Post by: Aussiedude on February 27, 2006, 09:25:19 PM
Jeux-France: "Will the next Zelda, still scheduled for Gamecube be, also playable on the future Nintendo Revolution and the exclusive functionalities of its controller? Will the game be released this Spring?"
Mathieu Minel: "I just know that Nintendo will release either a special edition of Twilight Princess for Nintendo Revolution's controller new functionalities or include these functionalities directly into the original sourcecode, thanks to the compatibility between the two systems. But actually we still don't know which option will be chosen. We don't have any releasedate as well, but we're already working on all the marketing aspects of Twilight Princess so I think the game will be out soon, even if the exact date is yet unknown. It all depends on the compatibility with the Revolution and a lot of others things. You know, this game will be a full set of surprises, especially with a new and violent battle system but I can't tell anymore."
Linkkk
Post by: Mario on February 27, 2006, 09:31:42 PM
Post by: BlkPaladin on February 27, 2006, 10:23:44 PM
Post by: wandering on February 27, 2006, 11:03:32 PM
Wait, did I say interesting? Sorry, I meant annoying.
Post by: Talon on February 28, 2006, 01:14:29 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: wandering
A rev-only special edition in addition to the gamecube one would be interesting.
Wait, did I say interesting? Sorry, I meant annoying.
Id say its more milking the franchise. It should be an all or nothing. Either have the revolution funcitionality in it or dont.
Post by: Dasmos on February 28, 2006, 01:29:42 AM
Post by: Talon on February 28, 2006, 01:37:15 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Dasmos
If it's on GC, which it is, there is no way it can have Rev-functionality added.
Yes it can.
For example if you have ever programmed using the Direct3D libraries you will know that you can do tests on the hardware of the pc the code is running on. So if a feature of whatever you have programmed is not supported then the code wont run.
It would be the same with the gamecube and rev. The game will know what system your playing it on and if its the gamecube then the Rev code wont run, but if you play it on the Rev the code can be executed...simple.
Having two versions of the same game will only add to consumer confusion. It would be best to only have one version.
Post by: Dasmos on February 28, 2006, 02:12:51 AM
Post by: RiskyChris on February 28, 2006, 02:40:58 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Dasmos
I thought only GC controllers can be used when playing a GC game.
Good lord people. That comment was made with the direction towards OLD gamecube games that are now backwards compatible. They weren't designed for the revmote.
It doesn't say that a gamecube game couldn't be created with revmote support in the future.
What purpose would the revmote serve in mario sunshine? Nothing, so it's not used.
Post by: Nephilim on February 28, 2006, 03:01:15 AM
OMG, thats so milking
they shouldnt do that, having better graphics and added gameplay isnt what consumers wants
they want old skool graphics and lazy gameplay, that would sell millions, like 4swords adventures did
</sarcasm>
Post by: Requiem on February 28, 2006, 03:11:15 AM
NGC Defend themselves IN PRINT!
As rude as I see NGC's gesture towards Nintendo, you can't deny that they WERE told something big by Nintendo themselves. They wouldn't go through all this trouble, and instead have a wait and see approach.
Two versions would severely piss me off. If it has to be two versions, then have both in the same case.
I'm only buying TP once....
Post by: MaryJane on February 28, 2006, 04:14:37 AM
Post by: mantidor on February 28, 2006, 05:01:22 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Mario
Sounds to me like he's just taking a guess, the "new and violent battle system" though is interesting.
I hope by interesting you mean "f*king disgusting"
I can deal with useless rev features, but I dont like the sound of "violent fights" one little bit, WTF is happening with this game Nintendo!?
Post by: Mario on February 28, 2006, 05:14:33 AM
Seriously, I don't know why Nintendo can't speak up about what's going on with the game. If GDC goes by and we still haven't heard anything... i'll.... i'll post a message on the internet about it!
Post by: Bill Aurion on February 28, 2006, 05:27:31 AM
Post by: ShyGuy on February 28, 2006, 06:33:24 AM
I will defer my opinion until more hard evidence arrives.
Post by: Spak-Spang on February 28, 2006, 06:39:09 AM
Post by: Smash_Brother on February 28, 2006, 06:42:00 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: mantidor
I can deal with useless rev features, but I dont like the sound of "violent fights" one little bit, WTF is happening with this game Nintendo!?
When have the swordfights ever not been violent?
I've seen videos of recent gameplay: Link isn't hacking off limbs or anything.
