Should the Legend of Zelda contain motion controls?
Debate Round Forfeited
PowerPikachu21 has forfeited round #4.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
|Voting Style:||Open||Point System:||7 Point|
|Updated:||6 months ago||Status:||Debating Period|
|Viewed:||265 times||Debate No:||94479|
Debate Rounds (4)
The Legend of Zelda is one of Nintendo's popular games. Though when Skyward Sword came out, it recieved some negative opinions. Skyward Sword was the first game in the series to use motion controls. MatPat debated the subject with Reggie (Reggie is from Nintendo). Now, I'll take the debate here on debate.org.
1. BoP is shared. I have to show that motion controls are good. The Contender must show motion controls shouldn't be used in LoZ.
2. No kritiks, semantics, or trolling of any sort.
3. The forfeit glitch is present. DO NOT FORFEIT (run out of time)!
Motion controls: When the game acts upon your movements (such as in Skyward Sword, the sword is held and swung based on how you the player do it).
Should: being advantageous to the games.
[The definitions will stay these. Unless there's a better version of the definitions, but not a completely different definition]
I will argue that motion controls should be used in the Legend of Zelda. Who supports MatPat's side that motion controls should stay away from LoZ?
I will not post any arguments in this round, so that we both get the same number of arguments. I do not accept all defintions, was hoping more for this:
Motion controls: When the in game character's movements are controled by the player's movements, excluding pressing of buttons.
Reason To Prefer (RTP):
The preivious defintion would include the pressing of buttons, which would be unfair to Con.
Other than that, I accept the terms and conditions of the debate.
As a side note, can I begin rebutals at any time? Or is that strictly for round 3 and onwards?
I thank David_Debates for accepting. And I agree his definition of "motion controls" is better. With that, here's why LoZ should contain motion controls.
Point 1; More Immersive.
Would you rather just press a button, or "actually" swing the sword to fight? Pressing a button isn't too immersive. But having the player able to control how Link swings his sword allows you to feel more like you're actually fighting.
Take Skyward Sword, for example. A lot of enemies can only be defeated if you swing the sword a certain way, so you must be focused. This focus will immerse you into the world of Hyrule. Slashing away at your foes when they're vulernable. LoZ is about waiting for your chance to strike, slower paced than most RPG games. What better way to fight Ghirahim than swinging your sword accordingly? Just imagine doing vertical slashes, horzontal slices, and spin attacks to counter Ghirahim's knives.
And now try to imagine doing this in Twilight Princess.
Point 2; More available actions.
In games Twilight Princess and prior, Link only sings his sword according to pressing a button, doing a standard 4 hit combo. Not exactly the best method of deflecting knives. This is another advantage to motion controls. You swing the Wii Remote down, Link does the same. You choose how Link should swing his sword. Whether vertical, horizontal, diagonal, or a spin attack. This allows you to fight bosses that need a specific direction of swinging the sword to defeat. This would be practically impossible in Twilight Princess.
Point 3; Not as repetitive.
Imagine seeing a new game come out. You're doing the same thing in all of its sequels. It would get kind of boring after a while.
The same with the Legend of Zelda. Pressing a button gets old. So why not shake things up a bit, why not experiment? This was Nintendo's thinking when making Skyward Sword (at least the experimenting part). Adding motion controls changed the LoZ franchise. Was it a good change? Opinions vary. But it's always good to shake things up a bit.
The Contender can choose to make rebuttals if we wishes. But he must build a constructive case. With that, what do you say?
I think I'll save rebutals for R3, that way we have equal rounds to rebut each other's arguments. With that in mind, constructives.
1) Motion controls make combat laborious.
Motion controls are precise. Pro is right that you must be focused when fighting every enemy. But this is the very problem.
As I'd assume you know, each enemy in Skyward Sword (hereby refered to as SS) has a certain weak point. The weak point is different on every enemy, and, because of this, you must take on enimies one by one. You have to fight every Deku Baba with the same "focus" as a larger enemy which you should be spending more effort on. This turns combat from a fun, exiting element of the game into a chore. Many gamers (including me) got so annoyed by this that they avoided certain areas just so they wouldn't have to fight boring, repetitive, laborious "normal" enimies. In a game that centers around exploring, you should never hit the point where you say, "Nah, I don't want to explore there, there's 'normal' enimies." In short, motion controls make it a chore to fight enimies and expore.
2) Motion controls make combat the center, in a game about exporing.
