Zelda Wii U: Cooperative Multiplayer is the Next-Gen Revolution We’ve All Been Waiting For

zelda-wii-u-co-op-multiplayer

This is a staff response piece to this week’s “Weekend Wondering” community poll question: “Are You More Excited About Non-Linearity or Multiplayer for Zelda Wii U?” Feel free to share your own thoughts on the subject in the comments!

My last response piece for this week’s Zelda Wii U poll dealt with how to approach non-linearity in an effective and meaningful way. Today, it’s time to focus on what it’d take to nail cooperative play.

Eiji Aonuma said that the second convention he and his team are working on breaking for the next Zelda is the idea that players will go through their adventure alone. Naturally, we expect some kind of Miiverse integration to give players help in solving difficult puzzles or finding out where to go – and we hope this means that there’ll be a lot less forced hand-holding in the actual game – but simply making use of basic Miiverse functionality won’t really be a game-changer.

I think it’s time for Zelda to embrace cooperative play: not just as a central gimmick, but as a way of enhancing its value by letting you enjoy your adventures through Hyrule with friends.

Fortunately for Zelda fans, it’s not as though Nintendo hasn’t dabbled in this area before.

The first cooperative multiplayer Zelda game was The Wind Waker back in 2003, which featured a special item called the “Tingle Tuner” that allowed a second player to join in using a Game Boy Advance as a controller. This second player could aid the main player by using Rupees to generate items and various other effects – bombing faraway targets, giving the player the brief ability to hover, and so on.

At around the same time, the team releases Four Swords, a four-player dungeon-crawler with its own separate mythology, on Game Boy Advance. Players controlled one of four Links, each of whom could battle enemies and solve puzzles with the trusty Four Sword and one extra item, which each player could choose as they progressed through the maze-like levels. This same approach to multiplayer was blown up for the console space in Four Swords Adventures. Essential to the games was the fact that players each got their own screen, and as such could explore the various corners of the dungeons at will instead of being tied to their fellow friends.

fsa-artwork

Most recently, the Zelda-themed attraction in Wii U’s Nintendo Land – “The Legend of Zelda: Battle Quest” – added in cooperative battling and asymmetric roles for tackling hordes of difficult enemies. While one (or more) players go in at close range to cut a path through with their swords, the GamePad player can offer support from a distance, weakening the enemies’ ranks and taking out any ranged foes so warriors don’t have to worry about fire from above.

I’m noticing a running theme across all of these multiplayer modes: they all involve dividing up roles between players. The player using the Tingle Tuner in Wind Waker has a very different set of abilities than Link’s standard fare; each player can use a different item in Four Swords; and swordsmen and archers can work together to more effectively fend off enemies in Battle Quest.

Given the developers’ experience in carving out multiplayer modes where each player can play a unique part in battling enemies and finding secrets, I think the best route for Zelda Wii U would be to translate many of the cooperative elements we’ve seen so far into a fully-fledged Zelda experience – specifically, the cooperative combat seen in Nintendo Land.

Offering meaningful ways for players to bring different weapons and skills

Typically, when we think of the weapons and items we’ll carry with us as we play through a Zelda game, we think of gathering a vast and varied arsenal, including a sword and shield, a bow and bombs, a hookshot, and so on. Rather than picking and choosing equipment to balance out our characters against the challenges ahead, we’re used to just being able to carry everything around with us.

In Battle Quest, however, things are very different. Instead of getting to easily switch back and forth between the sword and bow, players are more or less locked in to one particular battle role. Swordsmen fight up-close and use their broad shields to repel attacks; archers fire from a distance and dive out of the way to avoid enemies. Naturally, a lot of this differentiation has to do with the more limited mobility of the game thanks to its on-rails structure… but I think the core idea behind carving out those different roles is a solid one.

battle-quest-screen

I don’t think it’d ever be possible to separate Zelda from the idea that the player wields a sword against his or her foes. In that sense, taking the sword away from the player in order to offer him or her the role of ranger in combat doesn’t seem like it’d be a good idea. I was mulling over how best to address this problem, when suddenly it hit me: the difference between a warrior and a ranger could be that the warrior has a shield, while the ranger has a bow.

Think about it: Link usually carries his shield on his back, attached to the scabbard for his sword. In Battle Quest, we see that the archer also carries the bow on his or her back. Couldn’t there then be an option to choose your combat role based on which “secondary” piece of equipment you choose to bring with you – the shield or the bow?