Post by: mantidor on February 28, 2006, 06:53:41 AM
I will never expect the shadow syndrome to spread to Nintendo, but things like this remote functionality rumor * has surprise me completly, I wouldve never expect Nintendo to do that in the past, the fac they are possibly considering it is shocking, I dont know what to spect from them now.
*because NoE is pretty much clueless most of the time regarding NCL decisions.
Post by: Smash_Brother on February 28, 2006, 07:03:07 AM
In any case, this is a translated interview. The word "violent" could easily be poor translation.
Post by: Caterkiller on February 28, 2006, 07:11:19 AM
Now about this new violent fighting system I don't think it will be so bad. At the end of OoT and WW, Link attacked in a way that was pretty brutal but even that wasn't so much of a big deal. Mainly because there was no blood in WW and... well it was the blood in the origonal Oot and that made it kind of gruesome, kind of. Either way I expect to see more finishers like that with mini and big bosses. After seeing Link in Soul Calibur, I can't really think of much that would be over the top. As long as blood isn't spilling from enemies excessivly, and Link doesn't go around removing heads from the more fleshy enemies it will be fine. Any type of skeleton or plant monster is one thing to decapitate, and we have all seen it befor, but a Moblin? No no no...
Post by: mantidor on February 28, 2006, 07:22:39 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_Brother
Did they show jousting at the last E3?
In any case, this is a translated interview. The word "violent" could easily be poor translation.
It was part of the demo.
Post by: Ian Sane on February 28, 2006, 07:49:22 AM
Your soothsaying abilities are strong. PM me with this week's lotto numbers.
I don't even like the idea of having special features in the Cube game that are unreachable without a Rev but that's still better than having two versions of the game. At least with one version I can buy the Cube version, enjoy it, and then later on when I get a Rev play through it again. I would rather get the whole game in one go but at least then I could access that content at a later date. With two versions that's not an option. If I buy the Cube version I get the lesser game no matter what. If I want the "real" version I have to pay more money.
I hate double dipping with DVDs and I am totally against that trend with games. If they do this I won't buy the special edition just out of protest. I've made do without Four Swords because I didn't want to buy A Link to the Past again so I'll do the same here. I just think it's so, well, CRUEL for Nintendo to jerk the fans around like this. This is the most anticipated Cube game and it's bad enough that we've had it delayed but to not even get the best version? I don't like being exploited like that.
Plus I don't think it would good for the Rev anyway. You just know that the press would rip into this. There would be all sorts of negative comments about how the best Rev game is a port of a Cube game. Considering Nintendo is trying to push innovation the last thing they should do is blatant rehashing. Remember the backlash with initial DS reviews? It would be much worse for the Rev and much more damaging.
As for this violent battle stuff, geez Nintendo we just didn't want Zelda to be a cartoon. You don't have to go all "Warrior Within" on us. Look at Majora's Mask. That's what we want when we say we want a "mature Zelda".
Post by: Smash_Brother on February 28, 2006, 07:52:09 AM
As for the subject of two versions, it's a terrible idea. You'll piss off so many cube owners by doing that if they decide to get a Rev.
The whole point of having Rev-only content on the Zelda disc is that it will encourage people who only have a cube to by the Rev later on for the content. It'll be one more reason to pick one up.
Post by: vudu on February 28, 2006, 09:07:41 AM
QuoteBut didn't you know ... Liiiiiink ... stands alone.
As for this violent battle stuff, geez Nintendo we just didn't want Zelda to be a cartoon. You don't have to go all "Warrior Within" on us. Look at Majora's Mask. That's what we want when we say we want a "mature Zelda".
Post by: Bill Aurion on February 28, 2006, 09:15:31 AM
Who's "we"? Excuse me while I go VOMIT in disgust...
Post by: Ian Sane on February 28, 2006, 09:37:11 AM
Would you prefer if I said "those who preferred the Spaceworld 2000 look to Wind Waker" instead of "we"? Anyhoo that's what I mean.
Post by: Smash_Brother on February 28, 2006, 09:39:05 AM
Post by: mantidor on February 28, 2006, 09:47:10 AM
Its a really far-fetched idea, but the mere thought of it made my stomach to revolt, the translator really had the poorest choice of words, because I still cant believe a Nintendo Rep said Zelda was going to have a "violent" anything.
Post by: Smash_Brother on February 28, 2006, 09:50:35 AM
In WW, I slashed creeping vines that spewed green blood everywhere. I lit enemies on fire and stabbed and slashed them to death.
And I drove my sword right into Ganondorf's forehead.