I'm sure you might have heard of Egoraptor's opinions on this topic, and I stand by them completely. When you make combat the focus of a game, you nessesarily give up many other elements of the game, such as exploring. This is particularly bad when you realise that, at its core, LoZ is a game about exploring, not fighting. It's about secrets you can find, not about at what angle you have to swing your sword to kill a certain enemy. It never has, and it certainly shouldn't be.
3) Negative reception
This might be the simplest point: fans didn't like them. They thought they were boring, overly complicated, and not nessesary. One gamer even went as far as to say that he liked it better when he played it on an emulator with an Xbox controller, just so that he wouldn't have to use the "drama from the motion controls (1)." No matter how many hypothetical arguments Pro makes, he must face the fact that the fans did not like the motion controls. It would not be in Nintendo's or LoZ's best intrests to make a game that the fans don't want.
Pro, how do you respond?
Posting this at the last possible hour. Anyways, on to my rebuttals.
"The weak point is different on every enemy, and, because of this, you must take on enimies one by one."
Uhh... don't we usually fight Zelda enemies 1 on 1 anyways? It doesn't matter whether it's Wind Waker, Twilight Princess, or Skyward Sword, when enemies are in groups, you have to be careful.
Although in SS, you could fight 2 Vertical Babas, and 1 Horizontal Baba at once, but all that really changes is how you swing the sword. They're still Deku Babas, and they're grouped together. But the difficulty adds thrill to the battles, especially if you're swinging the sword.
"This turns combat from a fun, exiting element of the game into a chore. Many gamers (including me) got so annoyed by this that they avoided certain areas just so they wouldn't have to fight boring, repetitive, laborious "normal" enimies."
I do concede the fights can be tedious, and some people don't bother fighting enemies. But it still can be fun for others (Then again, I haven't played Skyward Sword in years, so I don't know). I personally like the idea of swinging the sword in the right directions.
Combat in Exploration:
"When you make combat the focus of a game, you nessesarily give up many other elements of the game, such as exploring. This is particularly bad when you realise that, at its core, LoZ is a game about exploring, not fighting."
Skyward Sword does still have secrets here and there. But has Skyward Sword made its motion controlled fighting the bigger focus?
"not about at what angle you have to swing your sword to kill a certain enemy."
Like you said earlier, these fights aren't required. You can still explore, and you can also manually control the sword. But what has the bigger focus, exploring, the new battle system, or do they have almost equal? (I don't know...)
The fans didn't like it:
"They thought they were boring, overly complicated, and not nessesary."
Boring, I get. Overly complicated, not exactly. Not nessecary, sure, but better than pressing a button against Ghirahim.
"One gamer even went as far as to say that he liked it better when he played it on an emulator with an Xbox controller"
I wonder how he got through it. Also, I don't see your source.
"No matter how many hypothetical arguments Pro makes, he must face the fact that the fans did not like the motion controls. It would not be in Nintendo's or LoZ's best intrests to make a game that the fans don't want."
Skyward Sword's base is indeed the motion controls, yes. But Nintendo decided to put motion controls in a game. How often are you suggesting these new controls should be used had they made another LoZ game with motion controls? You have motion controls, let's not let them go to waste. Although the control scheme can seem to be over-used, the next Zelda game is able to tone it down with the motion puzzles.
I do concede that fans didn't like SS, but this doesn't mean Nintendo can't try again, and make another motion controlled LoZ game, with toned down puzzles and fewer strict enemies.
My opponent will do rebuttals Round 3, as well as defend his own case. With that, what to you say?
1) More Immersive
I would agree to Pro's contention...
Provided the motion controls are actualy working.
This was one of the major complants from gamers: the motion controls did not work. The sword would not go the way that it was swung, their actions were not translated to the Wii, in other words, they couldn't control thier character. And, in a game that is completely dependent upon motion controls (SS), when the motion controls don't work, the game is unplayable. You cannot defeat the enimies, you cannot complete the puzzles, you cannot play the game.
Analog sticks and buttons don't have this problem. They are responsive and they work reliably. They don't have the problems that I have mentioned. In my eyes, and in the eyes of many gamers, they are the superior choice (just look at the comments section on this site) (1+2).
2) More available actions.
Not nessesarily a good thing. When there are more avaliable actions, it makes combat way more complicated than it has to be. I would respond with my 1st and 2nd contentions from R2, that more avaliable actions make combat both laborious and shift away from the entire premise of LoZ.
3) Not as repetitive.
Quite the opposite. Motion controls make combat the same, boring chore. See contention 1.
Also, I'd argue that no matter what type of controls you use, they would become repetitive. It's just a different way of controling the character, after a while, it would become repetitive. The same enemies, the same strategies, the same controls. They don't change during the gameplay, do they, Pro?
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click thelink at the top of the page.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.