Oh mama....

Yeah for Killer7 bashing, and glad Evan admitted the gameplay sucks. Also found out that that light gun games are daring too. Maybe Mario should be on rails too, that would be pretty daring! Also Zelda 2 sucks no matter how you look at it, was a rushed game that even Miyamoto disowned.

Come on all you Killer7 lovers! Thrash on NWR

Or is it only cool to bash on Mashiro

I am totally prepared for all of the hate this episode is about to bring for me.

I haven't listened to the episode and I already hate everyone for hating Killer 7.

Oh wait, does that make me ignorant?!?!?

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?!?!?

---

Any thoughts on the new music? Also, we are really hoping for some good listener feedback on the feature topic (Innovation in the Zelda Series). Some people have lately remarked that we beg for letters but don't provide any focused topics, so we are going to start encouraging feedback specifically related to the feature topic every week, and we'll read some of the responses the next week. Maybe we can even tie this in with the Hot Topic once it returns, I dunno.

This sounds like a good HotTopic idea.

Was the music by Los Lonely Boys?

Er, no, ShyGuy. It's from Jason Ricci's new album. That's why there's that little promo for it at the end of the show.

Sorry, I was commenting before I finished listening.

edit: Karl, why must you say hurtful things about Zelda? do you want Beowulf to stop? King Arthur to stop? Robin Hood to stop?

Er, they have, ShyGuy. For DECADES between releases. The three-four years between Zeldas (sometimes less) is hardly comparative.

Oh, I'm sorry I didn't know stop meant longer delay.

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.

I don't think the Zelda series needs to die, but I do think they need to go back to the drawing board and try something new with the franchise. Maybe nothing really extreme but enough to make it fresh again, kind of like Mario Galaxy.

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?

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?

---

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.

---

Personal Foul: Stomping the passer under mushroom inflated feet

15 yards from the previous line, automatic first down.

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.

Best letter to Mike's mailbag.

and GET OUT ANOTHER CODE WAS FANTASTIC

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.

---

Quote

---

Originally posted by: Svevan

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.

---

Zelda's dungeons were tapped out in WW already.

Quote

---

Originally posted by: Kairon
Zelda's dungeons were tapped out in WW already.

---

Quote

---

Originally posted by: GoldenPhoenix

Quote

---

Originally posted by: Svevan

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.

---

I can say one thing, you sound much nicer on the podcasts!

---

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.

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.

---

Okay, that was Jonny with the green comment my mistake. Reading your reply makes me think we are more in agreement than not. I don't think that the problem is the mirror piece fetch quests at the end of TP; they are just a Macguffin, the what and the why doesn't matter, it's about the how. Retro did a good job in justifying the "patented Nintendo backtracking quests" in an interview around the time Prime 3 was released, I will have to find a link.

Dungeons are my favourite parts of Zelda games.

The story is my favorite part of Zelda games.

Well you need to get out of the house!

Zelda is about exploration, dungeons are a chore. I'll send in a letter or voice recording in responce to the zelda discussion.

Yes, recorded responses are very welcome!

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.

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.

---

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*

Who are you refering to? Me?

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.

The green clothing comment on RFN was a silly example, but my point is that Nintendo should stop holding so many things sacred in the Zelda series. There are way too many traditions in the franchise that could be messed with to throw us off balance and surprise us more. As Evan said, the transparent structure of the games is a longstanding tradition that really needs to go.

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*

---

Nintendo tried screwing with the formula in a little game called SUPER MARIO SUNSHINE. All you haters loved that one.

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.

---

There are times when I wish Nintendo didn't screw with the formula . . . I'm looking at YOU Star Fox games!

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 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.

Well . . . Rare wasn't really to blame for that I don't think. IIRC it was Nintendo who pushed making the game about Star Fox characters after Rare showed them an unfinished version of the game, but I could be wrong.

Nintendo owes us a great Star Fox 64-esk adventure though that's for sure!