What exactly could Zelda include while still maintaining a T rating which would be more "violent" than what we've already seen?
I think it's a poor translation and I highly doubt you have anything to worry about.
Post by: Bill Aurion on February 28, 2006, 10:31:23 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
Would you prefer if I said "those who preferred the Spaceworld 2000 look to Wind Waker" instead of "we"? Anyhoo that's what I mean.
No, I prefer "people who are incredibly shallow and don't deserve to play the Zelda series."
Post by: Smash_Brother on February 28, 2006, 11:04:46 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Bill Aurion
No, I prefer "people who are incredibly shallow and don't deserve to play the Zelda series."
Shallow money still counts as legal tender.
If TP doesn't outsell WW, I'll eat my cats.
Post by: Ian Sane on February 28, 2006, 11:06:17 AM
I don't know. It might not considering how unpopular the Cube is and how late it's being released.
Post by: Smash_Brother on February 28, 2006, 11:10:53 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
I don't know. It might not considering how unpopular the Cube is and how late it's being released.
I know that danger is there, but I've just heard too many stories about gamers, after 3-4 years of owning an xbox, who saw the TP screens/videos and now feel as though they bought the wrong console to believe otherwise.
That, and I do strongly believe it'll be one of the games basically everyone buys with a Rev.
Post by: nemo_83 on February 28, 2006, 12:19:04 PM
The violence, considering its Nintendo, is exagerated. I would welcome it, to be able to cut off limbs using the remote on Revolution, to cut away whatever you swing. It would require you to actually hit the weak points on enemies rather than leaning on the targeting.
Post by: UncleBob on February 28, 2006, 12:28:27 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_Brother
If TP doesn't outsell WW, I'll eat my cats.
A Backstreet Boys CD might outsell WindWaker, but that doesn't mean it's better. :Þ
Post by: MaryJane on February 28, 2006, 12:39:20 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: vuduQuoteBut didn't you know ... Liiiiiink ... stands alone.
As for this violent battle stuff, geez Nintendo we just didn't want Zelda to be a cartoon. You don't have to go all "Warrior Within" on us. Look at Majora's Mask. That's what we want when we say we want a "mature Zelda".
Too funny vudu, i'm still laughing.
Anyway, what's wrong with violence. I say give me gore, blood, head rolling around, limbs being detached, bloody impales, maybe even some blood curdling screams. I don't get you guys at all. You say you want more realism in games, more immersion, and good graphics do that? No! When you swing a sword damage is done. Make the damage more real, by making it more explicit. I'll tell you what, get a sharp sword, or better yet get a master sword, a sword so strong it can repel the greatest evil in the land... then swing it at someone's neck, if their head doesn't fall off, then i'm wrong the LoZ games are real enough. Maybe it's just me, but I love movies like Gladiator, Braveheart, The Patriot. I mean dismemberment is a part of war and fighting, you want realism, you better be ready for blood and gore. Of course, if they make the game without it, I'd be just as satisfied.
Post by: stevey on February 28, 2006, 12:48:59 PM
Their wont be two versions or rev controls/stuff in tp, reggie said so just a few week ago in spike 
that the only thing this zelda has going for it on the rev is that the game with play on it and that all and has said that for a year now what dont you get! die! die! Why wont this fake lieing story die!!!
Post by: Smash_Brother on February 28, 2006, 12:52:18 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: UncleBob
A Backstreet Boys CD might outsell WindWaker, but that doesn't mean it's better. :Þ
GTA outsold WW tenfold. Doesn't mean it's better, either.
But Nintendo could still use that money.
Post by: Ian Sane on February 28, 2006, 01:04:37 PM
It won't be hard to make a better Zelda than Wind Waker. I love that game but it is easily the weakest of the 3D Zeldas and one of the weakest of the EAD titles. And that has nothing to do with the graphics either. Actually that's more of a huge compliment to the Zelda series as a whole that a game as good as Wind Waker is one of the weaker efforts.
"Anyway, what's wrong with violence."
It just seems inappropriate. Zelda never had to have gore or anything like that before to be affective. If you're striving for realism then it makes sense but Zelda isn't realistic. It has elves and magic and monsters and all sorts of non-realistic elements. It's funny that Twilight Princess's look is considered realistic because it's actually quite stylish. The characters for example aren't to realistic scale. Their eyes are too big for example. It's not a cartoon but it's not photo-realism either. I would consider realistic violence in Zelda to be as out-of-place as the visuals in Wind Waker. My biggest problem with those graphics is that they were totally different then the Zelda style I was accustomed to*. Blood and guts would be the same sort of departure.