Just like in Battle Quest, warriors would shine when they fight up close, primarily using their shields to repel enemy attacks, while archers aim from afar and have more agile dodge moves at their disposal to avoid taking blows. Meanwhile, both players would have a sword at their side, meaning they can both fight in traditional Zelda style should they so choose. Warriors wouldn’t necessarily have to be at a total disadvantage against ranged enemies, either – items like the slingshot or hookshot could still allow them to strike back at enemies from a distance, just not with the lethal force of the archer’s bow.

I’ve proposed another possible “character class” in a previous article tackling the question of asymmetric multiplayer for Zelda Wii U: the magic-user. In our current role-based model, the magic-user would wield neither a shield or a bow – instead, he or she would bring a host of powerful spells, some of them offering defensive or ranged abilities. And, of course, the magic-user would still be able to wield a sword.

Warriors would have access to a wide variety of shields: shields of different materials, including the traditional wooden, metal, and magic shields, plus a few new varieties; or shields of various size and weight, with lighter, smaller shields that let players pull off quicker evasive maneuvers while heavier shields slow them down but have greater durability.

zelda-shield-upgrades

Archers could choose from multiple bows and arrow types: shortbows or longbows whose effectiveness varies based on range; arrows that fly faster, add armor-piercing effects, include magical elemental properties, and so on.

With magic-users, the field is wide open: the developers can offer whatever kinds of magical spells they think would be a good fit for the world of Zelda. We could see spells based on the ones from The Adventure of Link, or we could see more RPG-like ideas like support spells, effect damage, and so on take the stage.

The real trick would be how to approach this concept for the single-player mode. Does each player have to choose a particular role at the start of the game and remain locked in throughout? Could players swap between roles at certain points to adapt to various situations and challenges? Or would a single-player game let players gather up everything, with “class”-based roles reserved for cooperative play? Personally, I think any of these setups could work well.

The freedom to play the way you want

While character classes are an interesting way to give players different playstyles to choose from, I don’t think the emphasis on player freedom should end there. Given the advantages offered by the Wii U GamePad, the Pro Controller, and Wii MotionPlus, I think it’d be essential to ensure that players can use whichever controller they choose, regardless of which character class they prefer.

Fortunately, I don’t think it’d be too difficult to adapt each playstyle to each controller.

battle-quest-asymmetric-larger

Wii MotionPlus has already proven its adaptability to both motion-based sword combat and aiming, so enabling these features yet again for Zelda Wii U would be a snap. Players who choose the Wii U GamePad could control the direction of their sword attacks using the left Control Stick in conjunction with button presses, just as they did for all the 3D Zelda games prior to Skyward Sword, and could choose between gyro-based or stick-based aiming for ranged attacks. And, of course, the Wii U Pro Controller has perfect parity with all the buttons and sticks present on the GamePad, meaning that control-wise the two could work in virtually the same way.

This means that, whether you’re playing through the single-player mode or with friends, you’ll get to choose not only the weapons and abilities you prefer but the controller you want to use as well.

A game that’s balanced for multiple players

One of the reasons why the asymmetrical cooperative play of Nintendo Land works so well is that it’s very well-balanced. If a player goes solo, the game only throws challenges at the player that are appropriate not only to the player’s particular combat role, but to the fact that he or she is going at it alone. You won’t face any archers hiding out in watch towers if you have a sword, because there’s simply no way to hit them. Add more players, and the challenge level increases. You’ll face not only more enemies, but more challenging combinations of enemies.

This careful attention to game balance means that it’s just as solid a game whether you’re playing alone or with friends, but at the same time it’s clear that more players add more value to the game and its challenges.

If Nintendo really does plan to implement cooperative play in Zelda Wii U, it’s going to be important that they give the game balance the same level of attention and care. The game needs to be fun and challenging in its own right whether you’re playing by yourself or with others – that goes for the placement and number of enemies, the way in which the enemy AI attacks and responds to your moves, and so on.

journey-coop

Multiplayer has to be an added option, there for players to take advantage of if they wish, not the game’s “true form” that makes the single-player mode pale in comparison. At the same time, adding more players shouldn’t break the game or interfere with the experience. We saw with New Super Mario Bros. Wii that adding cooperative play into Nintendo’s most cherished franchises actually has a lot of potential to get people excited, but the execution has to be just right so that the game’s still just as outstanding either way.

