Post by: Karl Castaneda #2 on October 04, 2007, 11:24:04 AM
http://www.nintendoworldreport.com/newsArt.cfm?artid=14522
Episode 72: Animu Makes You Fat
Killer 7 4Lyfe, kids.
It's not often that we can coax Evan Burchfield into doing an episode, so we made this RFN a special one. You can count on plenty of existentialism, post-modernism, and other -isms that I don't fully understand. Also, it would appear that Sin & Punishment has been released, and that's a big deal or something.
In the news segment, we discuss the newest Smash Bros. character and whether or not it means the end of Ness, as well as the prospects of a Suda 51-developed Fatal Frame. Let's just say I'm more excited about this than Jonny and Evan.
Rounding out the show is a discussion on whether or not the Zelda series is getting tired. Phantom Hourglass's release might represent a turn for the franchise, but we might just be getting tired of Link. You don't want to miss this one.
See ya next week, everybody!
Credits:
This podcast was edited by Karl Castaneda.
Music for this episode of Radio Free Nintendo is used with permission from Jason Ricci & New Blood. You can also purchase their album directly from the iTunes Music Store
Post by: ShyGuy on October 04, 2007, 11:52:15 AM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on October 04, 2007, 12:14:55 PM
Post by: Mashiro on October 04, 2007, 12:45:46 PM
Or is it only cool to bash on Mashiro
Post by: Karl Castaneda #2 on October 04, 2007, 05:23:54 PM
Post by: Kairon on October 04, 2007, 05:44:56 PM
Oh wait, does that make me ignorant?!?!?
Post by: Crimm on October 04, 2007, 05:51:06 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
I haven't listened to the episode and I already hate everyone for hating Killer 7.
Oh wait, does that make me ignorant?!?!?
No, it makes you cultured.
But really, Goichi Suda making Fatal Frame scares the crap out of me already.
Not quite as much as Mikes Crazy Mailbag. That is terrifying.
Post by: Jonnyboy117 on October 04, 2007, 06:08:54 PM
Post by: Crimm on October 04, 2007, 06:20:59 PM
Post by: ShyGuy on October 04, 2007, 08:19:40 PM
Post by: Karl Castaneda #2 on October 04, 2007, 08:36:37 PM
Post by: ShyGuy on October 04, 2007, 08:38:26 PM
edit: Karl, why must you say hurtful things about Zelda? do you want Beowulf to stop? King Arthur to stop? Robin Hood to stop?
Post by: Karl Castaneda #2 on October 04, 2007, 08:41:21 PM
Post by: ShyGuy on October 04, 2007, 08:43:35 PM
Post by: Karl Castaneda #2 on October 04, 2007, 08:52:06 PM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on October 04, 2007, 08:55:47 PM
Post by: Crimm on October 04, 2007, 08:57:24 PM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on October 04, 2007, 09:00:15 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Crimm
Can Nintendo really afford to do that? I mean, Zelda is their consistant seller in the states (if you exclude Smash Bros). It's cash-money. What the heck else are they gonna make? Mario Rugby?
I want Mario Football, I'll give up Zelda for Mario Football.
Post by: ShyGuy on October 04, 2007, 09:15:11 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: ViewtifulGamer
Well, I suppose when your iterations are so far apart, they don't wear as much. But in Zelda's case, I think it's time to just halt the series altogether, at least for another couple generations. I just don't think it's got much further to go.
Remind me to dig this quote up in 2010. It will go along side such gems as:
"Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible," -- Lord Kelvin , president, Royal Society, 1895.
"Everything that can be invented has been invented," -- Charles H. Duell, Commissioner, US Office of Patents, 1899.
"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers ." -- Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943
Post by: Crimm on October 04, 2007, 09:32:41 PM
15 yards from the previous line, automatic first down.
Post by: ShyGuy on October 04, 2007, 09:37:07 PM
I just think it's a little presumptuous to think some of the most creative developers in all of video games are creatively tapped out when it comes to Zelda.
