Topic: LOZ: 2005

[Kairon]

Hmm. so you're saying that a platformer has the benefit of fantasy while an adventure game does not? That may be a key reason that Mario Sunshine had difficulty, it was a platformer with the added restriction of a town structure. Conversely, this bodes well for Galaxy.

That said, there are many dungeons in LtP that I consider thematically integrated, such as the Dark World's Sewers and Blind's Lair. And of course, this is another reason why I like the first Zelda a lot too: it's the most uncomplciated of the Zeldas, has the most childlike naivete, and it maintains that fantasy feel throughout well.

As for dissonance, you make a beautiful observation and I must applaud you for it. Thank you! You're so right, platformers are games where your tools are the environment. Action (not adventure???) games are where you use your own tools to change the environment to suit your needs. It's like platformers are gliders, working with the natural thermals and air flows, whereas action titles are more like jet planes, sliceing through and pushing through the air on their own power.

Hmm... so does this make you a big platformer gamer Svevan?

~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com

[IceCold]

He didn't like Super Mario Galaxy... I don't know what kind of nutcase he is

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

Man, those Wii controls sure suck Pidget eggs, don't they?

[ShyGuy]

I felt at one with the enviroment when I shot Bowser in the face with a fireball. IN HIS LAVA DUNGEON.

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

oH, the Irony!

Imagine how immersive it would be to throw fireballs with throwing motions in Super Mario 256.

I always found it amusing how Mario hates children in Super Mario World.  Not only does Mario murder the Koopa Kids by dunking them into their own LAVA PIT, Mario DESTROYS THEIR EFFING CASTLE at the end of his episode of murder!  

I don't think children should be allowed to view this material, they might realize what "freedom fighting" really is about!  Such terrorism!

"Adults Only" definitely applies here.

[Hostile Creation]

I hated what I played of the Banjo games.  But I've hated all Rare platformers, so that's to be expected.
I love dungeons, even though I'm aware of their presence as a gameplay device.  They've always been in Zelda, it'd feel weird to be without them now.  It's how the game is paced.

[Bill Aurion]

Holy crap, this thread has really gone downhill since Kairon admitted to not being a Zelda fan! >=O

[Kairon]

And I'll do it AGAIN if need be!

Join me on the Miyamoto crusade!

~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com

[Svevan]

Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
Hmm... so does this make you a big platformer gamer Svevan?

No, my preferred game uses a narrative to guide the player through different locales; these locales must be 100% convincing at all times. I know that what I'm talking about here is emotional or sensory, and therefore hard to verify. Nonetheless, if I perceive that an area in a game continues to live and breathe when I'm away, then it succeeds. Half of the dungeons in a Zelda game fail this test, mostly because they are so disconnected from their overworld which does feel alive. When I consider Treasure Trove Cove from Banjo, it passes the test, even though you warp to it from the overworld.

Let's consider Super Mario 64, which has several great areas. However, most of them are abstract: they float in space and seem to be made out of Legos. My favorite level in Super Mario 64 was that underground city where you had to raise and lower the water level. Jolly Roger Bay and Hazy Maze Cave I thought were also successful, mostly because you couldn't see the sky or the infinite void below. Comparatively, a floating level like Whomp's Fortress was bland. Other games that I felt had succesful environments were Diddy Kong Racing, Mega Man Legends, Legend of Mana, Jet Grind Radio, and the Paper Mario titles.

So no, not platform games, at least not every time.

[ShyGuy]

Svevan, have you played Jak and Daxter (the first one) on the PS2? It's a very seamless-living-world kind of platformer.  

[Kairon]

Hmm...you'd like Conker's Bad Fur Day's environment, except for the actual Conker's BFD gameplay, right?

Just wondering, very interesting reading your philosophies on game environments.

~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com

[wandering]

Fan of the Myst games? Riven's environments....dear God Riven's environments.

