Topic: Looks like Capcom still hates money.

[GoldenPhoenix]

Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
How people can like a severely flawed shooter with poor controls, repetitive enemy designs, and a severely limited and linear path is beyond me.

Who said "like"? It's memorable. It's something you don't forget about easily.

Also if I recall it had comic book esque cutscenes instead of using the game engine, yet another poor feature of the game.

You may be remembering Max Payne there because K7 used the engine for most cutscenes.

Speaking of Zelda, style and Capcom, it's uncanny how many ideas Okami and Twilight Princess share. TP is slightly less in-your-face with its puzzle solutions than Okami (Issun should have half his dialogue cut from the game, period) but Okami has slightly more difficult combat (requires a bit more action though I tend to take less damage in Okami than Zelda).

As for TP I'd say it's a nice game but not the best it could have been. Dungeons after the desert one neglected the wolf form entirely and later enemies could have dealt MUCH more damage. I think it's actually harder during the early dungeons where you have only very few hearts than the later ones. The bosses mostly sucked, I realize item use is slower in 3d than 2d but still these guys were nowhere close to the bosses found in the 2d games where you had to use the item, your sword and your skill to win instead of just spamming the item and occassionally drawing out your sword. Aonuma, LERN 2 PLAY! If the player feels insecure (like me) he can bring almost five full life bars to the battle with his bottles. Bosses should be more than just a puzzle to find the right spot to spam the dungeon item at! I realize you wanted to nerf difficulty a bit from OOT but you nerfed it in so many places it makes the player feel like that evil was lucky it didn't trip and die in the street.

Considering Okami from what I heard is basically a rip off of previous Zelda games it is no surprise it shares many similar things (Oh but way it is memorable because it has pretty colors). Regardless I found TP to have intuitive puzzles and the boss fights were above all else FUN, maybe not the hardest around but really none of the bosses were that hard in OOT either. I think most of us have experience in the Zelda series and the difficulty of TP is at about the same level of OOT, in fact many reviews have commented on this. I agree though the bosses in LTTP were much tougher, but frankly I thought many of them were frustrating ::shudders at the thought of the fast worm that tries to knock you off and you have restart::.  

TP has the right balance in difficulty, it doesn't rely heavily "damage" to make it challenging but instead focuses more on solving puzzles. The game is perfectly paced in my opinion, just like OOT was. The exploration and puzzles in the game are brilliant, the diversity in weapons (especially the new ones). These last few posts bring to mind what I hate most about the "hardcore" gaming community they are snobs when it comes it comes to challenge. If a game isn't cheap, or aggravating it is not any good since it is not up to their high and mighty standards (whatever those are, I've found most challenging games to be that way because of poor design choices or relying more on "twitch" reflexes instead of using your mind).

[KDR_11k]

Considering Okami from what I heard is basically a rip off of previous Zelda games it is no surprise it shares many similar things

No, I mean the parts that were introduced to Zelda in TP. Areas covered in darkness until the local guardian is revived? Check. Wolf that can dash and dig? Check. Flying plants to attach your "grappling hook" to? Check. Bridges that get turned by applying wind to them? Check.

Regardless I found TP to have intuitive puzzles and the boss fights were above all else FUN, maybe not the hardest around but really none of the bosses were that hard in OOT either.

They didn't feel that interesting to me. Felt really dumb most of the time. There's no way TP is as difficult as OOT, the only thing resembling difficulty is fighting a darknut and those were pretty rare while in OOT a simple stalfos already poses more of a challenge (though maybe because you meet them earlier and thus have fewer hearts). Its lower HP is made up for by the lack of all those "occult techs" you get in TP that practically let you dance circles around your opponents. TP bosses were almost zero threat to Link and once you figured out what to do it was just repetitive to deal those additional hits you need to kill it. I got hit by almost every attack the shadow world boss (forgot his name) put on me yet I wasn't even close to death. I think that adjusting to a boss's pattern and learning to evade its attacks should be a necessary step for fighting the boss, not just something you can do when you're bored. If I wanted only puzzle solving I'd grab one of those point and click adventures, in an action adventure I'd expect to need some amount of action skill, too (which compensates for the much easier puzzles).