Post by: 18 Days on October 04, 2007, 11:06:29 PM
and GET OUT ANOTHER CODE WAS FANTASTIC
Post by: Svevan on October 05, 2007, 08:54:36 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: ShyGuy
Okay, maybe I was a little harsh there, don't get me wrong Karl, I agree with spacing out franchises, I'm glad Zelda console releases have 3-4 years between them. I delayed buying Twilight Princess till this year because I played through Ocarina of Time in 2006. I will probably delay Phantom Hourglass until 2008. Nintendo has benefited from skipping generations with their franchise before, like ExciteBike skipping the SNES or Metroid skipping the N64.
I just think it's a little presumptuous to think some of the most creative developers in all of video games are creatively tapped out when it comes to Zelda.
It's not presumptuous when the proof is in the pudding (as in, I can see Nintendo going from "most creative developer ever" to "tapped-out dungeon designers" in Twilight Princess, and it happens at the halfway mark). I argue we need more Zelda, we just don't need more "Dungeon" Zelda. From what I hear, Phantom Hourglass is a pretty typical Zelda game with new controls. So what? I want typical controls with a new Zelda. I argue that point on this podcast.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on October 05, 2007, 08:58:46 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: SvevanQuote
Originally posted by: ShyGuy
Okay, maybe I was a little harsh there, don't get me wrong Karl, I agree with spacing out franchises, I'm glad Zelda console releases have 3-4 years between them. I delayed buying Twilight Princess till this year because I played through Ocarina of Time in 2006. I will probably delay Phantom Hourglass until 2008. Nintendo has benefited from skipping generations with their franchise before, like ExciteBike skipping the SNES or Metroid skipping the N64.
I just think it's a little presumptuous to think some of the most creative developers in all of video games are creatively tapped out when it comes to Zelda.
It's not presumptuous when the proof is in the pudding (as in, I can see Nintendo going from "most creative developer ever" to "tapped-out dungeon designers" in Twilight Princess, and it happens at the halfway mark). I argue we need more Zelda, we just don't need more "Dungeon" Zelda. From what I hear, Phantom Hourglass is a pretty typical Zelda game with new controls. So what? I want typical controls with a new Zelda. I argue that point on this podcast.
I can say one thing, you sound much nicer on the podcasts!
Post by: Kairon on October 05, 2007, 09:11:14 AM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on October 05, 2007, 09:15:04 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
Zelda's dungeons were tapped out in WW already.
Wind Waker wasn't really about dungeons, what were there, like 4 main ones? I think Wind waker was more about exploration then Dungeon Design.
Post by: Svevan on October 05, 2007, 11:04:31 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: GoldenPhoenixQuote
Originally posted by: SvevanQuote
Originally posted by: ShyGuy
Okay, maybe I was a little harsh there, don't get me wrong Karl, I agree with spacing out franchises, I'm glad Zelda console releases have 3-4 years between them. I delayed buying Twilight Princess till this year because I played through Ocarina of Time in 2006. I will probably delay Phantom Hourglass until 2008. Nintendo has benefited from skipping generations with their franchise before, like ExciteBike skipping the SNES or Metroid skipping the N64.
I just think it's a little presumptuous to think some of the most creative developers in all of video games are creatively tapped out when it comes to Zelda.
It's not presumptuous when the proof is in the pudding (as in, I can see Nintendo going from "most creative developer ever" to "tapped-out dungeon designers" in Twilight Princess, and it happens at the halfway mark). I argue we need more Zelda, we just don't need more "Dungeon" Zelda. From what I hear, Phantom Hourglass is a pretty typical Zelda game with new controls. So what? I want typical controls with a new Zelda. I argue that point on this podcast.
I can say one thing, you sound much nicer on the podcasts!
I'll take that as a compliment. And I'll take whatever compliments I can get.