Personally, the game world is the most important part of the game to me. I like to say that, when writing a book, you create a story, but when making a game, you create a world. But I think I have slightly different priorities than you do. OOT's game world speaks to me more than Banjo Kazooie (as much as I love Banjo Kazzoie) because, I think, Hyrule field feels more like a real place than Gruntilda's Wild N' Whacky Fun Zone.

...I do agree that Zelda's dungeons are a little artificial, but can accept them as a necessary abstraction. Like the loving couple who eternally spins in place in town, I can accept them even if they don't make literal sense.

On a side note, the thing I like about OOT's dungeons is that I actually don't enjoy playing through them that much. As kid, I dreaded going into a dungeon, just like Link would. And, conversely, I loved riding on a horse and going fishing, just like Link would. This is in contrast to most games, where the fun part is the stuff that would be horrible in real life.

[Svevan]

Loved Riven, loved Bad Fur Day, but for totally different reasons.

I think it's interesting, Wandering, that you agree about this concept. Perhaps more people feel the same? There must be some scholarship or documentation on the perception of environments in games - to me it is more important than any "fun" I have while playing. I enjoy a game that shows me a whole new world (don't you dare close your eyes) made up of its own rules, consistent with itself. Zelda has always had a superior universe to inhabit and the overworlds, particularly MM and WW, prove this. I don't get much satisfaction from solving puzzles or "beating" something, so sometimes a Metroid game can drag for me if I'm not seeing/getting something new. BFD had an excellent universe and it felt totally alive until the last few areas. Oddly, swimming through the poo was one of those "wow" moments. I also think Beetle Adventure Racing and Shadow Man both had excellent game-world focus. Other examples?

My greatest hope is that those videos and screens of TP that show Hyrule field as a crowded, busy place are accurate. I want to see the overworld from LttP made 3-D, not some wide open boring field.  

[Hostile Creation]

I actually love the feeling of disconnection that the dungeons have from the overworld.  They're locales all to their own, from a different time, buried and lost from the world.  They're in total isolation, and you're the only person brave enough to unlock them and return to their depths.
Or whatever.
But I really do.  Being in a dungeon in a Zelda game feels very different from being on the overworld, but I love both feelings.

[IceCold]

Quote
Perhaps more people feel the same? There must be some scholarship or documentation on the perception of environments in games - to me it is more important than any "fun" I have while playing.

I'll have to stop you right there.. It's a game.. Analysing these things is great and all, but at the end of the day, to me at least, they are not what make games great. They add to the style, the presentation, the artistic side of things. They enhance the experience, sometimes to a great extent, and are definitely noteworthy. But the gameplay is always paramount. It's obvious that you love movies, and are trying to apply some of your philosophies about them to games. However, having fun is the reason I play games, and I don't want that to change. And I believe that if you don't play games for fun, then they are not for you. If you value the "perception of environments" more than the joy you get by playing the game, you may be exploring a desert with few oases. It does make it all the more special when a game is rich in these features (like Zelda), but they should not be your primary concern.

I just don't want games to conform to Kojima's cinematic view. I don't want cutscene upon cutscene. I don't want style over substance. I want games that I enjoy, games that I have fun with, regardless of the presentation. Which is exactly why I am in harmony with Nintendo's view of what games should be.

[Smoke39]

I d'know, I think they're both valid goals for games.  A game can create a more thorough world unconstrained by reality than any other medium, so why not strive to do so?  On the other hand, games have great potential for pure fun.  They're just two different ideals, which aren't mutually exclusive.

[Hostile Creation]

Quote
I'll have to stop you right there.. It's a game.. Analysing these things is great and all, but at the end of the day, to me at least, they are not what make games great. They add to the style, the presentation, the artistic side of things. They enhance the experience, sometimes to a great extent, and are definitely noteworthy. But the gameplay is always paramount.