[GoldenPhoenix]

Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
Considering Okami from what I heard is basically a rip off of previous Zelda games it is no surprise it shares many similar things

No, I mean the parts that were introduced to Zelda in TP. Areas covered in darkness until the local guardian is revived? Check. Wolf that can dash and dig? Check. Flying plants to attach your "grappling hook" to? Check. Bridges that get turned by applying wind to them? Check.

Regardless I found TP to have intuitive puzzles and the boss fights were above all else FUN, maybe not the hardest around but really none of the bosses were that hard in OOT either.

They didn't feel that interesting to me. Felt really dumb most of the time. There's no way TP is as difficult as OOT, the only thing resembling difficulty is fighting a darknut and those were pretty rare while in OOT a simple stalfos already poses more of a challenge (though maybe because you meet them earlier and thus have fewer hearts). Its lower HP is made up for by the lack of all those "occult techs" you get in TP that practically let you dance circles around your opponents. TP bosses were almost zero threat to Link and once you figured out what to do it was just repetitive to deal those additional hits you need to kill it. I got hit by almost every attack the shadow world boss (forgot his name) put on me yet I wasn't even close to death. I think that adjusting to a boss's pattern and learning to evade its attacks should be a necessary step for fighting the boss, not just something you can do when you're bored. If I wanted only puzzle solving I'd grab one of those point and click adventures, in an action adventure I'd expect to need some amount of action skill, too (which compensates for the much easier puzzles).

I'm really sure Nintendo was watching Okami and was stealing all the ideas it presented, more like Okami raped and pillage OOT, Wind Waker and Majora's Mask (I also believe TP has been in development longer than Okami, though I could be off). In regards to OOT it is not that hard, I had no problem beating it what so ever when I came back to it and the game doesn't have near the depth TP has in scope, variety and characters (The only real challenging bosses were Ghost Ganon and Twin Rova). Regarding the bosses, there is strategy to fighting them, and I'm sorry but you need to memorize their patterns and evade it. One boss that comes to mind that I LOVED was the skull boss, that was one of the slickest boss fights around.

I'll state it once again, just because you find Zelda: TP easy doesn't mean everyone feels the same (and in fact they don't, just read some reviews of the game), and not everyone on par with your supposed skills on such a pathetic game. From what I hear Okami is not some great challenge either, so that probably should suck to you as well if you wish to be consistent. I'm sick and tired of elitists like yourself condemning a game based on challenge, there is so much more to a game than that. Thankfully others do appreciate Zelda: TP for the adventure gem it is, instead of trying to play "Look at me I'm not a Nintendo fanboi because I am bashing Zelda".  

[KDR_11k]

I just think a game should at least require that you get good at it to beat it. Something like Metroid Prime (or the 2d incarnations of most Nintendo franchises) is fine difficulty IMO (I never beat most of those). TP was just too damn easy, these exploration games allow you to greatly increase your power by exploring everywhere and finding hidden stuff but in TP I really didn't feel the need to do that because I was by far strong enough. Would it have killed them to ramp up the damage in later dungeons? You have loads of hearts and recovery items (especially since money is so ubiquitous that you could afford wasting four blue potions on every dungeon) so why do enemies still do 1 heart of damage by the time you have 15 hearts? Never mind that about 50% of all hits get deflected by your shield even if you don't do anything?

[Smash_Brother]

I think I've painted the argument into a corner here...

The term AAA title is subjective, hence why I suspect we'll never be able to agree on its definition for the purport of the point I was trying to make.

I guess that's that. I still maintain that games focused solely on one platform have a higher potential for quality, but it might just be because companies who commit to one specific platform only do so when there's something about that platform they like or are more free to take advantage of platform-specific advantages.

No idea why, in the end, but it always seems to be the case.

Also, why are we comparing TP to Killer 7? That's like comparing apples to running shoes: they don't even serve the same function.

TP WAS an excellent game. I credit it for giving LoZ the dark and dire storyline it deserves. It also introduced several new items and gameplay aspects that I hope we'll see in future LoZ games. IMHO, the horseback combat sequences were absolutely awesome. I wish there was a minigame which just allowed you to ride around and fight monsters incessantly. I also liked how Link was much closer to the NPCs in the game than previous games, and how his emotions carried his character so much further than any LoZ game in the past. That said, the game was a bit on the easy side, but I'd still recommend it as an awesome gaming experience for anyone.

K7 was a different type of beast entirely. It's a game designed to be so hard and in many ways hard to love that you nearly need a masochistic edge to truly delve into it. But I can definitely respect what Suda was going for as well as his ideas and storytelling prowess. I still maintain that the game would have sold a great deal better had the cutscene immediately following the first chapter preceded the chapter instead. I'm guessing many gamers and critics alike started playing, had no clue what the hell was going on and came to immediately dislike the game (as I did at first as well). The game reminded me of an esoteric anime: the kind which you need to watch 2-3 episodes of before you stop saying "WTF?". The problem with that formula is that, in an anime, you can sit there and the answers will eventually come to you. In K7, you needed to literally force yourself into the game before you started seeing answers and, for many people, that wasn't something they were willing to commit to.

But K7 was a game which was meant to be disliked by many but absolutely adored by a select few. That's why comparing TP and K7 is literally beating your head against the wall: I can't stand by and watch without trying to intervene.

[segagamer12]

well to the people who complain Tp is *too* easy, go back and replay the ORIGINAL Zelda, you knwo the one that kinda set the standard and all that. You can beat EVERY SINGLE BOSS with a BOMB and a couple quick hits. Seriously if you can dodge thier attacks and get a couple quick hits in, your done, even GANON was easy, you just dodge his fireball, slashed him and quicklyt shot the sivler arrows and BAM you were done. the challenge was always in the puzzles, not the boss figths. Even LTTP had pretty easy boss fights. Zelda 2 had some challenge but it was a didferetn type fo game so different set of rules.

OOT hell even OOT was easy cuz that dumb fairy told you exactly what to do to kill the boss everytome, all yo had to do was make sure you had the item reguired to beat it. No Zelda game has ever been hard in the fighiting sense, I know way too many five year old who have BEATEN every zelda played to consider it a hard game. They *are* kids games, through and through, the challenege is always solving puzzles. TP had some of the harder puzzles because the stupid witch didnt tell you what to do, just that *you should know what to do" and soe time you actually had to think a little, but most puzzles are easy enough if you just think back tot he previous games. I disagree fully with Pro, ALL Zeldas have the same style and gameplay that is what makes them Zelda, there are certain things you come ot expect, if tose are miosisng than its not Zelda. Take Adventure of Link, one of my favorite Zelda games, but the least like  Zelda there was.



Ok now back to Capcom, nothing enw to report so Im good there.  

[KDR_11k]

"just dodge their attacks" is easier said than done. Never mind that in Z1 most normal rooms were dangerous enough. I've racked up over 100 deaths on Zelda 1, I don't think I hit ten in TP and don't tell me I became so much of a better gamer since then, that was barely two years ago.

[Ceric]

Yeah but in LoZ it wasn't always the Boss that was the hard thing.  I mean the little Knights that you have to either bomb or get behind I still to this day find really hard.  Also I still haven't beaten the second quest.  

[segagamer12]

ok well I found the game way too easy, all the bosses die within only a couple hits. and I have seen five year olds beat the game. but I guess different players have diffreretn reflexes or something. the hardest enemies on Zelda 1 are the wizards adn the hands. Oh and those little blue guys with sheilds. the BOSS fights were all simple two to three hit kills. But you had to have the right weapon soI think that was apart of the challenge, getitng the right weapon.  

[GoldenPhoenix]

BTW I was comparing Killer 7 with Zelda based upon production values and quality which you can compare. I'll forever remember Killer 7  as a game with style over substance that is vastly overrated by the "Hardcore" crowd. It is almost like people like it because it sold like crap, and they see it more as an image thing above all else, because frankly I don't see what makes the game so good beyond the "style".

[GoldenPhoenix]

Speaking of Zelda, and dieing so much in LoZ and LTTP (which is vastly more difficult than LoZ). Neither game was designed around an epic quest, so deaths had to play a big role in making it last. The 3D games (well maybe except Majora) are designed around being epic, and rely more on puzzle solving, instead of quick deaths to extend the length of the game. If they had BOTH, it would probably take much longer to finish each game and I have no doubt many would feel the severe difficulty was meant to artifically extend the length. IMO for the types of games they are the 3D Zeldas have a right balance of difficulty (well maybe Wind Waker was too easy) and are great examples of how to balance action with puzzles.