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.

---

Well, I liked LTTP, it was fun back then, but I dunno. It always felt too enclosed to me. I never really got to explore things the way I wanted to. It did have a hint of that, but not enough. I felt too constrained in the bits of OoT I played. I wanted to do what I wanted to do, and not have to follow a strict pathway under the illusion of an open world. In the Oracle games, I felt the same way, and also, I felt like the whole Past/Future/Seasons thing was a crappy way of mimicking the light and dark worlds. Zelda II was too repetitive, while the original had too little guidlines.

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.

Except one thing . . . Star Fox DID NOT go as far as it could go. There was one area where it was sorely lacking a really refined gaming experience . . .

Multiplayer

Thatguy is freaking insane.

Well the formula can now be improved with the remote.. hopefully it's made in-house though.

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.

Agreed IceCold.

I hope for Kirby and Pikmin especially, but Nintendo's been so slow on announcing games this past year and a half.

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.

---

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.

---

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.

Ugh, I couldn't stand StarFox Command, it got repetitive REALLY fast.

Quote

---

Originally posted by: ShyGuy
Thatguy is freaking insane.

---

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.

---

I don't disagree, so long as the music and pretty world design are still there.

Quote

---

Originally posted by: Svevan
I don't disagree, so long as the music and pretty world design are still there.

---

Kirby is an odd selection. One game, to me, really stood out: Kirby's Superstar. I really think this concept evolved into Super Smash Bros., though, so I don't complain about that being missing. Really, beyond that, there's been two different Kriby lines. There's been the Dream Land games and everything else. The Dream Land games each grow in plot, abilities, and ideas. Each one has merits, each one provides a new reason to play. The problem is that they stopped after three. Then, the other games, I suppose the ones that followed behind Kirby's Adventure, never really did anything new, IMO. I mean, one was just the remake, Kirby 64 was pretty boring and devoid of charm, The Amazing Mirror was alright at best, and Squeak Squad is just ridiculous, to me. Canvas Curse was a breath of fresh air, but it's really a spin-off, and not part of the two Kirby sets.

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.

Quote

---

Originally posted by: thatguy

Quote

---

Originally posted by: ShyGuy
Thatguy is freaking insane.

---

Good or bad insane?

---

See, this is why I have nearly 2500 posts now. =P

I never watched Psycho, but let me espouse about Hitchcock's films. = thatguy

Seriously, never played Wind Waker?

Wow, ShyGuy. In the context of Hitchcock's oeuvre, Psycho is the perfect example you could have picked: it is just as much an anomaly to Hitchcock as Wind Waker is to Zelda. way. to. go.

Ikaruga.

Oh, then Wario Ware after that.

I was gonna say The Birds, but I think that one is more analogous to Majora's Mask.

So am I equal to Psycho, or is Wind Waker equal to Psycho?

I'll sidestep the Zelda disucussion since its been going any which way...

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.

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?

---

Funny, I like Battle of Olympus and Faxanadu, but I never really liked Zelda 2 much. The controls are bonkers, for one thing.

Quote

---

Originally posted by: Entroper

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.

---

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.

---

Quote

---

Originally posted by: Entroper

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.

---

I never said it wasn't possible. I even said that Wind Waker made the exploration fun IMO.

Just an FYI, we go over the feedback in this week's episode, some of which is from the forums.

Are there any pictures of cats in this week's podcast? It might not be worth it without the cat pictures.

No, but you will get a picture of my fugly-ass dorm room.

OOooooooh. And how does one get this picture of said dorm room?

I AM NOT A STALKER

Subscribe via iTunes or download the AAC Enhanced version of the show to receive such pictures.

What other pictures are on loan from the crapsonian?

Just listened to the podcast. This is probably my favorite episode in a loooooooooooooooong time. The back and forth between the members was great. Evan and Jonny were both great and even Karl was pretty entertaining. I think it must be Mike that brings out the worst in him.

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.