Plus Zelda is supposed to be kid-friendly. It doesn't have to be super cheery to do this but it shouldn't be overly dark either. Nintendo found a happy-medium with the N64 titles and they shouldn't overcompensate in either direction.
*someone is going to say that Wind Waker's graphics are more true to the original game. I don't see the resemblance and feel Ocarina of Time is pretty much exactly what I figured the 2D Zeldas would look like in 3D. Wind Waker's style to me is like Paper Mario.
Post by: Artimus on February 28, 2006, 01:08:23 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
I would consider realistic violence in Zelda to be as out-of-place as the visuals in Wind Waker.
You've never played the SNES, GB or NES Zeldas!? Wow! You need to, they're so good.
Post by: Ian Sane on February 28, 2006, 01:11:49 PM
I've played all the Zeldas, smart guy (well except the CD-i ones). Read the asterisk in my last post.
Post by: mantidor on February 28, 2006, 01:15:47 PM
Post by: RiskyChris on February 28, 2006, 01:16:22 PM
Post by: pudu on February 28, 2006, 01:16:57 PM
Post by: Smash_Brother on February 28, 2006, 01:19:18 PM
Since OoT is the first Zelda game in 3D, I'd use that as a guideline for what the franchise is "supposed" to look like. From what I understand, no one complained about it.
Post by: Ian Sane on February 28, 2006, 01:43:51 PM
All I know is when I first saw Ocarina of Time it was exactly what I envisioned A Link to the Past in 3D looking like and the first time I saw Wind Waker I was like "WTF is this cartoon sh!t". Plus whenever an enemy from a previous game appeared in Ocarina I recognized it while in Wind Waker I usually didn't at first. This is just how I see it and someone else could interpret things differently.
The graphic limitations arguement is one I support. When NES and SNES games were made typically I imagined they were supposed to look a certain way but couldn't because it wasn't possible. Even now I don't see 2D graphics as a literal respresentation for something. When I see a short midget in a 2D RPG I don't think of a midget. I assume they're full sized people. I never saw Link as a stubby disproportioned big headed midget. I saw the sprite and thought he was an elf like you would see in Lord of the Rings.
One thing that also doens't fit to me is that cel-shading looks find of flat. The 2D Zelda games didn't appear flat. There was always effort put in to make the 2D art have depth. When I see graphics with depth to them in 2D I assume that transfered over to 3D they'll have more subtle colouring and lighting and such.
None of the Links in the 2D Zelda had pig feet and cat eyes.
Post by: mantidor on February 28, 2006, 01:44:11 PM
The way I see it, most people think that doing OoT clone would be enough, but it simply isnt, the impression Ocarina made was so strong that I can understand what Ian and Smash Brother think, but if Nintendo wouldve just made Zelda with this "realistic" style for GC you wouldve end up dissapointed, because what made Ocarina so big wasnt the generic fantasy "realistic" lack of art direction, was the innovation in bringing a 3D world to life, and having the Wind Waker in realistic graphics wouldnt have the slightest chance to achieve the same effect. Theres a reason why we are geting a wolf and Midna and crazy cellshaded world and god knows what other new things for Twilight Princess.
Post by: Chris1 on February 28, 2006, 04:52:21 PM
Post by: RiskyChris on February 28, 2006, 05:01:57 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
The graphic limitations arguement is one I support. When NES and SNES games were made typically I imagined they were supposed to look a certain way but couldn't because it wasn't possible. Even now I don't see 2D graphics as a literal respresentation for something. When I see a short midget in a 2D RPG I don't think of a midget. I assume they're full sized people. I never saw Link as a stubby disproportioned big headed midget. I saw the sprite and thought he was an elf like you would see in Lord of the Rings.
One thing that also doens't fit to me is that cel-shading looks find of flat. The 2D Zelda games didn't appear flat. There was always effort put in to make the 2D art have depth. When I see graphics with depth to them in 2D I assume that transfered over to 3D they'll have more subtle colouring and lighting and such.
None of the Links in the 2D Zelda had pig feet and cat eyes.
The giant head in LTTP really gave away the fact that Link was disproportionate.
Did you even play Wind Waker? The lighting took away any feeling of a flat world. I used to think like you until I actually got my hands on the game and played. The artistic style completely trumps OoT's (which, by any standard lacks art).
