Skip to content

Aonuma Doesn’t Feel That VR Is Well Suited To Zelda

In a recent interview with GameBlog, Eiji Aonuma spoke about his thoughts on VR and the Zelda series.

Aonuma explained that one of the interests of the Zelda series is to evolve Link and see him change over time, so in that respect he doesn’t feel that VR is well suited to the franchise because you would no longer see him, you would see the surroundings from a personal point of view instead.

“You know, one of the interests of the Zelda games is to evolve Link and therefore see him grow. In VR, you would no longer see Link, you would see the world from your personal point of view, so I think it would not be very ‘Zelda’”.

So it looks like virtual reality isn’t on the cards for the series in the near future, but that’s not to say it will never happen!

Source / Via

54 thoughts on “Aonuma Doesn’t Feel That VR Is Well Suited To Zelda”

  1. Nintendo First Order Commander Quadraxis

    ||Remake Zelda 2 in VR, there you will get an abysmal Zelda weapon merged with VR to make it interesting at last…||

    1. This isn’t remotely dumb. Saying every game should be VR is saying that every game should be first person and you should be limited to only things you can actually do.

  2. Seems more like a subjective response on his part, but I still agree with him because these games are built with 3rd person perspective and limiting the field of vision could make it more “immersive” yeah but many of the combat and puzzle mechanics wouldn’t work very well, not to mention that VR technology isn’t quite advanced enough yet.

    1. Wind Waker HD was pretty easy to follow using just first person view; granted whenever you had to use items, the camera would get forced to 3rd. And we’re not asking to get thrown into the matrix, VR technology is definitely advanced enough for a Zelda game.

      1. You were required to go into third person when using items because the only clue you had to when a bomb was gonna blow up, for example, was by looking at the bomb which is held over your head. Also things like tumbling would be completely nauseating in first-person but especially in VR. In fact, a lot of people get nauseated when they’re not controlling their gaze so even things like assisted turns can immediately make people feel like the room is spinning. VR will be best suited for franchises that were made around it, you can’t just games as they are now and just strap a headset on.

        Also it’s weird to me that people are so harsh on motion controls and cry about having to mimic shooting an arrow but they’re all about VR.

  3. VR doesn’t have to be 1st person. There are 3rd person VR games. I’ve actually heard a few people say that they think the best VR experiences will be 3rd person games, where you’re looking down on the world.

    1. I’d like to know how would that work, the whole point VR producers have made is that you can pretend to be in the game. If you shift to third person then what you get is better periferal vision at the expense of carrying some uncomfortably massive goggles and getting motion sickness since the motion sensors can’t emulate head rotation perfectly, all I get is a bigger window which is more of fancy presentation rather that a new experience since a screen does the job well enough.

      1. I disagree, I think a third person VR game like Mario or Zelda would be amazing. Yea, most the game would be in third person, but you can stand anywhere in the world and zoom into first person mode, (like Ocarina of Time and Mario 64), and look around. Imagine playing breath of the wild, running up to the edge of a cliff, switching to first person and looking down. Or going into a dungeon maybe on a bridge above lava and switch to first person…

        Not only would it be amazing, it would be a dream come true!

        1. Third-person VR games inherently aren’t VR. It’s a virtualized reality. You are supposed to be placed in that world and you are supposed to be interacting with the world.

          A third-person game played with VR goggles is just a 3D game with a head-tracked camera which can not only be done without a headset but it’s actually easier, cheaper, and better to do without the headset.

          The idea of switching between two perspectives isn’t that simple either. While it sounds simple in theory, you really have to imagine how that would work. The way you interact with an object or person you don’t embody and interacting with things in first-person is completely different. Sure, if you’re using a regular controller, then the buttons don’t change but using a regular controller in VR also defeats the purpose. That would again, just be a 3D game with a head-tracked camera. 

          1. I would rather use a regular controller if a game like BotW was ever made into a VR game. I wouldnt want head tracking or motion controls, i’d want the standard experience just through a VR headset. While it wouldn’t technically be VR, it would still be cool as hell IMO. I wouldn’t mind it being third person, as you would still have a very intense immersion factor, as the world of BotW would be all around you. Enemies would be right in your face, (technically right in Links face, but your face would be right behind Link, lol) rock faces your about to scale would look tremendous, not too mention the vertigo you’d probably get from the heights after climbing up a rock face. The immersion would be almost overwhelming and it would be simply amazing, even if you couldn’t zoom into first person view for some odd development reason. I agree, I dont think VR is the future of gaming, not even close. I also believe its a fad. I believe this generation of hardware devices will be the only generation of devices.

            1. Well you can play it through a headset. You can use PS VR in Cinema mode with anything that outputs through HDMI. You’re not going to see the world around you though obviously be cause it the game wasn’t made for it and you would need head tracking lol

              I’m not crazy about VR but I don’t think it’s necessarily a fad. They’ll improve on the tech for non-gaming purposes but widespread gaming adoption would still need to price to lower. I honestly think Nintendo could have made it cheap with better body tracking than the PSVR (it uses the visible light spectrum while everything else uses infrared which Nintendo has always been in love with). They might have even been able to use their wireless streaming tech to make a wireless headset. Not sure if the latency would be acceptable but I’m curious if some of it could have been hidden if the headset itself was responsible for doing frame interpolation and motion blur. And obviously if the HD rumble in the JoyCons works as well as Nintendo claims, they would be great VR controllers. I even kind of consider 1, 2 Switch to be VR game. 