Post by: ShyGuy on October 05, 2007, 11:44:59 AM
I would argue that the dungeons of the later half a more creative than the earlier ones in TP. Also, the changes you are proposing are superficial. Link doesn't need to stop wearing green and have a Master Lazer SCI-FI sword, those are just skins. Twilight Princess with a sci-fi theme does not a new Zelda make. Nintendo has stated a change with the next console Zelda, and their track record makes me trust them.
Post by: Svevan on October 05, 2007, 12:54:45 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: ShyGuy
Okay, I'm calling you on this pudding stuff Evan.
I would argue that the dungeons of the later half a more creative than the earlier ones in TP. Also, the changes you are proposing are superficial. Link doesn't need to stop wearing green and have a Master Lazer SCI-FI sword, those are just skins. Twilight Princess with a sci-fi theme does not a new Zelda make. Nintendo has stated a change with the next console Zelda, and their track record makes me trust them.
I never said anything about wearing green, that was Jonny, and no one mentioned anything about the sword. I proposed more changes to whatever-the-hell the story is, and to the gameplay. I mentioned Majora's Mask as a prime example, where the battle system (even the green tunic!) were identical to OoT, but the core gameplay was vastly different; even though it retained dungeon hopping and item collecting, the in-between stuff was much deeper and more fulfilling. The masks really changed how we interacted with the dungeons, but also how we interacted with the entire world. Clock Town was a busy, beautiful place; the problems you had to solve before getting to a dungeon were involving.
I felt the same way about most of Wind Waker, and the first half of Twilight Princess. Even if those last few dungeons in TP were really innovative (the "dark world" one was beautiful, too), they were still dungeons. I was so depressed when I had to start collecting the mirror shards, because the game told me "you need five more of these. Go get 'em!" and the story STOPPED, the in-between stuff STOPPED, everything neat in the game was removed, EXCEPT the innovative dungeons. I got bored.
I think dungeons are important to Zelda, but couldn't we possibly have a Zelda story that didn't necessitate collecting pieces of a broken item? It would open up Nintendo to tell different stories, and take us new places in Hyrule, and for different reasons. I loved how mission-based the first half of the game was, with the escort mission, the fight on Hyrule plains, everything. It felt epic. So did the desert dungeon, since I had to walk across the entire damn desert to get to it. I didn't get that epic feeling again until I got into the castle.
Post by: ShyGuy on October 05, 2007, 01:52:23 PM
Post by: IceCold on October 05, 2007, 05:38:12 PM
Post by: Crimm on October 05, 2007, 06:18:31 PM
Post by: 18 Days on October 05, 2007, 06:29:15 PM
Zelda is about exploration, dungeons are a chore. I'll send in a letter or voice recording in responce to the zelda discussion.
Post by: Svevan on October 05, 2007, 07:09:25 PM
Shy, I remember the quote. Retro said they wanted to give you a way to actually use all of your powers once you had them. I don't disagree with this, but Nintendo has usually made an "ultimo" dungeon in Zelda that used every item (I got stuck in Hyrule Castle more than in any other Zelda dungeon, ever). Also, once you have all the items, you can go around Hyrule field and find everything you want.
The problem with the mirror piece quest is that it completely reveals the structure of the game, listing off the next five locations you need to hit; the mystery is gone because the story is at a standstill. There's always the chance that crap could happen in between dungeons, but in TP nothing happens. It's just dungeon, dungeon, dungeon, a cinema, final dungeon, endgame.
Post by: Mashiro on October 05, 2007, 07:23:43 PM
Quote
The problem with the mirror piece quest is that it completely reveals the structure of the game, listing off the next five locations you need to hit; the mystery is gone because the story is at a standstill. There's always the chance that crap could happen in between dungeons, but in TP nothing happens. It's just dungeon, dungeon, dungeon, a cinema, final dungeon, endgame.
As much as it pains me to say the following . . .
I agree.