Post by: Artimus on February 28, 2006, 05:32:25 PM
Exhibit A:
And exhibit B:
Now we'll just each keep our own feelings regarding my proof that WW looks more like LttP than Ocarina does.
Post by: zakkiel on February 28, 2006, 06:17:59 PM
As for Zelda featuring gore, there are about 3,000 more probable things to worry about.
Post by: Bill Aurion on February 28, 2006, 06:28:29 PM
Post by: RiskyChris on February 28, 2006, 06:34:10 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: zakkiel
Not the "WW is more artistic!" crap again. There's not a single objective criterion to point to in that regard. It's all in your head, either way.
As for Zelda featuring gore, there are about 3,000 more probable things to worry about.
No one is quantizing the artistic nature of WW, but it's perfectly logical to say that it has more than OoT.
Post by: Artimus on February 28, 2006, 06:34:25 PM
Post by: Smash_Brother on February 28, 2006, 06:44:58 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: mantidor
The way I see it, most people think that doing OoT clone would be enough, but it simply isnt, the impression Ocarina made was so strong that I can understand what Ian and Smash Brother think, but if Nintendo wouldve just made Zelda with this "realistic" style for GC you wouldve end up dissapointed, because what made Ocarina so big wasnt the generic fantasy "realistic" lack of art direction, was the innovation in bringing a 3D world to life, and having the Wind Waker in realistic graphics wouldnt have the slightest chance to achieve the same effect. Theres a reason why we are geting a wolf and Midna and crazy cellshaded world and god knows what other new things for Twilight Princess.
Naturally, Zelda should never stop developing its gameplay.
However, I think Nintendo could use a boost in sales which graphically "realistic" games bring.
It's an ugly truth but a truth regardless: graphic-whores have money. If Nintendo coincides the launch of the Rev with the launch of TP, a lot of those graphic-whores will buy Revs.
IMHO, not using TP's selling power to push Revs would be a mistake. I know that's not a popular opinion around here, but the cube could have used a Zelda game at launch to get players to come pick up the new Nintendo system. If you're pissed at the lack of cube games (and let's face it, we all are), then understand that Nintendo bringing TP out around the same time would be the best thing to help the Rev avoid the same fate.
No matter how good their launch lineup is, there will be people not sold on the controller concept. For them, there will be Zelda, something they've been sold on for a long time.
If Zelda can be the gateway drug, it should.
Post by: IceCold on February 28, 2006, 07:20:29 PM
QuoteOf course you know this, but the downward thrust was in AoL also (of course with rudimentary graphics).. well, it was in Wind Waker too (only against Magtails and Floormasters)
Originally posted by: Bill Aurion
I take it as a poor translation...Though Link's attacks DO seem a bit more brutal (as with his finisher), it's not TOO over-the-top...
Post by: wandering on February 28, 2006, 08:35:20 PM
Quote
No, the thing with Ocarina is that it was 3D and that simply blew us all away, the graphics themselves took a second stand, the game lacks some sort of art direction like Majora's Mask, the Wind Waker or even the handheld games like the Minish Cap, by any standards is pretty generic, but the added dimension was impressive enough to make the game outstanding.
Bah, generic my eye. Ocarina of time is a beautiful game in every respect: from the color choices to the creature designs. If you want generic, look at Morrowwind. Or Everquest.
Oh, and Link to the Past is fugly. There, I said it.
Post by: PaLaDiN on February 28, 2006, 09:55:39 PM
I'll be the person who says Ocarina is the worst Zelda game I've played.
Post by: KDR_11k on February 28, 2006, 10:45:16 PM
Does anyone remember the interview where the Megaman inventor said that Megaman Powered Up was how he originally envisioned Megaman? Or when George Lucas said that Greedo shooting first was how he originally envisioned Star Wars?
Am I the only one who thinks that OOT is closer to Link's Adventure graphically than any other Zelda game?
Paladin: I'd agree if Zelda 2 didn't exhibit so many critical gameplay flaws.
Post by: Artimus on February 28, 2006, 10:47:34 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: PaLaDiN
Oh good lord, another Zelda ranking war.
I'll be the person who says Ocarina is the worst Zelda game I've played.
I wouldn't say that, Zelda II is the least enjoyable. But I WOULD say it's the least 'Zelda' of the serious. I find it kind of dull, and I've never been able to get through it all (I've gone about 90% at least twice).