Online play is a must

It’s 2013. The era of online play is here, and it’s time for Nintendo to stop being stingy about it.

In today’s world, it’s often the case that the games without a strong online presence fade away in time – and if the next Zelda really is going to offer multiplayer, there’s really no reason why that multiplayer should be limited to local play. I should be able to play with my favorite online communities, with family and friends who may live hundreds of miles away. Nailing a AAA online experience for a game like Zelda would be a critical step toward Nintendo reassuring people that they’re serious about taking advantage of the power of the Internet.

On the most basic level, online play could function in the very same way as local play. You’d have the same story mode, the same character classes, and so on – you’d just be connected to other players over long distances rather than within the same living room.

This looks to be the same approach we’ve seen with Monster Hunter, and that Nintendo’s very own Monolith Soft is taking with its next game. It seems to be totally playable offline, but with an MMO-style online component that lets players adventure together.

monolith-soft-xenoblade-wiiu-trailer

But I don’t think Zelda‘s online presence should stop there.

Taking Zelda Wii U online also means there’s tons of potential to continually add to the game beyond pricey DLC expansion packs: new weapon upgrades, new areas and dungeons, and new enemies and bosses. Of course, Nintendo would still have to keep to their word that they won’t release an incomplete game just because they can always add more to it later. The extra Internet-based content really would have to be “extra” – a true “expansion pack” rather than stuff that simply didn’t make the cut the first time.

If the game sells well enough, they could channel some of those profits into developing what virtually amounts to a second quest style online endgame as a thank you to players for their strong support. It’d be a satisfying way to tide over players until the next full game comes along, without having to rely exclusively on HD remakes to span the gap between releases.

Multiplayer is the next-gen revolution that will transform Zelda as we know it

Just like Ocarina of Time‘s 3D world caused a revolution for the franchise, adding a deep multiplayer component will forever change the series’ conventions. No longer will we think of multiplayer as something for spin-offs and extra modes: it’ll become a core feature instead.

While the fact that Zelda‘s kind of “late to the party” in terms of taking full advantage of cooperative play means it won’t completely change the way video games are made going forward, it’ll still mean that the series will at long last have dived fully into “next-gen.”

More GenGAME Articles on Zelda Wii U

Check out Zelda for Wii U at Zelda Dungeon:

  • http://www.facebook.com/aaron.lefebvre.161 Aaron Lefebvre

    That would be amazing, but i am worried it will stay Local MP. Nintendo is just having a hard time getting into the Online Play world. If Nintendo Land would of been Online Play it would of been MUCH higher rated, and would have far more people playing it then there are right now. I am all for a Co-op LoZ game, but it HAS TO WORK! There are so many things that could go wrong, and things we need before playing an online LoZ game.. Like oh idK.. Mics on the pro controller, and party chat.. Would be nice to have ( but not needed) achievements/trophies system in the Wii-U. Sure i know it would seem that its copying, but its a function that we should have, and most would love. They need to be making great serves for Nintendo if they want all of their games to be online as well. Other than that, i am completely up for it.

  • http://twitter.com/RPGFan2k Stealth

    stupid article

    • http://www.gengame.net/ Alex Plant

      As you’re apparently one of our most regular visitors and commenters, I’d like to say thanks for helping us to increase our comment counts and make this article more attractive to the disqus community!

      • http://twitter.com/RPGFan2k Stealth

        Its sort of less attractive since I use my pull to make sure nobody else has to come here

        • http://www.gengame.net/ Alex Plant

          The magic of comment counts is that people are more likely to read something that has more comments, regardless of what the comments say.

        • LegendaryHero

          No need to be a douchebag.

    • Joe

      I think it’s good to see an article discussing the comment made in the nintendo direct about multiplayer in zelda. As soon as I saw the announcement I was sure these kind of articles would be springing up left, right and center. They didn’t (or at least my google searches haven’t been successful in digging them up) =

  • jorden1506

    nah i don’t need it

    • http://www.gengame.net/ Alex Plant

      It’s not really about whether you need it – it’s about the fact that Aonuma’s more or less spelled out that it’s going to be there, and we’d like to see it done right, and at next-gen levels of rightness.