I agree entirely with IceCold about this.
And trust me, these are factors I'm aware of.  Not only do I watch a lot of films, I'm studying film for my bachelors and intend to make a career in it.  But if you apply the qualities of another medium to gaming, you're only holding back its potential.  For the longest time people could only make films that resembled photography that moved.  Now its taken on another dimension entirely, because film is not photography, even if there are similarities.  Gaming is a visual, moving medium, but it's very different from film (or any other medium for that matter).  Other mediums can compliment it in some way, but if you try to put the limitations of one medium into gaming, you're only going to limit it.

Now, I love an immersive game world.  But the central core of gaming is fun, it's the reason it started and its the primary mechanism behind the concept.  I'm of the opinion that artistry in the gameplay is the most important thing.

[Kairon]

Hmmm...Svevan... Would your tastes vere more towards Oblivion and MMORPG type worlds?

~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com

P.S. And Earthbound?

[Athrun Zala]

Quote
Originally posted by: Hostile Creation
I actually love the feeling of disconnection that the dungeons have from the overworld.  They're locales all to their own, from a different time, buried and lost from the world.  They're in total isolation, and you're the only person brave enough to unlock them and return to their depths.

exactly

and I completely agree with IceCold ^^

[KnowsNothing]

Zelda has the best game worlds because they're creative and imaginative.  For me, that's all it takes.  Oblivion has a large and impressive looking world, but it's just so BORING, and everything looks the same.  I've been thorugh this on PGC before, but if Oblivion had any soul at ALL in its world, it would be one of my favorite games.  Morrowind too; that game was made entirely of different shades of brown, which was just so boring and horrible and ruined the game (actually, a lot of things ruined Morrowind )

The game world doens't have to be huge.  It can even be seperated into stages, missions, discs, WHATEVER.  I don't care.  As long as it appears the developers put love into the game, it's usually great to play in.

[Bill Aurion]

The problem with Oblivion is that there's so many little dungeons that the developers didn't really concentrate on all of them to make them unique and interesting to trek through...

[Kairon]

Okay, I share the criticisms on Oblivion. I can't imagine how people actually enjoy that game.

But how about World of WarCraft? That MMORPG world is large, lifely, fully integrated, and has been crafted by hand with loving care by Blizzard's artists (as much as any MMORPG CAN be hand-crafted). I quit WoW and consider it flawed somewhat, but that world would fit Evan's statutes for a great world experience, yes?

~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com

P.S. And so would Earthbound!!!

[Spak-Spang]

"On a side note, the thing I like about OOT's dungeons is that I actually don't enjoy playing through them that much. As kid, I dreaded going into a dungeon, just like Link would. And, conversely, I loved riding on a horse and going fishing, just like Link would. This is in contrast to most games, where the fun part is the stuff that would be horrible in real life. "

This is brilliant.  BRAVO.  I always felt the same about Zelda.  The original Dungeons of the first game, and OoT made me nervous, excited, and frightened.  I knew I was entering something challenging, will face new enemies, puzzles and surprises, and I dreaded it as much as I loved it.  

It was brilliant design.

[wandering]

Hey, glad someone agrees, spak-spang.

Anyway. Don't know what some of you are going on about. Applying the qualities of film to gaming? How often does  film focus on an imaginary world rather than the characters or action? And who, apart from icecold, said anything about shoehorning in cinematic cutscene after cutscene?

Gameplay, of course, is extremely important, but the game world is also important. When Miyamoto is designing a game, he starts with blocks floating in mid-air, or his garden. If you think gameplay is the only thing that's important, fine. Personally, I think Super Mario Bros. would lose some of it's charm if it looked like this:

[Kairon]

Of course Gameplay is the most important thing. What most people don't say is that gameplay is inevitably tied into graphics, control, sound, social interactions, etc.

According to Miyamoto-ists, graphics and sound and all those other elements should only exist to celebrate the gameplay, and should not overstep their bounds to try to become more important than gameplay. To a Miyamoto-ist like myself, graphics and art and stuff are important, but only insofar as they make the gameplay itself that much mroe awesome.

~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com