              1. It wouldnt be the same using PSVR especially if you were not surrounded on all sides. It would just be equivalent to standing extremely close to the tv, lol. So headtracking is necessary if you want to be surrounded by the game world? I figured instead of using headtracking you could just use the controller in a traditional manner to look around. I know nothing about all that so whatever. And this is a pointless discussion anyways because Nintendo will never make a Zelda game in VR, or any other game for that matter. I am extremely disappointed at Nintendo right now. They could have made a kick ass VR device. Nintendo could have done a lot of great things, but they would rather recapture the Wii audience than go after the core gamer. It was an awful business decision, and I think Nintendo is about to learn a very hard lesson.

                1. I’m not so sure they’re necessarily going after the Wii audience… I’m not really sure what they’re going for though. Like obviously something like 1,2 Switch feels like they are but most games aren’t using them and, in general, the system’s made in a way that discourages use of it’s fancy features ie. the haptic feedback multi-touch screen isn’t usable in TV mode and is replaced by pointer controls that somehow use the IR camera only one of the JoyCons but isn’t facing he screen unless you turn the controller upside down. Also the main unit has a gyroscope and accelerometer even though it’s going to have two of each already connected to it via the JoyCons so I don’t know when those will come in handy… unless they ARE gonna try VR.

                  Just to touch on the head tracking things though. The general idea is that low-latency head tracking is the reason why people don’t get sick in VR. Turning the camera in a traditional way would be like spinning somebody on one of those things… I forgot what they’re called… they’re on playgrounds and they have little segmented sections with bars for you to hold on to and you spin them… those things.

                  1. King Kalas X3 {Greatness Awaits at Sony PlayStation 4! Hopefully it will also await us at Nintendo Switch if Nintendo doesn't FUCK things up again!}

                    You are thinking of a carousel, or the more layman’s term merry-go-round.

                  2. King Kalas X3 {Greatness Awaits at Sony PlayStation 4! Hopefully it will also await us at Nintendo Switch if Nintendo doesn't FUCK things up again!}

                    Not the ones you see at fairs or amusement parks but the ones you find at playgrounds or regular parks with a playground in it.

                      1. King Kalas X3 {Greatness Awaits at Sony PlayStation 4! Hopefully it will also await us at Nintendo Switch if Nintendo doesn't FUCK things up again!}

                        Nope. It apparently applies to both since they both function by spinning people around. One is just manual while the other is automatic.

                      2. King Kalas X3 {Greatness Awaits at Sony PlayStation 4! Hopefully it will also await us at Nintendo Switch if Nintendo doesn't FUCK things up again!}

                        It makes sense since you wouldn’t call a vehicle with stick/manual shift or automatic shift different things.

        2. I don’t think it would be as easy to accomplish, but a third person vr game can be just as immersive as a first person game. It just offers a different perspective; rather than being the character in the game world, you are an observer within the game world.

          A good case for the viability of 3rd person vr games is Xenoblade Chronicles X. In it, you can launch the camera into the air to survey the landscape. It’s a great feature as it is. It would look amazing in VR.

          Here’s one article on the matter. The author mentions motion sickness being a possible problem, but I think that’s because of the nature of the game and the camera movement. It can be easily solved by keeping the camera fixed, relative to character position; as Zelda games have always done.

          1. They can easily be just as immersive, because you are still surrounded on all sides by the game world. I was explaining to someone else up above how tremendous scaling the rock faces in BotW would be in VR. It wouldn’t matter that it was in 3rd person, it would still be insanely immersive. Or going through a massive dungeon, or jumping off a waterfall. It would all give you a very intense immersion factor and I personally would love for something like that to happen… It never will, of course.

    2. Pingback: Zelda in realtà virtuale? Aonuma dice no | ..:: Chivasso Comics & Cosplay ::..

    3. Keep that gimmicky VR crap away from my favorite series, we finally got a Nintendo console where the gimmicky controls went back to being manageable, not great, but a little better than the wii due to not having to buy new batteries anymore! I don’t want this VR crap to be a requirement for Metroid either, especially if it’s another Prime entry, or any other game tbh! VR is a gimmicky fad that will die out again soon, and this time I hope it stays dead for good, similar to how 3D is dead once more. No more gimmicky crap like 3D,VR or retarded StarFox Zero controls, just give us a good game that functions normally. I can not stress the fact that StarFox Zero was ruined by that retarded dual Screen control gimmick, they need to redo SFZ and just make the controls normal, because Nintendo ruined that game and have no one else to blame for the poor sales of SFZ but themselves, even as far as sales go on the WiiU it was poor as hell. If they rework SFZ’s controls and rereleased it for the Switch I’d definitely buy it day one.