  • Death47

    Ehh I don’t know. It could very well work, but I really don’t see multiplayer working for Zelda. I like the idea of more rpg elements, but many people, including myself, prefer single player.
    Also, not all games need online or even a multiplayer component, we need single-player games as well, or else, in the future, single player games will most likely fade away, especially if their fanbases are urging the developers towards multiplayer. And that would be a terrible, terrible thing. We need both single and multiplayer games in this industry. Zelda is single player and it should stay there.
    However, for Metroid, I believe a multiplayer component could work, but that might ruin the atmosphere in the games. It gives you the sense you’re alone (except other m and fusion) Super Metroid set a great atmosphere and I don’t know if they could pull it off with a multiplayer mode.

  • http://www.facebook.com/coolkangarooo Gabriel Gomez

    You make it sound like you want it to be a little more like an RPG multiplayer game than a simple Zelda multiplayer game.

    • http://www.gengame.net/ Alex Plant

      Not at all – or, at least, that’s not really how I see it.

      I want just enough options and “extra stuff” to collect and customize your arsenal with so that there are multiple ways to play (and so that you can take on more challenging minimal runs with much weaker gear and not just less life), and so that you can team up with friends and actually add something meaningful to each others’ experiences (like the example of teaming up a warrior with an archer).

      But I think it needs to be deep enough that it has many of the possibilities of an RPG, but an RPG that plays like a Zelda game. (Instead of a Zelda game that plays like an RPG.)

      Zelda was the “trigger” that led to the console RPG as we know it today. Now I feel like it has the chance to be “ahead of the curve” again by bringing a lot of those ideas – optional equipment, more choices for how to defeat enemies, etc. – back to the forefront, along with multiplayer that competes with MMOs while offering Zelda-like action instead of the more restricted, rule-based RPG-like mechanics.

      • Joe

        nah, the fast moving parts in mario you just kill your teammates ;)

  • Dane Brown

    I think that what you’ve written, the ideas you’ve put in place are good, in theory, but this os Zelda you’re talking about, not Final Fantasy, World of Warcraft, games that already offer an option (to some extent) to allow the player to pick and choose what their character does. I may sound like I’m being negative, but I’m just putting it into perspective. Zelda has been around for 26 years now, why jump in the deep end and make what could be seen as drastic changes.

    • http://www.gengame.net/ Alex Plant

      I guess I’d like to think there’s a way to innovate player development in a way that’d make multiplayer actually resonate with people rather than being a forgettable tacked-on possibility.

      Remember that Zelda is the FORERUNNER of games like Final Fantasy and World of Warcraft – yet while those games have become more feature-rich, it seems like Zelda has focused less on expanding its core features and more on gimmickry.

      • Ty Adams

        DnD was the forerunner of RPG’s

  • Skyward Schlong

    I don’t know what Nintendo’s going to do, but I have to believe it will be excellent. I just haven’t heard a suggestion I can get on board with.

  • EjDunn

    So long as the multiplayer is not mandatory and im able to play the game single player without any handicap it’s fine, because it adds something you can do on a second play through. Though if the game requires another person to play with you in order to advance, or if it forces multiplayer onto you, i will be extremely disappointed.
    I play Zelda for the single player campaign, where i can do what i want at my own pace.

  • Terrak

    I think adding some of the suggested features is a great idea, as long as it keeps the spirit of the Zelda series there. Online and local Coop for the campaign would be number one on my list. Of course the option to play entirely single player should be there too for those that prefer it that way.

    There’s nothing wrong with adding more to an awesome franchise such as Zelda. I’d like to see more choice given to the players how they want to approach the game. Getting one item after another to get from point a to b has always been great but i would also like to see how player choice can effect the way the game goes. Put more power to your sword you can kill easier but your defense is weaker. Make your shield more powerful you can defend more but your attack is weaker or balance it out but have no advantages. This an example BTW . Upgrades like that makes the player decide whats best for there style of play and always have its pros and cons. I think by adding a mechanic like that to the game shouldn’t take away from the Zelda Experience.

    I hope they Evolve the game without ruining the essence of what it is to be a Zelda game. Nintendo has its best team working on it so I’m sure they will get it right.

  • http://www.facebook.com/happybacteria Naibooru Thornton

    i’m not sure about this :/ ….. i guess we’ll see how this works out

  • K2L

    As long as the co-op is optional, I’m all for it. Otherwise, no.