Post by: Kairon on October 05, 2007, 07:35:28 PM
Post by: Mashiro on October 05, 2007, 07:36:45 PM
Because I always felt that about TP but Nintendo's first-party games are (well their main titles in their main franchises) are far from sucking.
Post by: Jonnyboy117 on October 05, 2007, 07:45:47 PM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on October 05, 2007, 08:34:13 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
Sounds to me like everyone's finally coming around and realizing that Nintendo first-party games are starting to suck! And that Aonouma is failing! *pumps fist*
Yeah except the part that games like Link to the Past have the same set up as TP, showing you where to go.
Post by: ShyGuy on October 05, 2007, 08:51:22 PM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on October 05, 2007, 08:53:17 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: ShyGuy
Nintendo tried screwing with the formula in a little game called SUPER MARIO SUNSHINE. All you haters loved that one.
Huh? All the complaints I've heard is that the game was too similar to Super Mario Sunshine.
Post by: Mashiro on October 05, 2007, 08:53:54 PM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on October 05, 2007, 08:54:49 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Mashiro
There are times when I wish Nintendo didn't screw with the formula . . . I'm looking at YOU Star Fox games!
Nintendo didn't really screw with the formula, it was 3rd parties who did, especially Rare "Let's Slap Star Fox into our original IP" Ware.
Post by: Svevan on October 05, 2007, 08:57:08 PM
edit: George Lucas did a BETTER job with HIS OWN FREAKING PROPERTY than any of those retards did with Star FREAKING Fox
Part of the problem is that Star Fox 64 is too perfect. It's just too damn good; it goes as far with its premise as I think you can go. That's why Namco and Rare went batshlt loco with the gameplay, because they knew they couldn't improve what was already there.
Post by: Mashiro on October 05, 2007, 08:58:00 PM
Nintendo owes us a great Star Fox 64-esk adventure though that's for sure!
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on October 05, 2007, 09:00:06 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Svevan
Nintendo didn't screw with the formula: they left it for dead. They handed it off to any developer that wanted it, gave them FREE REIGN to REMOVE EVERYTHING THAT MADE STAR FOX GOOD, and called it Star Fox anyways.
edit: George Lucas did a BETTER job with HIS OWN FREAKING PROPERTY than any of those retards did with Star FREAKING Fox
Part of the problem is that Star Fox 64 is too perfect. It's just too damn good; it goes as far with its premise as I think you can go. That's why Namco and Rare went batshlt loco with the gameplay, because they knew they couldn't improve what was already there.
Went as far as it could? Tell that to Factor 5, they will LAUGH at you! Dragons, X-WIngs, and Millenium Falcons show you that it didn't go as far as it could!
Post by: that Baby guy on October 05, 2007, 09:02:20 PM
I think I might like Wind Waker, I just never played it.
Twilight Princess was something I planned to buy, but never did.
Do you know why FSA was the best Zelda? Because it was the one that wasn't fake. In our hearts, we all know Zelda is about dungeon crawling while traversing an amazing, diverse world. The problem really is that while the world is diverse, there aren't really any games where your pathways and experiences can be unique each time you play it. Sure, you might be able to play dungeon x, y, and z in whatever order you like, but you're going to play them the exact same way anyways, no matter what. FSA got rid of the lie about it. It had several settings, great bosses, and the linear, dungeon-puzzler gameplay all the others had, but wasn't fake about it. It's loads and loads of the core Zelda gameplay without an annoying trek across a relatively empty land for the twelfth time.
I've always seen later Zelda games as wannabe Super Metroids: They want to offer an expansive world, they want to offer different pathways for items and weapons and tools, pathways that weave back and forth between each other. They want to offer different ways to play through a dungeon and different ways to defeat the boss. The problem is that they don't. They force you to explore a world that you can only see and not touch, except at one specific time. Then at that point, you go and touch because it's what you're supposed to do, and after that, you're done there. You might have to go back at the end for a fetch quest, maybe, but who really cares at that point.