      1. The good thing is, it’s not an all or nothing thing.
        Resident Evil 7 is both VR and normal console experience. Metroid could be both as well. Although let’s face it, Nintendo will force you to either do it or not. No middle ground with them.

        1. King Kalas X3 (Greatness Awaits at Sony PlayStation 4 only because Nintendo are DUMBFUCKS!!)

          Yeah. Apparently Nintendo really hates giving their fans & customers options at times. It’ll be all too apparent if it turns out everything online DOES need a fucking smartphone to be able to use it & there is no option to use them without the damn phone. Ugh! I don’t want to pay hundreds of bucks for a phone just so I can use features that should be fucking standard on a fucking console these days. But I know some little dumb bitch is gonna bring up the portable aspect & how that would be detrimental to it. FUCK THE PORTABLE ASPECT!!! I’d gladly lose out on that for better memory & having online features right there with the press of a fucking Switch button!

        2. The reason Resident Evil 7 can do it is because it’s first-person. Metroid could work as a VR/non-VR game but only if you can’t become a morph ball. The reason there wouldn’t be a middle ground with them with something like LOZ is because LOZ is a third-person game where Link covers long distances, launches off horses, tumbles forward, backward, and to side and occasionally spins with his sword. These things can’t easily be translated to VR or even a first-person perspective.

          People need to realize that VR isn’t a superset of all things possible in gaming it. It has very real limitation even when it comes to movement. That’s why it’s IN the future of gaming but isn’t THE future of gaming. 

          1. I see, I see. In addition, I was stating that there is never any middle ground with Nintendo. It’s much like Apple. It’s their way or the highway. Unlike apple, many are choosing the highway.

      2. FUCKING AGREED!!!
        I tried out that VR & it’s cool & all. But…..


        The difference in motion controls were they were part of the experience bevause they came with the system. VR in Sonys eyes is nothing more than a overly expensive add on!!

        & to be honest: Nintendo proved that motion controls done right are just as good as a controller. Remember SKYWARD SWORD? Sony still has to prove VR is more than a fad. That is assuming they continue to support it & not abandon it like they did the PSP & VITA.

      3. Well I agree about Star Fox,mthat game was ruined by gyro controls. Nobody wants to pkay a game with gyro controls. Completely disagree about 3d, since I cannot play my 3ds with the 3d slider of, nor can I play a game on the 3ds that doesnt support 3d.

        VR is fine, not a game changer, but a blast to play around with. The difference between gyro controls in Star Fox and VR is that VR is actually fun. And it would be easy to implement VR into a Zelda game without changing the game at all, So it would be completely optional. Play Zelda the standard way or through VR. More options are always better than fewer.

        Of course this will never happen so no worries.

        1. I wouldn’t say that nobody wants to play a game with gyro controls because a lot of people like them for aiming. For example, I use the right analog for larger movement and gyro aiming for more precise movements. Also VR is almost all gyro controls.

          1. Motion controls in VR is different since it’s a different experience. At least to me. I personally hate flailing my arms around when I’m playing video games. A small exception would be Skyward Sword and Wii sports. Those were the only games where I actually enjoyed the motion controls. And those two games were completely dedicated to motion controls. Anytime when motion controls are slapped on for for no reason other than just to have them makes for an awful experience IMO. Either all in or all out, that weird inbetween hybrid of half motion controls as standard controls has never worked, at least for me.

            1. I actually liked the waggle controls of the Super Mario Galaxy games and any of those party games. I also liked the motion controls for Donkey Kong Country Returns but only in the Wii Remote + Nunchuk configuration. When you just hold the Wii Remote side ways and you have to shake the whole controller, that’s when it feels weird. But I agree that there are developers who didn’t know how to implement them. I’m still glad that devs had them as tool in their arsenal though.

              1. I agree with Galaxy, that was also an acceptable example of motion controls. Even though it was a strange hybrid mixture of waggle and traditional controls. Metroid Prime controlled ok, but I enjoyed the GameCube controls much more.

    4. }{ VR is one of the worst gimmicks to come around in a while… It is a cool piece of technology, but when it comes down to it, it’s not that great for games… That’s why most games for VR are just glorified tech demos… Nobody knows what to do with it… }{

      1. They know what to do with it, this isnt the Wii U we’re talking about, lol. It’s just there are no developers out there willing to risk spending 300 million dollars creating a full fledged game on unproven hardware. Small bite sized tech demo’s can be made with just a couple millions dollars, not a huge risk and easy to recoup money. 300 million is a different story, they’ed have to sell alot of copies to break even and not that many people own VR hardware.

        1. The problem is just that VR has it’s limitations, too. It’s possible that it’s best suited for games cockpit kind of games or things where you don’t have to move long distances.

          It’s very unlikely that there will be open-world VR games outside of attractions at large venues and even then, the scope would have to be limited because it’s an attraction.

          Also the features the Wii U offers are far easier to integrate into games then VR’s control schemes and requires far less development fragmentation.

    5. VR is just another form of entertainment. It does not replace gaming the same way TV does not replace reading. No reason to hate VR, embrace it as a seperate entitiy.

    Leave a Reply

    %d bloggers like this: