Post by: Link_ on December 21, 2006, 03:41:40 PM
Post by: MarioAllStar on December 21, 2006, 04:25:03 PM
Post by: BlkPaladin on December 21, 2006, 04:45:52 PM
Post by: KDR_11k on December 21, 2006, 08:21:20 PM
Post by: 18 Days on December 21, 2006, 08:29:16 PM
Post by: Infernal Monkey on December 21, 2006, 09:07:19 PM
Post by: Svevan on December 21, 2006, 09:12:43 PM
A 3-D version of either Legend of Zelda or LttP would trump any of the current Zelda games - why? World map design. Nintendo have completely changed how they treat Hyrule in the jump between 2-D and 3-D, and personally I am TIRED of bare fields with lame enemies. These aren't fun, no matter how beautiful. Compared to the world in Shadow of the Colossus, 3-D Zelda overworlds feel small, cramped, and linear. Nintendo tells stories linearly so I suppose they think that an overworld should be point A to B with large open areas (with no objectives) stuffed in between. The area that has most impressed me so far is Lake Hylia in Twilight Princess. Other than that, Hyrule keeps getting prettier with no gameplay improvement.
Imagine Link to the Past in 3-D. You'd pass a small grove of trees, climb a small hill and come to a library with an ancient book. Around the bend from this library you'd find a bustling town, but directly past it is a forest. Go east from the forest and there is a graveyard and a pathway to both a lake and a castle. These elements are all combined rather than separated.
OoT, MM, and TP all have overworlds that amount to nothing but this:
***---------0------****
**--------------------***
*0---------------------**
*------------------------0
*------------------------*
**---------------------**
***---------------0--***
0 = important, cool looking thing
---- = bare open field
I think the reason Shadow of the Colossus was able to pull this off is because it was entirely about the aesthetic nature of the world - the game's focus was on the barrenness and immensity of the world you were in. It maintained consistency by having you start from point A and get to point B on a linear track, but that linear track was the light from your sword, NOT fake dirt walls that impeded your progress. You could go anywhere, but most places just weren't important. If Zelda could take that world and inhabit it with random people, shops, houses, dungeons, etc, all in one seamless (read: no loading) environment, then it would probably be the best Zelda ever. As it stands, Hyrule Field is just filler in between exciting stuff.
edit: Better wording on the SotC/Zelda comparison. Zelda's gameplay is diverse. It is about many people and places that need saving - Link is the courageous one who must save the world. This is an active participation in the world - ergo, Zelda gameplay is puzzle solving, dialogue, interaction with the overworld, combat, etc. In SotC, the gameplay is stripped to bare elements only - half of the gameplay is merely horse riding, while the other half is fighting the Colossi. The character of Wander participates passively in the world until the Colossi appear. It was an aesthetic choice to make the "forsaken" landscape completely empty, and a wise one because the world itself becomes a plot element that impacts our understanding of the Colossi and our feelings about the mystery unfolding in front of us. Hyrule is meant to be Link's playground - with myriad items and skills by which he must save the multitude people and places, there has got to be plenty to do. Why make Hyrule Field empty if it is the core of his purpose?
Nintendo was afraid to do what Sony did with Shadow of the Colossus, which was make a giant overworld where nothing happens. They believe (and perhaps rightly so) in an overworld that is active - yet they do so only halfway by introducing weak, meaningless enemies that we don't care about and can merely fly past. An element like a bridge or a cavern can be inhabited by so much more than generic enemies, but Nintendo only gives us little morsels rather than the immensity of gameplay found in the dungeons. Pretty much, I feel like Nintendo spends way too much time on filling the dungeons with gameplay and not enough time letting that spill onto Hyrule. We need a living world closer to an Elder Scrolls philosophy, one that brings us back to the 2-D mystery of exploring an overworld (because hey, we might find a person or an item that's important! Not just a friggin heart piece).
I guess that's the end. Yes I want these games remade. end rant
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on December 21, 2006, 09:30:34 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Svevan
I just started typing this at 2 AM and couldn't stop. BE WARNED THIS IS A RANT:
A 3-D version of either Legend of Zelda or LttP would trump any of the current Zelda games - why? World map design. Nintendo have completely changed how they treat Hyrule in the jump between 2-D and 3-D, and personally I am TIRED of bare fields with lame enemies. These aren't fun, no matter how beautiful. Compared to the world in Shadow of the Colossus, 3-D Zelda overworlds feel small, cramped, and linear. Nintendo tells stories linearly so I suppose they think that an overworld should be point A to B with large open areas (with no objectives) stuffed in between. The area that has most impressed me so far is Lake Hylia in Twilight Princess. Other than that, Hyrule keeps getting prettier with no gameplay improvement.
Imagine Link to the Past in 3-D. You'd pass a small grove of trees, climb a small hill and come to a library with an ancient book. Around the bend from this library you'd find a bustling town, but directly past it is a forest. Go east from the forest and there is a graveyard and a pathway to both a lake and a castle. These elements are all combined rather than separated.
OoT, MM, and TP all have overworlds that amount to nothing but this:
***---------0------****
**--------------------***
*0---------------------**
*------------------------0
*------------------------*
**---------------------**
***---------------0--***
0 = important, cool looking thing
---- = bare open field
I think the reason Shadow of the Colossus was able to pull this off is because it was entirely about the aesthetic nature of the world - the game's focus was on the barrenness and immensity of the world you were in. It maintained consistency by having you start from point A and get to point B on a linear track, but that linear track was the light from your sword, NOT fake dirt walls that impeded your progress. You could go anywhere, but most places just weren't important. If Zelda could take that world and inhabit it with random people, shops, houses, dungeons, etc, all in one seamless (read: no loading) environment, then it would probably be the best Zelda ever. As it stands, Hyrule Field is just filler in between exciting stuff.
edit: Better wording on the SotC/Zelda comparison. Zelda's gameplay is diverse. It is about many people and places that need saving - Link is the courageous one who must save the world. This is an active participation in the world - ergo, Zelda gameplay is puzzle solving, dialogue, interaction with the overworld, combat, etc. In SotC, the gameplay is stripped to bare elements only - half of the gameplay is merely horse riding, while the other half is fighting the Colossi. The character of Wander participates passively in the world until the Colossi appear. It was an aesthetic choice to make the "forsaken" landscape completely empty, and a wise one because the world itself becomes a plot element that impacts our understanding of the Colossi and our feelings about the mystery unfolding in front of us. Hyrule is meant to be Link's playground - with myriad items and skills by which he must save the multitude people and places, there has got to be plenty to do. Why make Hyrule Field empty if it is the core of his purpose?
Nintendo was afraid to do what Sony did with Shadow of the Colossus, which was make a giant overworld where nothing happens. They believe (and perhaps rightly so) in an overworld that is active - yet they do so only halfway by introducing weak, meaningless enemies that we don't care about and can merely fly past. An element like a bridge or a cavern can be inhabited by so much more than generic enemies, but Nintendo only gives us little morsels rather than the immensity of gameplay found in the dungeons. Pretty much, I feel like Nintendo spends way too much time on filling the dungeons with gameplay and not enough time letting that spill onto Hyrule. We need a living world closer to an Elder Scrolls philosophy, one that brings us back to the 2-D mystery of exploring an overworld (because hey, we might find a person or an item that's important! Not just a friggin heart piece).
I guess that's the end. Yes I want these games remade. end rant
Funny I thought the exact thing about Shadow of Collosus which has about one of the lamest, most boring overworlds in the history of gaming. The 3D Zelda's, especially TP, have enough variety in the overworld to keep my interest but not so large or so complex that its becomes tedious to get accross. I'm sorry but it seems like a bit of a double standard to give SotC the pat on the back and not give TP it as well, at least Zelda's enviroments are lively, and I would not be surprised if the reason why SotC has the "isolated" theme is to mask any attempt at bogging down the engine even more with something to do in between bosses.
Post by: Infernal Monkey on December 21, 2006, 11:25:46 PM
Post by: KDR_11k on December 22, 2006, 12:22:57 AM
Post by: Galford on December 22, 2006, 01:43:08 AM
It at best would look like Morrowwind on an old PC.
Didn't TP use a hyper modified version of the WW engine?
It trades texture and model detail for no load times.
It would be interesting to see a Zelda game built from the ground up on Wii based engine.
Post by: KDR_11k on December 22, 2006, 02:08:51 AM
It trades texture and model detail for no load times.
Maybe in the Wii version. On the GC there are load times.
Post by: ryancoke on December 22, 2006, 02:14:36 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Galford
Didn't TP use a hyper modified version of the WW engine?
It trades texture and model detail for no load times.
Remember that windwaker used cellshading and alot of solid color textures. Solid colors are much easier for the wii/gcn to render than realistic textures. If they did another windwaker style Zelda built from the ground up on the wii, I think they could make Hyrule Field ginormous. I think they did a really good job with TP's field though. It's fairly large and I think it has enough variety.
Post by: couchmonkey on December 22, 2006, 02:18:05 AM
Though I wouldn't mind seeing more action in the 3D maps in general.
Post by: ryancoke on December 22, 2006, 02:22:02 AM
Post by: KDR_11k on December 22, 2006, 04:03:14 AM
Not necessarily, if the entire polygon has the same color that uses very little texture space but even if there's just one line drawn on a polygon it needs the normal amount of texture memory.
If they did another windwaker style Zelda built from the ground up on the wii, I think they could make Hyrule Field ginormous.
Scaling costs no power, what does cost power is filling all that space with interesting stuff. I suppose the only reason Hyrule Field isn't bigger is because there's no reason for it to be. Bigger just means longer travel times. It's a pretty large area of gameplay desert as is.
I prefer the 3D overworlds to the 2D ones. I hate every little bit of travel being hindered by enemies and obstacles.
If your travels have nothing happening in them why not replace them with teleports? Game time where nothing happens for minutes is just filler.
Post by: Ceric on December 22, 2006, 04:15:43 AM
I wouldn't mind a 3D redo of the first one. Though I greatly preferred a graphically enhanced 2D version. Maybe even tie them together and make the Second Quest 3D.
Post by: Louieturkey on December 22, 2006, 04:17:11 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Galford
Didn't TP use a hyper modified version of the WW engine?
It trades texture and model detail for no load times.
Yes it did. Nintendo used the same engine and modified it a bit which makes what Infernal Monkey said just dumb. "I hate this engine but I love the exact same one, its twin, right next to it."
Post by: Ceric on December 22, 2006, 04:23:47 AM
Post by: Ian Sane on December 22, 2006, 05:33:04 AM
I think Svevan has a good point though I wonder if making an overworld like the 2D games is even possible in 3D. Those games had the little transitions from tile-to-tile. In 3D you can't do that. Could they even make a game that big in 3D? Metroid Prime pretty much does that but it has doors. You can't really do that with Zelda.
Post by: Spak-Spang on December 22, 2006, 06:40:58 AM
And I have found very few caves to blow up and explore...of course, I could be looking in the wrong places.
Some things work better in 2D and should just remain the classics that we love.
Post by: Kairon on December 22, 2006, 07:12:01 AM
Outsource to a bunch of bright-eyed hardworking Digipen students formed into a brand new company?
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: mantidor on December 22, 2006, 07:19:40 AM
As for the overworlds, I'll say be careful what you wish for, its not evident of course, but I've noticed that the contrast of having to travel an almost barren path to find a populous town full of things make things feel more epic. I haven't play SotC, but I bet it wouldn't be the same game if you just selected which colossus to take down in a menu which unlocks the next one after you beat the one before. What there needs to be is the right balance, WW was a tad too "big" in its barren parts, TP a little bit less from what I've played so far.
Post by: Ian Sane on December 22, 2006, 07:36:38 AM
Post by: armedalliance on December 22, 2006, 11:14:02 PM
01 | 02 | 03
Post by: Shecky on December 23, 2006, 02:51:48 AM
Well guess what, never going to happen. Game mechanics and level design would not translate, hence you cannot have the same game. QED
KDR: Note that WW islands were spaced they way they were for the sake of system resources. As you pass the grid boundaries you can see one island disapear and the other "load"
Post by: NeoThunder on December 23, 2006, 05:12:27 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Infernal Monkey
The boring blur-fest toilet themed TP engine can burn in hell. Wind Waker engine.
AHHHHH, cell shaded sucks. If I never have to buy a cell shaded game again it will be too soon, realism is the way to go
Post by: Nick DiMola on December 23, 2006, 07:22:48 AM
Post by: ShreddersDojo on December 24, 2006, 12:42:57 PM
I think I remember reading somwhere a Nintendo game developer mentioned that more people find this to be a problem, and they where working on toning down the wandering, but I can't remember where I Read that.
Post by: Artimus on December 24, 2006, 12:54:50 PM
Post by: Chiller on December 24, 2006, 01:27:04 PM
In any case, preferences aside, I think that the 3-D versions, and the 2-D version have such an overall disparity in feel and mechanics, that, aside from characters, they almost seem like two different franchises (but not quite). To transmute 2-D to 3-D would lead, in my opinion, to a game that feels so fundamentally different, that the intended purpose is lost. I am not saying that 3-D doesn't work with the franchise, since I have enjoyed those offerings. It is just, as a strict remake, I don't think it will work. As other have suggested, you might as well start from scratch since, for the most part, the game will no longer seem enough like the original to really have the intended effect. To sum it up, I just don't think that the elements that made the original such a great game will translate, and what you will be left with will be too different. You will either have to add, or subtract too much from the game to get it to work, and thus, it really wouldn't be a remake.
I even wonder if the 2-D styled build of OoT could have worked.
Post by: KDR_11k on December 24, 2006, 06:54:43 PM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on December 24, 2006, 07:24:12 PM
Post by: vudu on January 17, 2007, 08:13:24 AM
Post by: Ceric on January 17, 2007, 09:02:01 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: VGrevolution
AoL needs to be forever buried in the desert like ET before it.