I guess I'm saying I see so much more possible for LoZ that I think the current state of the games seems pitiful right now. No, it isn't because of Aonouma, and no, it isn't because of Miyamoto. It's really because the games never grew. They never matured. Yes, LTTP was a great build on LoZ, and yes, OoT took what LTTP was and made it 3D, but it didn't exactly do too much more. After that, things just stopped. The Handheld games never pushed anything more, and while Majora's Mask did, it's considered an outcast by several of the series's biggest fans. There's a small sect that sees what should be, and what should have been done after Majora's Mask, but truthfully, most people are just blissfully ignorant.
Well, I don't like to be ignorant. I don't want to play a game that's a shell of what it should be (except Alien Syndrome). I'm not going to waste my time playing something that thinks it is something else. So get with the picture, Nintendo. I agree that the game needs to grow. That's what people really want, whether they know it or not. They want a full world with endless open opportunities, but one goal: Save the Princess*. They don't really want Oblivion, where you can do whatever you want for no real reason. They don't want GTA XIV King Louis edition, where, once again, they do whatever they want for no true reason. They want a game with a beginning, an end, and a new adventure all throughout each time the game is played. Otherwise it's just a feign swing at what could have been.
Does anyone else see what I'm getting at? Am I the only one who feels this way? I certainly feel like I'm not, and there's obviously people dissatisfied with LoZ games around, but does anyone else feel this strongly about it?
*Save the world.
Post by: Mashiro on October 05, 2007, 09:02:43 PM
Multiplayer
Post by: ShyGuy on October 05, 2007, 09:04:22 PM
Post by: IceCold on October 05, 2007, 09:04:56 PM
I fully expect a Star Fox, an Animal Crossing and an F-Zero game to be revealed at or before E3 next year.
And if we're lucky, Kirby and Pikmin, but probably not.
Post by: Svevan on October 05, 2007, 09:08:46 PM
I hope for Kirby and Pikmin especially, but Nintendo's been so slow on announcing games this past year and a half.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on October 05, 2007, 09:12:37 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Svevan
Agreed IceCold.
I hope for Kirby and Pikmin especially, but Nintendo's been so slow on announcing games this past year and a half.
They better do something new with Kirby, talk about a series that has grown stale. They need some new things to freshen up the gameplay, I'm not saying Canvas Curse drastic, but something to make the games fresh again. F-Zero on the other hand is has been as fresh as 2 year old ham left out in the sun since its inception.
Post by: that Baby guy on October 05, 2007, 09:20:09 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Svevan
Nintendo didn't screw with the formula: they left it for dead. They handed it off to any developer that wanted it, gave them FREE REIGN to REMOVE EVERYTHING THAT MADE STAR FOX GOOD, and called it Star Fox anyways.
edit: George Lucas did a BETTER job with HIS OWN FREAKING PROPERTY than any of those retards did with Star FREAKING Fox
Part of the problem is that Star Fox 64 is too perfect. It's just too damn good; it goes as far with its premise as I think you can go. That's why Namco and Rare went batshlt loco with the gameplay, because they knew they couldn't improve what was already there.
No, I disagree. There were several problems with Star Fox 64, it was just an amazing game despite this. Since none of the developers fixed the problems, and instead created more, we forgot them all.
For instance, there needed to be lots more enemies in the all-range mode battles. The game was limited because of the 64, but I hated having to search out targets on Sector Z before missiles. The enemy ships needed to be more accurate, as well. When every shot you fire can be easily deflected, you need to make every shot count, and, lets face it, they didn't. The wingmen were retarded, despite having function. Sure, Peppy tells you what to do in a sticky situation, but in a game as short as StarFox 64, after one or two playthroughs, you already know, and he's instantly useless. Yes, you have to keep Falco alive for better routes, but that's it. And Slippy tells you boss life, mostly useless, too. All-range mode was a bore in most cases. I mentioned the number of enemy ships above, but essentially, you just flew in a circle, dodged a few attacks, then shot the boss, except in the StarWolf dogfights. There should have been more of those with various ships. Maybe a slower powerhouse that could shoot bombs, too, along with a very quick, but weak opponent. Exploit natural stereotypes. How about the different vehicles? Why not continue to add on-rails levels with different mechanics? The original Landmaster levels were some of the best out there. Couldn't another vehicle or two have been designed for linear gameplay?
As far as the battle mode, there were far few options. The mode was improved in Assault, but there were too many problems, still. It seemed like once someone gained the "high ground," by that I mean the best weapon/ship, it was nearly impossible to overcome them, because you die too easily as a groundling. There should have been more air-based ships than the wolfen and arwing, because, let's face it, Factor 5 showed how having several unique ships makes gameplay awesome.
There's some things that could have been made better in a sequel to StarFox 64. It's not that nothing can compare to the game, it's that nothing has tried to target the same gameplay as the original, while attempting to fix any issues of the first. Instead, they all want to be a unique experience with a loosely core gameplay. Guess what: StarFox and StarFox 64 already did that with the three tracks of levels possible.
Although, I guess I should play more of StarFox: Command before I make these judgements, I haven' delved too far into it, but I didn't like the draw-your-own path idea too much. If I understand correctly, it did have branching paths, right? At least they got that right.
Post by: Svevan on October 05, 2007, 09:21:05 PM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on October 05, 2007, 09:21:19 PM
Post by: that Baby guy on October 05, 2007, 09:21:36 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: ShyGuy
Thatguy is freaking insane.
Good or bad insane?
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on October 05, 2007, 09:22:36 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Svevan
Personally, and I don't think everyone will or necessarily should agree with this, I think Kirby is great because of its music. Its combination of images and sounds is so perfect, the gameplay being pretty simple has never ever bothered me.
You don't need it to be complex, but for heaven's sake it IS the same game every time. The only one that tried something was Kirby and the Magic Door or whatever it was called. It needs spicing up, I'm not saying revamp the series, but it needs something unique to revitalize it.
Post by: Svevan on October 05, 2007, 09:25:48 PM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on October 05, 2007, 09:28:26 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Svevan
I don't disagree, so long as the music and pretty world design are still there.
Well Kirby does have good art design and music (though I was let down by March of the Minis or whatever that last game was, then again that wasn't made by Nintendo). Still want to play the SNES Kirby
.
Post by: that Baby guy on October 05, 2007, 09:30:32 PM
And Evan, I do agree that some Kirby games develop a great atmosphere, but Kirby 64 and anything after it really haven't done much, not counting Canvas Curse. I suppose I mean that you can find that same atmosphere and better gameplay in the Dream Land line, and there isn't reason to look outside of that, except for the spin-offs and Superstar. Everything else has regressed in both gameplay and atmosphere, honestly.
Post by: Svevan on October 05, 2007, 09:31:41 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: thatguyQuote
Originally posted by: ShyGuy
Thatguy is freaking insane.
Good or bad insane?
You're good insane. I'm reading your posts, just not responding quite yet.
Post by: that Baby guy on October 05, 2007, 09:35:12 PM
Post by: ShyGuy on October 05, 2007, 09:44:47 PM
Seriously, never played Wind Waker?
Post by: Svevan on October 05, 2007, 09:48:08 PM
Post by: that Baby guy on October 05, 2007, 09:49:34 PM
Oh, then Wario Ware after that.
Post by: ShyGuy on October 05, 2007, 09:59:59 PM
Post by: that Baby guy on October 05, 2007, 10:42:30 PM
Post by: Jonnyboy117 on October 06, 2007, 05:20:22 AM
Post by: ShyGuy on October 06, 2007, 05:44:44 AM
Post by: Djunknown on October 06, 2007, 06:47:39 AM
There's no reason the Orange Box could come out on Wii. Even Gabe Newell mentioned in a Game Informer interview that he's rooting for the Wii to be successful. What gives? Jonny if you're reading this, if you don't buy a lot of PC games, I'd recommend getting an ATI graphics card, since Valve 'prefers' that brand. I don't know what series they have now, since they crank them out every 18 months or so, but a current, entry level, or mid-grade card should more than do the trick.
