Post by: Gamebasher on October 18, 2003, 04:10:26 AM
loz.zeldalegends.net/text/interviews
Perhaps this is all speculation into ones own dreams and desires, but if you look at the success of the Soul Calibur version starring Link out now on the GCN, keeping Miyamoto´s own comments on it that "a lot of people would probably like to see that kind of Link in a Zelda game", you just can´t help to wonder if Nintendo will indeed do it the way a lot of people want. A darker, more realistic version of Zelda...
I, for one, think they should have made two versions. One for the kids they´re so afraid of scaring. And one for us older players, who will just love being in a realistic setting with all the Ocarina of Time magic back in force!!!
GameBasher.
Post by: PIAC on October 18, 2003, 04:49:26 AM
wind waker 2 has been confirmed to use the wind waker engine.
and please don't group everyone who likes toonshading as kids, it annoys me, and not all people who want a 'realistic' version are older, most are annoying little peons who say things like ZELDA MORE LIKE CELDA I WANT A REALISTC 1 WID DA AWSUM GRAFIX, the same game with two graphic engines would add extra development time, and then cause other problems. so to recap, wind waker 2 = toon shading, future zeldas = what ever miyamoto/aunoma(sp?) consider best for the particular zelda in question.
Post by: Gamebasher on October 18, 2003, 04:54:06 AM
What do you make of that?
Gamebasher.
Post by: PIAC on October 18, 2003, 04:56:55 AM
Post by: Mario on October 18, 2003, 05:04:27 AM
Little known fact. In Wind Wakers opening month in Japan it sold more copies than Ocarina of Time did in its opening month, which graphical style is most popular now?
I liek teh Zelda.
Post by: Termin8Anakin on October 18, 2003, 05:33:09 AM
Having a realistic Zelda would be cool though.
Miyamoto said that making a TRULY realistic Zelda would mean that EVERY single problem in 3D game graphics has to be eliminated, like clipping, collision detection, character animation and interaction. All these elements and more have to be near perfect for Nintendo to be satisfied. But what is stopping Nintendo? It must be hard to do something like that. Yeah, of course it is. I reckon Nintendo, in the next console or the one after, will unveil what they hope will be the difinitive 3D Zelda.
So until then, Gamebasher, you will have to put up with the exceptional gameplay and the superbly rich and detailed worlds of the cel-shaded Zeldas before we will see Nintendo announce a realistic Zelda.
And unless Nintendo does something in 3D that is vastly superior to their cel-shaded efforts, my opinions and thoughts stay the same.
Post by: BlkPaladin on October 18, 2003, 06:09:33 AM
Post by: PIAC on October 18, 2003, 06:26:59 AM
Post by: BlkPaladin on October 18, 2003, 06:31:31 AM
And the others. Esp. 2 even if you don't like it, its one of the reasons I don't want a Zelda RPG or more RPG elements added to Zelda. But one thing for it, the game had some of the hardest bosses to beat. (The Pheonix then Shadow Link were each hard just them selves but so close together made it harder.)
Post by: Fish on October 18, 2003, 07:15:40 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: PIAC
....no
wind waker 2 has been confirmed to use the wind waker engine.
But...but... my brother's girlfriend's barber's cousin's sister's son's friend told me it was going to be realistic!!!111! How can this be!!!!!
Cel-Shading looks cool! Only thing I hope for next Zelda, is that there will be sailing too, but also one huge continent that is surrounded by islands. It would be nice.
Post by: mouse_clicker on October 18, 2003, 07:38:01 AM
Post by: Nintendo Gamecube on October 18, 2003, 08:32:22 AM
Post by: ThePerm on October 18, 2003, 08:55:11 AM
Post by: mouse_clicker on October 18, 2003, 08:56:30 AM
Post by: Berny on October 18, 2003, 09:08:12 AM
Post by: Don'tHate742 on October 18, 2003, 10:00:53 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Mario
So most people wanted a 'realistic' version before Wind Waker was even out, before anyone had played it? Thats not very accurate, and neither are polls in general. Cel-shading looks better.
Little known fact. In Wind Wakers opening month in Japan it sold more copies than Ocarina of Time did in its opening month, which graphical style is most popular now?
I liek teh Zelda.
Your forgetting the many of new Zelda fans that came after the release of Ocarina of Time and Majora's Mask. So of course Wind Waker is going to sell more. Also there was a pre-order promotion, unlike Ocarina where it was just a gold cartridge. I hope they keep the cel-shaded style for the next game, but I also wish they featured adult link or change the style of drawing to the clean anime featured in the old manuals, or both
. I just don't like how WW looked so flat.
Post by: mouse_clicker on October 18, 2003, 11:29:01 AM
Post by: Luciferschild on October 18, 2003, 12:03:56 PM
Post by: mouse_clicker on October 18, 2003, 12:07:51 PM
Post by: Luciferschild on October 18, 2003, 12:42:01 PM
Post by: KDR_11k on October 18, 2003, 10:18:21 PM
Post by: ExtremeGcube on October 19, 2003, 02:34:36 AM
Post by: mojorizin on October 19, 2003, 04:15:13 AM
Post by: Caliban on October 19, 2003, 05:02:42 AM
.
Post by: mjbd on October 19, 2003, 06:34:02 AM
Post by: Swordsplay on October 22, 2003, 09:01:46 PM
Ocarina of time ---> 12 0r 13 dungeons plus ganons tower
Majoras mask-----> 4 including the moon
Windwaker--------> 5 maybe 6, also including ganons castle
Windwaker 2------> my guess would be 4 or 5, plus ganondorfs castle
Why are the dungeons decreasing in number? I dont get it. Maybe they are running out of ideas.
Post by: nolimit19 on October 22, 2003, 09:08:57 PM
Post by: StRaNgE on October 23, 2003, 06:43:41 AM
think again, they have it somewhere on the back burner.
might not come out on the cube but i would be surprised if not on the next console after.
there is a place for both types which means more profit for nintendo.
Post by: Bill Aurion on October 23, 2003, 07:29:40 AM
2) As for fewer dungeons, yes that is true...But let's take a game like LttP...Sure it had a bunch of dungeons, but I can easily burn through the first few in a matter of minutes, and the dark world ones not much more...And just so you know, 2 dungeons were left out of Wind Waker due to time constraints...So I would expect them to appear in the next game.
My guess for dungeons in the next Zelda game: 7 or 8 including the final boss area...
Post by: mouse_clicker on October 23, 2003, 08:04:59 AM
Post by: Bill Aurion on October 23, 2003, 08:19:57 AM
But really, I expect the dungeon count to be near equal to OoT...
Post by: Stimutacs Addict on October 23, 2003, 06:06:26 PM
for the N5 i hope that they make a ground-breaking, completely realistic, "perfect" 3D game (no clipping, skipped animations, camera problems, jaggies, good draw distance, etc.)
that could make as much money as Ocarina of Time, and set standards for a long time
Post by: nolimit19 on October 23, 2003, 06:39:46 PM
Post by: josheat on October 23, 2003, 07:52:38 PM
but windwaker is bloody cool
Post by: Hostile Creation on October 24, 2003, 02:33:54 AM
Post by: Mario on October 24, 2003, 06:26:29 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: StRaNgE
why would anyone think that the spaceworld graphics engine was scrapped?
think again, they have it somewhere on the back burner.
might not come out on the cube but i would be surprised if not on the next console after.
there is a place for both types which means more profit for nintendo.
There is no spaceworld graphics engine. It was a short tech demo that took them 3 days to make. A video. It has no relevance to an actual game.
And as for the next Zelda, please, PLEASE dont rush it Nintendo. Make it the best game ever. Wind Waker was LACKING, i want a better Zelda damnit! And yes, i want it on GameCube.
Post by: Swordsplay on October 24, 2003, 09:20:50 AM
Post by: MysticGohan24 on October 24, 2003, 10:47:31 AM
But where and when does the next zelda take place? ( Yes I know after WW )
Last we saw gannon
SPOILERS!!!!:
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!he was buried under the ocean with the Master sword stuck to his head, what would happen next? No more Master Sword? is Ganon Really gone?
hmmmmmmmmmmmm..... I think not.
Post by: nolimit19 on October 24, 2003, 01:12:39 PM
Post by: The King of red Lions on October 24, 2003, 06:34:35 PM
Easy as pie.
Post by: Bill Aurion on October 24, 2003, 06:39:52 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Mario
There is no spaceworld graphics engine.
*Bzzzz*
I'm sorry but that's incorrect...
Ninty was in fact working on a realistic game engine before they flipped over to beautiful toon-shading...
Post by: Shift Key on October 24, 2003, 07:21:50 PM
To say that cel-shading is bad is foolish. It's not realistic? So what. If you want realistic, go outside, dress up as Link and run around the backyard yelling "AAAAAAAH-YAAAAAAAAAH!"
MysticGohan24: Ganondorf is a wizard. He's never really dead
Swordsplay: The dungeons left out of the game may have been left out for 'time constraints,' but you can't really say. I think, wait for the flaming, that the dungeons left out probably had little relevance to the story.
Mario: YES! I CAN WAIT NINTENDO! I WANT A LONGER ADVENTURE! AND SAILING DOESN'T COUNT DAMMIT!
CAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPSLOCK!
Post by: Mario on October 24, 2003, 07:35:20 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: BillQuote
Originally posted by: Mario
There is no spaceworld graphics engine.
*Bzzzz*
I'm sorry but that's incorrect...
Ninty was in fact working on a realistic game engine before they flipped over to beautiful toon-shading...
You are wrong. If they were working on a 'realistic' game engine at some stage, the spaceworld demo wasnt it.
Post by: mouse_clicker on October 24, 2003, 07:39:54 PM
Post by: Djunknown on October 24, 2003, 09:44:15 PM
I wonder where people are getting the notion that Oot was all dark, moody, etc. Granted when you (spoilers for all 4 of you people who havent' played Oot, just playing it safe) Became an adult and saw Hyrule bazaar in shambles, the Kokori villiage overun by deku plants, saw no Gorons before the fire dungeon, and saw no Zoras doesn't mean Oot was all dreary etc. There was always that ray of hope.
All the chaos happened after the fact, we didn't see it in the proccess. Same thing with WW, we didn't see Hyrule get destroyed by Ganondorf or the Gods flooding the kingdom. So when people are quoting Oot as the base for a darker Zelda, I don't see where they're coming form.
NOW if you're talking about an adventure starring an Adult Link, similiar to Oot, but just higher polygon count, that's a whole different story. I just don't see Link slashing the innards of a Moblin or seeing a trail of impaled Hylians on the way to Ganon(dorf)'s tower. It'd be highly doubtful we'll see a complex relationship between Link and Zelda, most likely they'll just remain friends who are either too timid or too focused on saving the world as opposed to hooking up. Mario's been saving Princess Peach (or Toadstool) for how many years, and the two aren't officially an item? Bad example I'm sure, hopefully you know what I mean.
Obviously, Adult Link seems to be in high demand. The high sales figures of the 'Cube version of Soul Calibur 2 show this. So Nintendo should know that there is spot for him somewhere...
Post by: mouse_clicker on October 24, 2003, 09:47:34 PM
Post by: MysticGohan24 on October 24, 2003, 10:05:48 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Shifty
The GC Zelda started out being developed using the SW engine, and the team, particularly Miyamoto, felt they were going through the motions of OoT. That's why they scrapped the game and started afresh. I'm sure people would have been happy with a GC rehash of OoT, but not me. I'm happy that they went in the direction they did.
To say that cel-shading is bad is foolish. It's not realistic? So what. If you want realistic, go outside, dress up as Link and run around the backyard yelling "AAAAAAAH-YAAAAAAAAAH!"
MysticGohan24: Ganondorf is a wizard. He's never really dead
Swordsplay: The dungeons left out of the game may have been left out for 'time constraints,' but you can't really say. I think, wait for the flaming, that the dungeons left out probably had little relevance to the story.
Mario: YES! I CAN WAIT NINTENDO! I WANT A LONGER ADVENTURE! AND SAILING DOESN'T COUNT DAMMIT!
CAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPSLOCK!
Ganondorf a wizard? Intresting, although he's never been referred to as such.
Although, I wonder if we will see the wizard Agrhaim? ( Sp? )
Would be intresting to see a new incarnation of him, and could explain the relationship between him and ganon.
Post by: mouse_clicker on October 24, 2003, 10:11:16 PM
Post by: Bill Aurion on October 24, 2003, 10:14:14 PM
Yeah, though Ninty was working on a realistic game engine, I sorta doubt the Spaceworld tech demo was it...
Post by: MysticGohan24 on October 24, 2003, 10:25:08 PM
Really Mouse_Clicker? I never payed any attention. I have all the Zelda's accept the Cd-i ( those can't count ) and Oracle of Seasons.
I have N64 Gold Carts of TooT and MM along with the bonus disc of WW Toot and MQ for GC.
I need to play them again, I've been hooked on the Empires: Dawn of the modern world and secrets of WWII.
And spending time trying to complete oracle of Ages, I hate the goron dance routine, I'm on the 2nd one where you have to get the bloody 2nd mermaid key for the present.
Post by: mouse_clicker on October 24, 2003, 10:29:53 PM
Post by: Swordsplay on October 24, 2003, 10:32:28 PM
Post by: mouse_clicker on October 24, 2003, 10:46:44 PM
A wizard IS someone who uses magical powers, and no, he wouldn't be a warlock- that's a male witch. He's a wizard, and they call him a wizard numerous times throughout the series. And Ganondorf is technically not immortal- he was mortal before he took the Triforce and presumably the Triforce of Power made him immortal afterwords. Immortal does not mean invincible, though, it means unable to die of natural causes- he can still be killed, and he IS killed, I believe, at the end of The Legend of Zelda for the NES, the last Zelda game chronologically that Ganondorf/Ganon appeared in.
Post by: MysticGohan24 on October 25, 2003, 09:53:20 AM
as a shadow when you die.The annoying evil laughter.
Post by: Shin Gallon on October 25, 2003, 01:05:43 PM
I also loved the story and characters and sheer amount of stuff to do in the game. Anyone complaining that it wasn't long enough obviously didn't complete all the side-quests and minigames. I wasn't impressed at all by the original Spaceworld video. "Oh look, it's ocerina all over again, yay" was pretty much my reaction (and to this day, OoT remains the only Zelda other than Majora's Mask that I've not beaten and loved...I just lose interest in it after about an hour of playing), and I couldn't have been happier that Miyamoto went in the direction he did with Wind Waker. Better control, much better graphics and visual style and characters that aren't ugly as sin (Impa in OoT is...ugh...did I ask for a mannish pro wrestler woman?) made Wind Waker my second favorite Zelda to date (the first being Link to the Past, which is still one of the best games ever).
Post by: the_zombie_luke on October 25, 2003, 05:01:52 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
Personally I don't care whether WW has a standard-anime or its own style (celshading), but WW came short on a more important area: Dungeons! It had too few dungeons!
I strongly agree, but they were also very easy compared to earlier Zeldas and the director of Wind Waker thinks that side quests are more important than the dungeons.
Post by: the_zombie_luke on October 25, 2003, 05:14:53 PM
Post by: Dynamitega on October 25, 2003, 09:17:27 PM
Post by: Shift Key on October 25, 2003, 10:18:46 PM
The premise of Zelda has always been Link fighting evil alone, against the odds, yada yada yada. Other players only take on a small role, even Zelda did in WW, and I think it would take away from the feel of the game.
I don't want a rehash of OoT with two player modes either. The game is simply too long to play through with two players.
To be critical of OoT for the faces (Impa doesn't count
) and not play it is crazy. While he doesn't have the facial expressions in WW, the game still ranks highly on my all time list, in the top two definitely, because the game always consumes me every time I play it.Go play FF:CC for multiplayer combat. Leave Zelda the way it is.
Post by: VideoGamerX on October 26, 2003, 12:00:26 AM
B) One reason you might be seeing fewer dungeons is because not everyone likes the dungeons. I for one do not like the dungeon designs in Ocarina of Time. I also don't like being restrained to dungeon missions as they make the game exceedingly time consuming and boring. Personally, I think they need to work on new dungeon ideas. I want a longer Zelda as much as anybody, but I don't like the fact that I have to spend 3 to 4 hours playing the game to get through a dungeon because I can't save midway through the dungeon without being sent back to the beginning or if I plan to play Zelda for a few hours, I have to spend them in a stupid dungeon if I want to advance a little further into the game.
Personally, I loved LttP's dungeons. They are the best to date even though they're top-down and fairly two dimensional. The boss battles are the best, too. I had a lot more fun with those than any others. Zelda in 3D is pretty awkward especially with how they're trying to be so creative with the size of the bosses and the different ways to beat them. I yearn for something that touches back on the roots of Zelda a little more. Throw in some more dragons that move around in the battle area that we have to dodge... or something.
And for anyone that's wondering... I happened to cruise through the Water Temple in OoT no sweat. It was the most straight-forward dungeon for me, which is strange since most of the other dungeons ticked me off. Go figure.
Post by: Ocarina Blue on October 26, 2003, 01:40:40 AM
I remember hearing about an interview with Aonuma (sp?) and Miyamoto at E3 when WW2, was confirmed to be in development. Apparently, the next Zelda will 'go back to it's roots', or something. I can't remember where I heard it, so take it with a grain of salt, but by that I imagine they mean more dungeons, less sidequests (as in LoZ).
Shifty: Isn't multiplayer Zelda done already with Four Swords?
Post by: Rellik on October 26, 2003, 01:48:22 AM
Post by: Don'tHate742 on October 26, 2003, 03:56:21 PM
To me its not about the number of Dungeons, its about was it a fulfilling adventure.
Post by: mouse_clicker on October 26, 2003, 04:04:43 PM
Post by: Bill Aurion on October 26, 2003, 04:06:46 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ocarina Blue
I remember hearing about an interview with Aonuma (sp?) and Miyamoto at E3 when WW2, was confirmed to be in development. Apparently, the next Zelda will 'go back to it's roots', or something. I can't remember where I heard it, so take it with a grain of salt, but by that I imagine they mean more dungeons, less sidequests (as in LoZ).
I believe they meant that the game is going to be more like LttP, which can only be a good thing...
And just so you guys know(can't remember if I've posted this or not), 2 dungeons were cut out of Wind Waker and will be put into the next game...So we are most likely looking at a game with at least 2 more dungeons...
Post by: Ocarina Blue on October 26, 2003, 04:52:54 PM
Post by: mouse_clicker on October 26, 2003, 04:56:32 PM
Post by: Ocarina Blue on October 26, 2003, 05:07:25 PM
Post by: Bill Aurion on October 26, 2003, 05:15:11 PM
*pouts*
Post by: Swordsplay on October 27, 2003, 05:02:24 AM
Post by: cheers69 on October 27, 2003, 01:14:01 PM
Post by: Bill Aurion on October 27, 2003, 01:21:03 PM
Post by: cheers69 on October 27, 2003, 01:26:36 PM
Post by: Bill Aurion on October 27, 2003, 01:45:11 PM
Of course the game is drawn out, just as an adventure is supposed to be. I loved sailing, and I couldn't wait to finish the next dungeon so I could sail out on the open ocean some more...WW > OoT, and I can find many that agree...At least, those that can truely appreciate the Zelda series for what it is...an ADVENTURE title...
</protective rant>
Post by: VideoGamerX on October 27, 2003, 02:22:21 PM
The thing I hate most about Ocarina of Time is the reliance upon dungeons to craft and evolve the story. The dungeons were mostly annoying and repetitive. I felt more excited while playing LttP's dungeons, but that's in part due to how much I liked the story in LttP and the music really left an impression upon me. Ocarina of Time wore me out because Navi was constantly saying "Hey, go here!" "Hey, aren't we supposed to blah blah?" "What's that blah on the blah over blah?" "We should go to the blah and spend a few hours blahing." Grrrr. I really wanted to take my sword to that fairy and shut it up by about the third dungeon. :-P
What I have always wanted is a world with more options. Hyrule has always offered these certain fundamental elements like exploration, discovery, and accomplishment. What I find is that I don't always want to be completing dungeon missions and advancing through the game. I want more ways to waste my time prolonging certain experiences. What I think would be nice are x number of dungeons and y number of extra places to storm and explore. The y places wouldn't have any bearing over the game itself and would offer certain rewards. Like say if there was an old abandoned fort on a hill south of Karakiro village, there'd be a rumor of some old magical armor there. You wouldn't neccesarily have to go there to advance the game, but if you have some free time and you want to add something more to your game, you could go there and storm the old fort.
Wind Waker had some of these ideas and Ocarina of Time did too. The bottom of the well was a non-dungeon dungeon. Wind Waker had something similar to this but in a much smaller, simpler fashion. I really wouldn't mind having extra dungeons. I wouldn't mind having some very difficult extra dungeons that are there just for grins and chuckles. Keep a sword upgrade in there. Keep a special boomerang upgrade there. You can beat one really hard dungeon and make the rest of the game easier. You could do any number of things to the rest of the game by completing these optional places.
It's not a new concept to Zelda really - having side quests. But we've never quite had the luxary of optional dungeons like this in an actual Legend of Zelda game.
Post by: Shift Key on October 27, 2003, 02:49:19 PM
~ Skulltulas
~ The item trading (yound and adult)
~ Fishing
~ Bottom of the Well
~ Racing Ingo at Lon Lon Ranch
~ The running man
~ The magic spells (Din/Nayru/Farore)
~ The gallery of games in Hyrule Town/Kakariko.
~ Gerudo Horseback Challenge thingo.
If you didn't at least give these ones a shot, you missed out on SO much of OoT
Quote
You wouldn't neccesarily have to go there to advance the game, but if you have some free time and you want to add something more to your game, you could go there and storm the old fort.
If you want optional dungeons, that's fine. OoT added items from side quests as well, but it wasn't from dungeons. People who say OoT was very dark and eerie seem to forget those side-quests such as the ones listed above, which were not spent in dungeons but out in the world of Hyrule, and most involved NPCs too.
Quote
non-dungeon dungeon
What on earth is this?
Post by: Don'tHate742 on October 27, 2003, 03:09:47 PM
I think that's what some people enjoyed about OOT, kinda brought an RPG sense into the adventure realm. I for one like the different tunics, swords, boots, guanlets, shields that you could aqquire, and the fact that some of them were not mandatory. Also, why not include adult link in the next one. He as a charachter is very popular and is one of the main reasons I loved OOT so much. Being able to switch back and forth through time, from an amazing child to an even more amazing and fierce warrior. Coupled with the Biggoron sword, made a really fun game. I mean who didn't like beating the crap out of Iron knuckles with a gigantic sword against a gigantic axe.
I really don't care what Nintendo does, just as long as they keep the games fresh and interesting.
Post by: Bill Aurion on October 27, 2003, 03:31:22 PM
Post by: cheers69 on October 27, 2003, 04:14:02 PM
Post by: robofish on October 27, 2003, 04:25:55 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Rellik
Invade and take over a Moblin submarine. Then navigate the submarine to the underwater fortress. On the way down you see a Zora being chased by a HUMONGOUS shark. Save the Zora; etc". .
Dude, not all of us have finished the game. That's what the spoiler tags are for.
Post by: Bill Aurion on October 27, 2003, 04:43:05 PM
Post by: ultrafamicom on October 29, 2003, 12:05:41 PM
While GameCube's chipset (Gekko & Flipper) are perfectly capable of doing a realistic Zelda, as seen in the spaceworld 2000 demo which was completely real-time, I have a feeling that any realistic Zelda will get held over and put on the upcoming Nintendo console: GameCube2 aka N5. with at least 100-fold increase in graphical capability, one might expect near CG-quality graphics that far surpass the spaceworld demo.
Post by: Shift Key on October 29, 2003, 01:32:11 PM
I don't see Nintendo getting too into the graphics of it all. Sure it will run at 60 spanking frame per second, but the style will not be ultra-realistic. Zelda has always been playable for young and old, so they're not going to alienate their main market.
There, I said it .
*gets flame-retardant suit*
Ok, moving on. By the sounds of the comments, people want a jaw-dropping Zelda which is photo-realistic. I say no. WW made my jaw drop because it was a cartoon brought to life. OoT made my jaw drop because of the bosses, and the epic final battle with Ganon/dorf. MM didn't make my jaw drop until the final battle, but it was definitely a thinker's game, and exploring the world of Termina was very rewarding.
In summary, if Nintendo were to read this post, I'd tell them: "Ignore the critics. Keep doing what you're doing."
Post by: nolimit19 on October 29, 2003, 06:14:46 PM
Post by: Swordsplay on October 29, 2003, 07:32:49 PM
They better not cel shade metroid prime next, that would be horrific! Oh the horror! *Shudders, then runs in fear like a maniac set on fire*
LOL
Post by: PIAC on October 29, 2003, 07:56:37 PM
i hate the graphics in wind waker, only because its made alot of people ass-retarded about the visual style -__-, but that is really what most gamers are like today, and i use the term gamer loosly..
Post by: robofish on October 30, 2003, 01:21:57 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Bill
Considering that scenario is fake...
Lol. As I said, I haven't beaten it yet. I have no clue.
Post by: robofish on October 30, 2003, 01:26:33 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Swordsplay
eeeh, i still want graphics. Dont get me wrong with cel shading , i loved it! But, lets put it to the side, it had its chance, now its time to focus on the graphics again. Shame WW2 is cel shaded, yet ill still buy it and love it.
You make it sound like cell shading isn't graphics. If it is not not graphics, then what is it, eh? My mind is blown by the much confusing-ness in your choice of words (opposing "graphics" and "cell shading").
Eh?
Post by: babble on October 30, 2003, 05:36:52 AM
But I didn't like the last half/collecting part of the game. Felt too rush to finish it at that point.
Post by: Swordsplay on October 30, 2003, 09:42:02 AM
Post by: cheers69 on October 30, 2003, 12:33:37 PM
Post by: Hostile Creation on October 30, 2003, 12:37:42 PM
Post by: Bill Aurion on October 30, 2003, 12:42:48 PM
Post by: ExtremeGcube on October 30, 2003, 12:56:18 PM
Post by: Flames_of_chaos on November 01, 2003, 02:08:08 PM
Post by: nemo_83 on November 01, 2003, 07:20:45 PM
I believe next gen we will see Zelda go realistic. Mario will be toon shaded as well as Pokemon. And Metroid will look like impressionism. who knows? They may actually look like real stop motion animation.
Post by: cheers69 on November 01, 2003, 08:10:14 PM
Post by: Bill Aurion on November 01, 2003, 08:14:12 PM
Post by: Black_Lable_2049 on January 30, 2004, 07:02:52 AM
Post by: Black_Lable_2049 on January 30, 2004, 07:04:26 AM
Post by: WesDawg on January 30, 2004, 09:27:58 AM
Post by: Don'tHate742 on February 03, 2004, 02:51:53 PM
I didn't like WW style only becuase I don't like wide eye anime, but the towns people looked halarious. I loved the feel of it, everything was done so well that I couldn't help but be pulled in to the game. Although, I would like them to give realism a try. Not in the way of art style but in the way that a tree looks like a tree should.
Post by: Bill Aurion on February 03, 2004, 03:32:33 PM
Post by: Actraiser on February 03, 2004, 07:28:31 PM
Post by: Bill Aurion on February 04, 2004, 01:25:30 AM
The whole point of all the "walking" is that it's an adventure series...
Post by: KDR_11k on February 04, 2004, 02:52:04 AM
Post by: Bill Aurion on February 04, 2004, 08:46:59 AM
) You can explore more if you head down the road a couple miles than if you just walk down to the end of your driveway...
Post by: Uglydot on February 04, 2004, 02:33:03 PM
Post by: Actraiser on February 04, 2004, 06:55:22 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Bill
Eh!? That's like hating Mario games because you jump too much...
The whole point of all the "walking" is that it's an adventure series...
um......it's a game. everything you do within a game should be fun, not tedious. the excess traveling did nothing except make it take longer to finish the game. there have been plenty of adventure games that got on just fine without long, boring, uneventful trips.
Post by: Berny on February 05, 2004, 01:12:29 AM
I do. I love love LUV sailing. And riding Epona. And just plain walking. Yes indeed.
Post by: vudu on February 05, 2004, 04:21:55 AM
Post by: revolg_98 on February 05, 2004, 12:59:46 PM
Post by: Armed on February 05, 2004, 02:06:56 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Actraiser
i hated wind waker for the same reason i hated ocarina. toooooo much walking (or in WW's case, sailing).
Yes same here, that was the only part i hated about this zelda too... Sailing back and forth trying to peice together the parts of the triforce, but everything else was fine.
Post by: Actraiser on February 05, 2004, 04:59:05 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Berny
See, but there are some of us who think that exploration is fun.
i love exploration. "hey, look, more grass!!" the walking and sailing were cheap tools to make the game longer, thereby making happy the game length whores of the world who feel robbed if it doesnt take them 3 years to beat a game. most rpgs have open fields where you run around and fight many and varied enemies in an attempt to build up your character. had Zelda employed this, I would have loved it. as it is, it was like Tomb Raider without a jump button.
Post by: Bill Aurion on February 05, 2004, 05:02:23 PM
Post by: Actraiser on February 05, 2004, 05:10:56 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Bill
I feel like slapping you for comparing Zelda to Tomb Raider...That was UNCALLED FOR...
it wasnt intended as an insult. at the time I bought Ocarina, I was deeply enthralled in Tomb Raider 2 and upon playing OoT, that game came to mind. You run around, fighting baddies and looking for treasure in caves. That's Tomb Raider. Zelda's aiming really struck me as being tomb raider like, as well, since you could lock on to enemies and strafe around them, just like in Zelda. Of course, Tomb Raider 2 had better puzzles and a lot more action.
Post by: Bill Aurion on February 05, 2004, 05:15:00 PM
It's like you began gaming with Tomb Raider, because all those elements have been in LOTS of previously made games...
Post by: mouse_clicker on February 05, 2004, 05:18:24 PM
Quote
Zelda's aiming really struck me as being tomb raider like, as well, since you could lock on to enemies and strafe around them, just like in Zelda.
::shudders:: It's like he's saying Lord of the Rings ripped off Dungeons and Dragons. o_O Shouldn't that be grounds for banning? I think that should be grounds for banning.
Post by: Actraiser on February 05, 2004, 05:31:50 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Bill
You know what? The Zelda series has been around a lot longer than Tomb Raider...Just thought I'd let you know that...
It's like you began gaming with Tomb Raider, because all those elements have been in LOTS of previously made games...
those gameplay mechanics have NOT been around and they were not present in ANY of the other zelda games, since OoT was the first Zelda game in 3D. Im talking about the camera, the auto aiming and the other "new" elements OoT had. I owned the original Zelda within a month of it's release and have owned every game since, so dont try and school me on what is and is not Zelda. the original zelda was an action game. you ran around, stabbed the baddies, got the jewels, repeat. There was no pointless walking for 5 minutes or sailing for 20. Everywhere you went, there was something to do. Also, you cant pick out one section of my statement and ignore the rest. I am not so blind as to think Tomb Raider was an original concept. It was essentially Indiana Jones in 3D gaming form. However, it was the first game with the over the shoulder perspective now prevelant in most 3D games. There ARE aspects of OoT's gameplay that are reminiscent of Tomb Raider, whether you like it or not.
Post by: Berny on February 05, 2004, 05:37:12 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: mouse_clicker
Shouldn't that be grounds for banning?
Yes. Yes it should. Insinuating Tomb Raider's (or any game franchise for that matter) superiority to any Zelda game should be legitmate grounds for banishment. Send him off to Elba!
Post by: Bill Aurion on February 05, 2004, 05:53:52 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Actraiser
However, it was the first game with the over the shoulder perspective now prevelant in most 3D games. There ARE aspects of OoT's gameplay that are reminiscent of Tomb Raider, whether you like it or not.
WRONG!
I don't recall the first 3rd person game ever(I'm assuming it was a PC game), but Super Mario 64 came out before Tomb Raider...Super Mario 64's engine was then modified for OoT...Again I hold my claim that TR was one of your first games...
Post by: Berny on February 05, 2004, 06:09:39 PM
OOT was one of the most ground breaking games in the history of games. No one will admit to it, but many have ripped off the franchise. You may notice that the main character bears an uncanny resemblance to Link albeit with dyed hair.
I can write a poem and no one would even know...em... Dang it.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on February 05, 2004, 06:37:46 PM
Then be reminded that the Japanese (THE ORIGINAL) release of Super Mario 64 preceded the U.S. version by several months.
OoT's camera system is similar to SM64's in that the camera was essentially a physical object that followed the character from a wide range of varying angles. The only times I remember playing OoT from an over-the-shoulder view were 1) if you were in Z-targetting mode without a specific target enabling you to run back/forth and strafe. There was one instance in the game outside the Forest Temple where such a view was useful, but it was hardly required nor necessary nor significant. If you happen to just z-target like that just so you can do backflips, you're just doing your own thing.
2) Seeing Link run around with an over-the-shoulder view under normal camera circumstances means you tapped Z to "fix" the camera view, and you pushed "up" on the analog stick. Some people do this a lot, and others don't do this a lot. It's largely a matter of choice, though the view fix is generally helpful. Other than that, you're working with a camera mostly like SM64's.
If one would like to revisit some REAL HARDCORE over-the-shoulder view action, then let's return to Contra, Stage 2.
Post by: WackerJr on February 05, 2004, 11:36:47 PM
Post by: Actraiser on February 07, 2004, 10:46:52 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Bill
Again I hold my claim that TR was one of your first games...
Im 27. Ive been gaming longer than some of you have been ALIVE.
Post by: Don'tHate742 on February 07, 2004, 12:24:33 PM
Zelda WW was almost a perfect game, in my opinion only flawwed with small islands. Had the islands been bigger, with side quests and such then it would of been a perfect game.
In the sequel they should consider using land and sea elements ala OOT where it had Woods/desert/lake/mountains. Different landscapes add to whole adventure feel, plus its alot better than having element dunguens which has been used for what seems to be forever.
Post by: Bill Aurion on February 07, 2004, 03:27:11 PM
Post by: MysticGohan24 on February 07, 2004, 05:55:27 PM
and by no means in Tomb Raider consider anything but garbage. After the 1st game the novelty wears off.
Could also be attributed to the creator of TR leaving after the 1st game was finished.
Either way it just plainly sucks.
Super Mairo64 did came out before Tomb Raider, by quite abit ( Refferring to Japanese release date )
still, it's alot more innovative.
Post by: Rich on February 08, 2004, 04:54:05 AM
Post by: Rich on February 08, 2004, 05:02:05 AM
Post by: Bill Aurion on February 08, 2004, 05:06:39 AM
Replace the ( ) with [ ]
Post by: Rich on February 08, 2004, 05:09:06 AM
Post by: Don'tHate742 on February 08, 2004, 08:31:53 AM
I don't know, i'm just rambling. I wonder what kind of power they'll give Link next.
Post by: Bill Aurion on February 08, 2004, 08:34:30 AM
Post by: odifiend on February 08, 2004, 09:00:14 AM
Post by: Don'tHate742 on February 08, 2004, 04:24:32 PM
Post by: Actraiser on February 08, 2004, 05:18:41 PM
I apologize for not kissing Zelda's ass.
Post by: Mario on February 08, 2004, 05:25:37 PM
There's just something about Zelda games that makes everything fun, well to me anyway.
Post by: Actraiser on February 08, 2004, 05:34:35 PM
Post by: mouse_clicker on February 08, 2004, 05:45:08 PM
Post by: Actraiser on February 08, 2004, 05:50:49 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: mouse_clicker
Sidequests were optional, Actraiser- not everything is essential to complete the game.
you had to do quite a few of them to acheive certain key things in the game. I just hate and will always hate sidequests. I guess I just miss the old days when they focused more on gameplay and fun and less on story. The younger gamers seem to be obsessed with having a killer story in their games. My favorite Zelda of all of them will always be the original and there was little to no story told in the game. The back story was given in the book that came with it as I recall. I remember when Final Fantasy 7 came out and everyone was creaming over it. I watched my friend play it for an hour and he spent most of that time reading. WEE FUN!!
Post by: Bill Aurion on February 08, 2004, 05:54:33 PM
Every Zelda game since LttP has had side quests! If you hate them so much, then stop playing Zelda games...period...
Post by: Actraiser on February 08, 2004, 05:57:59 PM
Post by: mouse_clicker on February 08, 2004, 05:58:50 PM
And none of the sidequests were required in OoT- you beat one dungeon, you go on to the next. It's not that complicated. The game CAN be beaten in some 6 hours, you know. :/
Post by: Bill Aurion on February 08, 2004, 06:05:43 PM
I just find it silly that someone dislikes a game because they add more to it...
Post by: Ms.Pikmin on February 08, 2004, 06:06:45 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Actraiser
I love how all of you get so up in arms about all this. All I am doing is stating my opinions and I get this very hostile attitude from you all. This is a discussion forum, last I checked. Im discussing.
It is a discussion forum, but you're crossing the line into bashing. And you're bashing a series of games that is well loved here. You're also bashing the people here with your comment about the "little Nintendo feaks getting all up in arms" because you're not kissing Zelda's @ss.
Post by: S-U-P-E-R on February 08, 2004, 06:27:36 PM
Post by: MysticGohan24 on February 08, 2004, 09:32:17 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Actraiser
someone please show me where I said Tomb Raider was the best game ever or even anything all that special? Please? Even better, show me where I said Tomb Raider was more fun. All I said was I found elements of Tomb Raider's gameplay in Zelda. I know Tomb Raider sucks. I havent touched any of the games since TR2 and that is still the only TR game Ive played for any particular length of time. I didnt even bother finishing that one, because I got bored. You little nintendo freaks got all butt hurt because I am not someone who will sit here and applaud Big N for giving me a game full of hours and hours of WALKING and SAILING. Saying that Zelda looked like Mario 64 is redundant because the graphics on 3/4 of the games on the 64 looked like Mario's.
I apologize for not kissing Zelda's ass.
Heh It's an honor to kiss Zelda's ass
It's you just compared it to crap like Tomb Raider ( which shouldn't even be mentioned in the same sentence )I take it you applauded Eidos for giving you hours of horrible low polygon @$$? ........How original *Rolles eye's*
I see alot of Mario clones on Playstation or any system really *cough* Crash *cough* let alone 12 dozen other games.
And insulting us isn't gonna help very much on our views on you.
Mouse_Clicker pretty much stated the obvious, so I'll leave it to him
Post by: Don'tHate742 on February 11, 2004, 11:55:33 AM
Post by: Rich on February 11, 2004, 12:10:05 PM
Post by: Me2NiK on February 12, 2004, 10:51:13 AM
Post by: Bill Aurion on February 12, 2004, 10:54:18 AM
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on February 12, 2004, 11:34:30 AM
