review (PC) — Time to Switch Gears

April 27, 2020 9:00 AM EST

Effectively blending the Gears of War universe with strategy gameplay, Gears Tactics is a fast-paced experience that succeeds on both fronts.

In the last few weeks before I started up Gears Tactics to review, I had played through Gears 5 since I hadn’t quite gotten to it when it released last fall. Since it’s been some time since playing Gears of War 4, I felt familiarizing myself with the gameplay elements of Gears again would be good context for how the developers at Splash Damage and The Coalition would approach a tactics game take on the third-person shooter series.

Thankfully, when I started up Gears Tactics and went through its opening levels, I didn’t feel nearly the whiplash that I expected coming to it from Gears 5. While it took some time to adjust to the feel of playing a squad tactics game versus a third-person shooter, through and through, Gears Tactics is still very much a Gears game, just interpreted differently. All of the familiar elements that fans would expect from the series have been translated authentically into a new genre, and now it just makes me wonder why we didn’t have a strategy Gears of War game a lot sooner.

The core campaign of Gears Tactics takes place over a decade before the events of the original Gears of War and follows the story of Gabe Diaz, who is the father of Gears 5’s protagonist, Kate Diaz. After being enlisted by veteran COG soldier Sid Redburn, Gabe and Sid go on a mission to recruit Gears to hunt down Ukkon, a Locust scientist that would lead to the creation of the Locust’s most dangerous foes like the Brumak and Corpser, while encountering other challenges and rising tension to try and save humanity.

As a prequel to the events of the first game, Gears Tactics slightly treads some familiar ground and scenery for series’ fans, but its production value and extra dimensions to the lore shouldn’t make you doubt that it’s a Gears game all the same. Each mission starts and ends with excellently-produced cutscenes that feel like they could be right at home in Gears 5, and given Gabe’s relationship with Kate, longtime fans are in for some interesting connections and revelations. Though it may not be one of the series’ deepest or most interesting stories, Gears Tactics still offers worthwhile moments that fans will want to experience for themselves.

“Gears Tactics is still very much a Gears game, just interpreted differently.”

To put it in the simplest way, Gears Tactics is essentially Gears of War meets XCOM, as its gameplay borrows liberally from the mechanics that have made XCOM the household name in squad-based tactics games. The core elements of XCOM’s gameplay–commanding a squad of characters, using action points to command them, and Overwatch–are all here as you might expect them to be. While things might feel familiar at first if you’ve played any XCOM game before, Gears Tactics takes the foundation of what works well in XCOM and layers in its own elements to make it feel like a more distinctly Gears of War experience.

Make no mistake, even though Gears Tactics is in a completely different style of play from the core games, it still looks and feels like a Gears of War game in the right ways. All of the small touches from the series are here; you can chainsaw Locust into a bloody mess, slide into cover, turn enemies into globs of meat with a Mulcher, and kick Tickers into groups of baddies for an explosive surprise. Even the distinctive Gears guitar riff that plays once you’ve cleared the battlefield of enemies makes its way into Gears Tactics, making it feel right in line with the games that have come before it.

“Gears Tactics takes the foundation of what works well in XCOM and layers in its own elements to make it feel like a more distinctly Gears of War experience.”

However, Gears Tactics isn’t just simply Gears of XCOM. Though its core gameplay is largely inspired by XCOM, Gears Tactics makes a few fundamental changes that reinterpret how it plays. By comparison, Gears Tactics is meant to feel like a much faster-paced and action-driven experience, largely because each unit has three actions per turn compared to two in XCOM. This small but impactful change in Gears Tactics gives players a much larger degree of flexibility, as you can now move a unit, fire at an enemy, and use an ability or reload all in the same turn. Gears Tactics also frees players from the constraints of a grid-based movement system, as instead you can move and place units wherever you see fit, with the distance they can move being governed by the amount of action points they have left. With so many areas offering cover that your characters can use to mount their defenses, the battlefield naturally sort of has a “grid-like structure” to begin with, and gives some agency to how and where you are moving.

One of XCOM’s signature abilities, Overwatch, similarly has a neat overhaul in Gears Tactics by having players drag a cone onto a section of the map to determine what area they will guard. It’s a simple but effective implementation that not only easily shows players how far a unit’s Overwatch will see an incoming enemy, but also affects its range and accuracy. Dragging the Overwatch cone out will increase its spread but decrease its accuracy, while keeping its range closer and less spread out from your character will make them way more likely to deal greater damage to an approaching enemy.

“Splash Damage and The Coalition have given players a lot to work with to make their squad their own in Gears Tactics.”

Though these larger overall changes are a big departure from the limitations that XCOM purposefully imposes on players to increase tension, Gears Tactics doesn’t let up in any way on difficulty or challenge (including whether you decide to play with Ironman Mode enabled or not). But while Gears Tactics has changed up some of the rules of XCOM, what really sets it apart are the Gears-inspired gameplay touches that add extra depth and elements to a strong tactical gameplay foundation. The ways that Splash Damage and The Coalition have integrated some of Gears’ most familiar elements are more than just fan service, but actually have vital roles in the gameplay and can wildly change up your tactics.