I believe there are videos showing Half life 2 with Wii controls via youtube. However they're using the accelerometers, and not the IR pointer. From what I saw, it was pretty competent. Imagine what Valve could do with a SDK...
Killer 7 is a love-it or hate it-game. I like it, as its style over substance in a good way, and no one in their right mind has/will imitate this title. I'd disagree about Killer 7 being broken, since all the mechanics work the way it should in the game. Can't explore the entire building? Why would you, there's Heaven Smiles eager to kill almost everywhere you turn. Switching from 3rd to 1st person is a snap. The aiming is spot on. I can't think of any moment where I'm cursing the controls, or the mechanics.
After playing some more S&P, and then playing some Halo 3, it hit me what was missing. The N64 didn't have dual analog, so you have to conciously think of moving and shooting, whereas other action titles have dual analog and don't really think about that hunk of plastic in your hand. If S&P had been released on Gamecube, and used the C-stick and Control stick for aiming/shooting respectively (or vice versa depending on your aiming preference), the game would have been marginally easier. S&P with Wii controls are a perfect fit, hopefully we'll something from Treasure.
Post by: Entroper on October 07, 2007, 09:57:42 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: thatguy
Do you know why FSA was the best Zelda? Because it was the one that wasn't fake. In our hearts, we all know Zelda is about dungeon crawling while traversing an amazing, diverse world. The problem really is that while the world is diverse, there aren't really any games where your pathways and experiences can be unique each time you play it. Sure, you might be able to play dungeon x, y, and z in whatever order you like, but you're going to play them the exact same way anyways, no matter what. FSA got rid of the lie about it. It had several settings, great bosses, and the linear, dungeon-puzzler gameplay all the others had, but wasn't fake about it. It's loads and loads of the core Zelda gameplay without an annoying trek across a relatively empty land for the twelfth time.
Does anyone else see what I'm getting at? Am I the only one who feels this way? I certainly feel like I'm not, and there's obviously people dissatisfied with LoZ games around, but does anyone else feel this strongly about it?
I wholeheartedly agree with your take on Four Swords Adventures. I think Ocarina was great because it focused on the dungeons more than the wandering. Wind Waker actually offered a decent balance -- the exploration was much more open-ended and freeform, and I think it worked well. Twilight Princess, on the other hand... argh!
I bought a Wii on launch day, and I haven't gotten to the third dungeon. I've spent 12 hours playing the game and only been to two dungeons, and the rest of the game has made me want to go to sleep! Hearing all these comments about how the second half of the game completely changes gears and focuses on dungeons does not make me dread the rest of the game, it actually motivates me to pick it back up so I can get to the fun stuff!
Oh, and Zelda 2 is a fantastic game, it's just hard. I'm actually in the middle of a game of Zelda 2 right now, having just finished the third palace. I enjoy a good side scrolling action adventure like Zelda 2, Faxanadu, and Battle of Olympus.
Post by: Jonnyboy117 on October 07, 2007, 07:14:33 PM
Post by: Kairon on October 07, 2007, 07:36:07 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: EntroperQuote
Originally posted by: thatguy
Do you know why FSA was the best Zelda? Because it was the one that wasn't fake. In our hearts, we all know Zelda is about dungeon crawling while traversing an amazing, diverse world. The problem really is that while the world is diverse, there aren't really any games where your pathways and experiences can be unique each time you play it. Sure, you might be able to play dungeon x, y, and z in whatever order you like, but you're going to play them the exact same way anyways, no matter what. FSA got rid of the lie about it. It had several settings, great bosses, and the linear, dungeon-puzzler gameplay all the others had, but wasn't fake about it. It's loads and loads of the core Zelda gameplay without an annoying trek across a relatively empty land for the twelfth time.