  • B-man

    Id personally like to see Zelda/ Tetra become a sidekick to Link, and while link would be more focused on swordplay and various tools and equipment, Zelda could be more magic based, and when playing solo you could switch between the two characters to solve puzzles and such, and on co-op each player would control the opposite character

  • Shadao

    The real question of course how it would be implemented to the game. A cooperative multiplayer Zelda game is new territory (Not counting the little dabs like the Tingle Turner or Phantom Zelda), especially if each player has it’s own abilities. How would this work? Who are the characters we play? What if you want to play alone? Of course these are the same types of questions that people had with 3D gaming, DS stylus, or Motion-controls, so I definitely say that this new Zelda idea is indeed a revolution.

  • trippytriforce

    they should just throw in a demon souls style mechanic and call it a day.

  • Joe

    I would love to see multiplayer in zelda. I think this article focuses too much on the fighting though. I realise that zelda started out as an action adventure series but these days there’re a lot more puzzle solving elements as well and I think that is one area that multiplayer could be really interesting. Imagine 3 or 4 people exploring a dungeon at the same time but not necessarily staying together, they might come across puzzle elements that they can’t solve by themselves because they only have part of the answer (just as in the rest of the series you can’t solve something because you’re missing the item needed, except that maybe someone else in your group CAN do something). Puzzles across multiple rooms would also become more interesting. Pressing a button in one room could result in something unexpected happening in another room (could even lead to some portal 2 style comedic deaths although I’m not sure that necessarily suit the series).

    What I’m very concerned with is the idea of adding too much more complexity to the game. What I love about the zelda series is how clean it is. It nice to be able to know you’ve collected all of the items and collectibles in the game. I don’t feel the need to have a different experience to everyone else as you do with elder scrolls games (and every other RPG out there). I didn’t mind the upgrade system in skyward sword but I felt it was unnecessary and if they start having me make decisions between building one way or another, I think I’ll be quite disappointed; I get that from other games.

  • cool3ds

    YAY hopefully they add like Zelda, Darunia, Ruto, or something else as 2 players chars to help Link!

  • Palaxous

    If it was a Zelda game meant for multiplayer like four swords, then yes, I’d love it. But I dont think games like skyward sword would ever work for multiplayer. There, the story is too important, and you rarely have 3 to 4 other friends who’d love to read all that text, however amazing it is. But another four swords would be amazing, but it should then have online multiplayer with voicechat. The only reason Nintendo is still so limited voicechat-wise, is because they’re still going for that kid-friendly experience. But there are loads of ways to get around this, so lets hope they intergrate it more in the near future.

  • Henry

    I completely agree with Joe’s comment down below: making Zelda more like an RPG is a bad idea. Zelda’s charm lies in it’s being so simple to just pick it up and play it when you want. RPGs can get so complicated, with item upgrades and classes that they become so cluttered and inaccessible. With Zelda games, you can play them casually, or you can dive in and be a hard-core gamer, but the focus is always on a fun experience rather than getting technical details right.

    Having “more options” is good but only when it means you have more ways to accomplish the same thing. The cooperative puzzles could be extremely fun and enjoyable. I love the idea of working my way through a Zelda dungeon and then seeing my buddy off in the distance working on another part of it, especially if he/she has different items available to use. Puzzles and the specialized items you get are one of my favorite parts in Zelda, but my utmost favorite part is how there is often more than one way to complete an event. You can blow open the door with bombs, or take a daring leap around it instead. I love that.

    Zelda to me is more of a clever adventure game than a “fighting” game. Sure, you defeat enemies, but I like the emphasis on coming up with ideas to get through a tough situation rather than just hacking away at zombies. Still, swords are essential, so maybe the co-op partner could play as a sword-fighting Zelda incarnate this time?

  • Nikki

    I rather have it not be multiplayer, because I don’t have anyone to play it with. Even WW(which I have yet to finish), I can’t do with the tingle turner, because again, I’m playing it single person.

  • NPeart

    I was thinking about coop Zelda too. In fact immediately when I saw the tablet controller for the first time! I don’t want to down grade my sword controls to…non-sword controls and in this case the coop would be perfect use for the tablet controller.

    Link has had companion since 90′s anyway, and next one could very probably have second player controlling that companion.

    Coop is one of many of Wii U’s criminally unhyped features. Its a killer app.