Executions especially are one of the best aspects of the series that Gears Tactics implements into a strategy game setting. Once you get an enemy unit down to a certain amount of health, they’ll be downed and vulnerable to an execution by one of your units. Aside from witnessing the gory scenes that we’ve come to know and love from the Gears games, executions in Gears Tactics also have the benefit of giving each of your other units an extra action that round, making them hugely advantageous to, well…execute. In one round of a level where I executed three enemy Locust Drones with one of my Snipers, I was able to gain basically an entire extra turn with all of my other squad members, allowing me to set up a devastating turn for the next wave of enemies.

“Gears Tactics goes all out with customization for each unit, and it’s one of the game’s best elements that I hope makes its way into future mainline Gears titles.”

Players in Gears Tactics will command a squad of up to four characters throughout the campaign, which is usually divided in a level between one or two “hero” characters that are crucial to the story (such as Gabe or Sid), and assorted Gears soldiers that you’ll recruit along the way. Each of your soldiers is based on one of five classes (Support, Vanguard, Scout, Sniper, and Heavy) that have their own specialized abilities and weapon preferences. While you can’t change the fundamentals of these classes like what primary weapon they’re using and their feature set, over the course of the campaign you’ll be able to gain new weapon parts that can alter different stats like damage, accuracy, and ammo capacity, along with using skill points to unlock new abilities or passive skills. Each class features their own distinctive skill trees with several paths and specializations, as Splash Damage and The Coalition have given players a lot to work with to make their squad their own in Gears Tactics.

The extensive array of customization options for your squad members in Gears Tactics also adds a whole other level to make each character feel distinct from one another. When I first started gaining new Gears Recruits that I could add to my squad, I spent more than a fair share of time just tweaking the various settings and custom features that you can add to them. While they start out randomly generated, Recruits can be completely altered to your liking compared to hero units, other than their race, gender, and class. You can alter their hairstyle and color, name, and customize each of their weapons and armor down to their color, metal finish, adding a design pattern, and more. Gears Tactics goes all out with customization for each unit, and it’s one of the game’s best elements that I hope makes its way into future mainline Gears titles.

“Each of the bosses that you come up against feature some of the most iconic big bads in the Gears universe, and they’re all thrilling to engage with in their own ways.”

When taking your squad members out onto the battlefield, the core gameplay of Gears Tactics–like the third-person shooter series that inspired it–revolves heavily around utilizing cover and staying aggressive against enemies, maybe even more so than in the core Gears games. With the game being turn-based, players will really have to put a lot of consideration into where they are moving their units and how they are covered, as a unit placed in poor cover or a bad position can easily be overwhelmed by an approaching enemy squad. While Gears Tactics might be challenging for those that may not play a ton of strategy games (or even for those that do), it’s a flexible experience that prioritizes speed and action over hunkering down and playing too defensively.

Like in the core Gears games, each Locust enemy unit that you come up against in Gears Tactics has their own unique ways of being taken down that you’ll have to utilize on the battlefield. At first you’ll come up against units like Drones and Wretches that aren’t huge threats but can overwhelm you with their numbers. Later on you’ll be facing more specialized Locust units like the Grenadier, which can do heavy damage to characters up-close, Snipers that will pin your characters in place, and others that you’ll need to exploit their weaknesses in order to take them out effectively. Gears Tactics can get pretty challenging with the number of enemies that you’ll have to fight in a map, making it easy to get overwhelmed. However, the way it tutorializes each enemy type and teaches the player how to deal with them feels smart and well-developed, especially once things get much more difficult later in the game.

“Gears Tactics still feels remarkably in line with the rest of the series and is a thrilling, worthwhile experience that Gears fans and strategy game veterans will enjoy.”

This all culminates in several boss fights during the campaign of Gears Tactics, which put all of the player’s tactical skills to the test and are some of the best encounters in the game as a whole. Each of the bosses that you come up against feature some of the most iconic big bads in the Gears universe, and they’re all thrilling to engage with in their own ways, especially once you figure out their attack patterns and weaknesses to take them down. The very first boss fight that you’ll engage in at the end of the first chapter has your squad going up against a towering Brumak, equipped with homing missiles, chainguns, and a deadly stomp attack if your characters get too close. While at first this fight felt like an overwhelming challenge, once I figured out the key strategies that I needed to employ–splitting up my squad members and keeping my distance–the Brumak fight became a thrill where everything I learned in the game up to that point clicked into place.

Gears Tactics at first seems like a straightforward premise that blends two incredibly popular franchises together, but that shouldn’t be mistaken for it lacking depth or fun. Despite playing in a completely different style compared to the core Gears games, Gears Tactics still feels remarkably in line with the rest of the series and is a thrilling, worthwhile experience that Gears fans and strategy game veterans will enjoy, while being completely accessible to newcomers. If you consider Gears as chocolate and XCOM as peanut butter, Gears Tactics is how they meet: a combination of ingredients you’ve likely had before, but together, they just work so damn well.

April 27, 2020 9:00 AM EST

from EnterGamingXP https://entergamingxp.com/2020/04/gears-tactics-review-pc-time-to-switch-gears/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=gears-tactics-review-pc-time-to-switch-gears