Does anyone else see what I'm getting at? Am I the only one who feels this way? I certainly feel like I'm not, and there's obviously people dissatisfied with LoZ games around, but does anyone else feel this strongly about it?
I wholeheartedly agree with your take on Four Swords Adventures. I think Ocarina was great because it focused on the dungeons more than the wandering. Wind Waker actually offered a decent balance -- the exploration was much more open-ended and freeform, and I think it worked well. Twilight Princess, on the other hand... argh!
I bought a Wii on launch day, and I haven't gotten to the third dungeon. I've spent 12 hours playing the game and only been to two dungeons, and the rest of the game has made me want to go to sleep! Hearing all these comments about how the second half of the game completely changes gears and focuses on dungeons does not make me dread the rest of the game, it actually motivates me to pick it back up so I can get to the fun stuff!
Oh, and Zelda 2 is a fantastic game, it's just hard. I'm actually in the middle of a game of Zelda 2 right now, having just finished the third palace. I enjoy a good side scrolling action adventure like Zelda 2, Faxanadu, and Battle of Olympus.
What a radical take on the Zelda series... I must ponder this up-ending of all that we've believed about Zelda up until now...
Post by: Entroper on October 08, 2007, 04:03:17 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Jonnyboy117
Funny, I like Battle of Olympus and Faxanadu, but I never really liked Zelda 2 much. The controls are bonkers, for one thing.
Honestly I think all three games have "touchy" controls that take a lot of getting used to. Zelda 2 may be the most touchy, though.
@Kairon: I don't think it's radical at all. Zelda actually went backwards in terms of open exploration between the original LoZ (where the entire overworld was available from the outset) and LttP, where you were more restricted and directed. I don't necessarily see that as a good or bad thing. For me, the puzzle solving and combat in the dungeons has always been more entertaining than free roaming on the overworld, and especially more so than the silly overworld quests in TP.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on October 08, 2007, 05:26:54 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: EntroperQuote
Originally posted by: Jonnyboy117
Funny, I like Battle of Olympus and Faxanadu, but I never really liked Zelda 2 much. The controls are bonkers, for one thing.
Honestly I think all three games have "touchy" controls that take a lot of getting used to. Zelda 2 may be the most touchy, though.
@Kairon: I don't think it's radical at all. Zelda actually went backwards in terms of open exploration between the original LoZ (where the entire overworld was available from the outset) and LttP, where you were more restricted and directed. I don't necessarily see that as a good or bad thing. For me, the puzzle solving and combat in the dungeons has always been more entertaining than free roaming on the overworld, and especially more so than the silly overworld quests in TP.
Can't get much more backwards in exploration than the extremely linear Zelda II, Miyamotos admitted failure. Also isn't possible to enjoy ALL aspects that make the Zelda series good, exploration, dungeon crawling, and puzzle solving?
Post by: Entroper on October 08, 2007, 02:16:19 PM
Post by: Karl Castaneda #2 on October 08, 2007, 03:23:09 PM
Post by: that Baby guy on October 08, 2007, 03:27:06 PM
Post by: Karl Castaneda #2 on October 08, 2007, 03:37:03 PM
Post by: ShyGuy on October 08, 2007, 04:18:43 PM
I AM NOT A STALKER
Post by: Karl Castaneda #2 on October 08, 2007, 05:52:45 PM
Post by: that Baby guy on October 08, 2007, 05:55:24 PM
Post by: vudu on October 09, 2007, 06:44:15 AM
I completely disagree with what was said about the Zelda franchise. I look forward to these staples (or cliches, if you'd rather call them that) with every game. Jonny's idea of a Zelda game starring Zelda is nice, but if they wanted to remove Link from the equation I'd rather they just create a brand new world with a new main character and a new supporting cast. This way the designers would be free to start off with a clean slate rather than shoe-horning in a secondary characters into the lead role. A Zelda game without Link is hardly a Zelda game at all.