Post by: mantidor on March 01, 2006, 07:28:49 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: wanderingQuote
No, the thing with Ocarina is that it was 3D and that simply blew us all away, the graphics themselves took a second stand, the game lacks some sort of art direction like Majora's Mask, the Wind Waker or even the handheld games like the Minish Cap, by any standards is pretty generic, but the added dimension was impressive enough to make the game outstanding.
Bah, generic my eye. Ocarina of time is a beautiful game in every respect: from the color choices to the creature designs. If you want generic, look at Morrowwind. Or Everquest.
Oh, and Link to the Past is fugly. There, I said it.
which is perfectly fine, because is a matter of taste, what gets on my nerves is the "hardcore" zelda gamers who's number one game for the snes or even overall was a link to the past, but cant stand the Wind Waker style, thats just absurd, it makes no sense at all.
Post by: Requiem on March 01, 2006, 08:43:29 AM
*drools*
Nintendo has no reason to rush this game out to the public. Everyone will buy it, so why not wait till it's perfect to release it. I expect TP to release in the fall, a couple of months before revo's launch. Basically, we can all say "goodbye" to the old way of playing games, and already have a REVO title in our hands. Imagine playing TP and wondering how the revo controller could make it even better!
Though it may be for marketing reasons and what not, I still believe Nintendo is trying their hardest to make this the best videogame ever, period. Not because it will sell millions, but because as an intellectual property, it will go down in history. The NRC can only help reach that goal.
Post by: Bill Aurion on March 01, 2006, 08:53:24 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: IceCold
Of course you know this, but the downward thrust was in AoL also (of course with rudimentary graphics).. well, it was in Wind Waker too (only against Magtails and Floormasters)
True, but now it's been used against humanoid enemies, which one could argue is more "brutal" than using it on an insect...
Quote
Originally posted by: wandering
Bah, generic my eye. Ocarina of time is a beautiful game in every respect: from the color choices to the creature designs. If you want generic, look at Morrowwind. Or Everquest.
Oh, and Link to the Past is fugly. There, I said it.
*crickets*
Quote
Originally posted by: mantidor
which is perfectly fine, because is a matter of taste, what gets on my nerves is the "hardcore" zelda gamers who's number one game for the snes or even overall was a link to the past, but cant stand the Wind Waker style, thats just absurd, it makes no sense at all.
Absolute truth...
Post by: Requiem on March 01, 2006, 08:55:50 AM
Nevermind....don't answer that question.
Post by: Bill Aurion on March 01, 2006, 09:01:16 AM
Post by: zakkiel on March 01, 2006, 09:05:49 AM
Quote"Logical" requires that you deduce that conclusion from objective premises. You do that, I might buy into the claim. Since there's nothing even slightly objective about artistic appreciation, you can't.
No one is quantizing the artistic nature of WW, but it's perfectly logical to say that it has more than OoT.
Post by: Smash_Brother on March 01, 2006, 03:45:58 PM
One could argue that WW's stylized graphics are better than OoTs which aren't stylized.
One could also argue that Link looks like a lemon with feet or something right out of the Powerpuff Girls' universe.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on March 01, 2006, 03:56:00 PM
Post by: mantidor on March 02, 2006, 04:34:45 PM
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on March 02, 2006, 06:43:35 PM
I've confirmed that Zeruda's been cancelled. Source: PlanetDeadSystem.com
Post by: wandering on March 02, 2006, 07:53:29 PM
Quote
which is perfectly fine, because is a matter of taste, what gets on my nerves is the "hardcore" zelda gamers who's number one game for the snes or even overall was a link to the past, but cant stand the Wind Waker style, thats just absurd, it makes no sense at all.
Agreed.
People have an annoying tendency to, ah, fool themselves into thinking the zelda games are all about the small portion of the games they latched onto while playing.
You know what I mean. People who say things like 'OOT didn't get good until you became an adult and the dungeons started having blood stains on the walls.'
Or: 'I never saw Link as a stubby disproportioned big headed midget. I saw the sprite and thought he was an elf like you would see in Lord of the Rings.'
...oh, wait, that second one was Ian
Zelda is about childhood and coming of age and the loss of innocence and all that. It's not about you fulfilling your adolescent fantasies by being a badass and beating up badguys in dark, blood stain dungeons.
...At least that's not the only thing it's about.
Oh, I probably went a little too far with my 'fugly' comment. Lttp isn't fugly. It's just that, imo, the added cartoony details detract from, rather than add to, the game. That's why I prefer the original in the visuals department.
Post by: DAaaMan64 on March 02, 2006, 09:27:40 PM
Post by: Smash_Brother on March 03, 2006, 10:36:21 AM