I strongly disagree there. Fixed not dumped...
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on January 17, 2007, 09:05:04 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: CericQuote
Originally posted by: VGrevolution
AoL needs to be forever buried in the desert like ET before it.
I strongly disagree there. Fixed not dumped...
Well, I really don't like rushed out sequels of one of the greatest gaming franchises of all time. AoL was a terrible game, that didn't have any idea what it wanted to be.
Post by: Caliban on January 17, 2007, 11:10:52 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: VGrevolution
AoL needs to be forever buried in the desert like ET before it.
Is this the game you were talking about?
I don't get why so many people honestly don't like or only hate on this game. Is it because it was hard? Awwwwwwww, poor you, couldn't even get to the first palace, maybe you can blame the game mechanics instead of yourself. Seriously, any other game that came out on the NES, even if it was/is highly praised, still has huge flaws or something else to blame and hate at.
Quote
Originally posted by: VGrevolutionWell, I really don't like rushed out sequels of one of the greatest gaming franchises of all time. AoL was a terrible game, that didn't have any idea what it wanted to be.
It had no idea what it wanted to be, how so?
Post by: Nick DiMola on January 17, 2007, 12:32:00 PM
Post by: KDR_11k on January 17, 2007, 06:34:01 PM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on January 18, 2007, 08:49:30 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: CalibanQuote
Originally posted by: VGrevolution
AoL needs to be forever buried in the desert like ET before it.
Is this the game you were talking about?
I don't get why so many people honestly don't like or only hate on this game. Is it because it was hard? Awwwwwwww, poor you, couldn't even get to the first palace, maybe you can blame the game mechanics instead of yourself. Seriously, any other game that came out on the NES, even if it was/is highly praised, still has huge flaws or something else to blame and hate at.Quote
Originally posted by: VGrevolutionWell, I really don't like rushed out sequels of one of the greatest gaming franchises of all time. AoL was a terrible game, that didn't have any idea what it wanted to be.
It had no idea what it wanted to be, how so?
The game felt like a mish mash of ideas, none executed very well. it wanted to be an RPG, yet had tons of platforming elements, it had its own form of RPG battles where you get sucked into goofy "mini-game" levels where you run into a bad guy. It mixed magic, but it seemed poorly implemented and out of place. It wanted to be like the old Zelda with an overhead view, but tried to mix it with overworld map in the FF games, while still integrating those, once again, lame and repetitive side scrolling game.
To this day I have no idea what the game was trying to be, it felt rushed which did not mesh well with so many genres mixed into one. It didn't feel like a Zelda game, it didn't feel like an RPG, it didn't feel like a platformer, it felt like the development team took a shotgun and scattershot all their ideas onto a game design board, then rushed to complete it. So yes, I stick by my thoughts that I can't stand the game and feel it should be forgotten, or completely overhauled because nothing worked well. The only really positive thing I can say about the game is that some of its ideas were implemented in later Zelda's, but with much more polish.
Post by: Ian Sane on January 18, 2007, 09:15:52 AM
I don't care much for the original Zelda either because again Link's sword has no range at all and the game gives no indication of where to go or what to do and the game requires you to spend money but makes rupees scarce. However when that formula was expanded on on the SNES it resulted in something really fun that kept the same formula but removed all the annoying crap. Super Metroid is the same way. I love that game. I hate Metroid with it's no map, no diagonal shooting, and no health refill after dying. Once all the stupid crap that made the game unfair was removed it was awesome.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on January 18, 2007, 09:20:04 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
My problem with Adventure of Link is more based on the general limitations that a lot of NES games have that give the game an unfair difficulty. Link's sword has no range. It's like trying to kill a goblin with a fountain pen. The game also has that annoying bullsh!t with LIVES and forcing you back to the begining of the game after a game over (makes sense in Mario but not in Zelda). That sort of crap was in all sorts of 8-bit games and it wasn't until the 16-bit era that developers realized that unfair challenges that made no sense weren't a part of good game design. I wonder if the concept was expanded on in a 16 bit game if it would turn out better.
I don't care much for the original Zelda either because again Link's sword has no range at all and the game gives no indication of where to go or what to do and the game requires you to spend money but makes rupees scarce. However when that formula was expanded on on the SNES it resulted in something really fun that kept the same formula but removed all the annoying crap. Super Metroid is the same way. I love that game. I hate Metroid with it's no map, no diagonal shooting, and no health refill after dying. Once all the stupid crap that made the game unfair was removed it was awesome.
Well in a way I guess AoL was good as an experiment to adjust the formula, still doesn't discount my belief that it didn't do anything very well.