[vudu]

Quote
Originally posted by: GoldenPhoenix
HAHA, Zelda TP is one of the most brilliantly designed games in years. Killer 7 is a joke in comparison, you cannot compare the polish, variety and expansive nature of Zelda to a stylistic wannabe lightgun shooter with poor controls, and yawn tastic enemy battles.

Out of curiosity, can I compare the budgets of the two?    I'm sure Nintendo spent more on Twilight Princess than Capcom spent on Killer7.

While I freely admit to not having the slightest clue what each company spent on their respective games, I'd like to ask some rhetorical questions.  How much of Twilight Princess could have been completed on Killer7's budget?  What could have Grasshopper Studios have done with Killer7 if they had the budget (and development time) EAD had for Twilight Princess?

[segagamer12]

ok well I guess I missed all that. But um I never played killer 7 so I dont really know much about it. As for zelda, most Iw as talking baout Boss fights, becaue thatw as what was mention in Pros post so much, and I observed that the boss fights have always been easy. Its the puzzles and the stupid enemies that you haev to hit at a certain angle that made the original hard, at times. I didnt mean to say the game was easy, just the BOSS fights were. I could have worded my post better.


Vudu makes a good point also. Ok going back and reading the posts about AAA Multipaltofrm stuff, how does Kilelr & and Zelda TP even fall intot hose catagories? Killer &, was far as I knew, was built from the ground up for GC and Ported to PS2, and TP was built for GC and ported to Wii. So which versions are people comparing? I kinda got lost when Pro started abshing TP because it was too easy.  

[Luigi Dude]

On the issue of Zelda difficulty, I agree with alot of what segagamer12 said.  If the people that complain about Twilight Princess would go back and replay the older ones they'd see that the older Zelda's were just as easy and some even easier.  The only reason Twilight Princess seems easier to alot of people is because they've already mastered playing 3d Zelda's so of course Twilight Princess is going to be easy since you know how things work and what to do.

I'd say Twilight Princess, while easy is actually the hardest of the 3d Zelda's because it contains the best puzzles of the series that require you to really think sometimes.  To me it's all about the puzzles that give the 3d Zelda's their difficulty.  The 2d ones got it from combat since they had some fast moving enemies that would just keep ramming you like crazy.

Here's how I'd rank all the Zelda's I've played in terms of difficulty.

1. Links Adventure
2. Original
3. Link to the Past
4. Twilight Princess
5. Majora's Mask
6. Links Awakening
7. Ocarina of Time
8. Wind Waker
9. Minish Cap

[GoldenPhoenix]

Quote
Originally posted by: vudu

Quote
Originally posted by: GoldenPhoenix
HAHA, Zelda TP is one of the most brilliantly designed games in years. Killer 7 is a joke in comparison, you cannot compare the polish, variety and expansive nature of Zelda to a stylistic wannabe lightgun shooter with poor controls, and yawn tastic enemy battles.

Out of curiosity, can I compare the budgets of the two?    I'm sure Nintendo spent more on Twilight Princess than Capcom spent on Killer7.

While I freely admit to not having the slightest clue what each company spent on their respective games, I'd like to ask some rhetorical questions.  How much of Twilight Princess could have been completed on Killer7's budget?  What could have Grasshopper Studios have done with Killer7 if they had the budget (and development time) EAD had for Twilight Princess?

That may be true, but like most things the final product is what matters most, not "Hey look what I did for 50$". It may be an admirable ahievement to create a game with a low budget, but that does not change the fact that it may have less polish or less depth than another game. That is why the final product should be judged instead of the budget, because frankly you are playing the game and what you get out of that game is what should matter, not how well they budgeted their money!  

[KDR_11k]

On the issue of Zelda difficulty, I agree with alot of what segagamer12 said. If the people that complain about Twilight Princess would go back and replay the older ones they'd see that the older Zelda's were just as easy and some even easier. The only reason Twilight Princess seems easier to alot of people is because they've already mastered playing 3d Zelda's so of course Twilight Princess is going to be easy since you know how things work and what to do.

Bull. I've played OOT after Wind Waker and still found it MUCH more difficult. TP is much easier than OOT.

[GoldenPhoenix]

Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
On the issue of Zelda difficulty, I agree with alot of what segagamer12 said. If the people that complain about Twilight Princess would go back and replay the older ones they'd see that the older Zelda's were just as easy and some even easier. The only reason Twilight Princess seems easier to alot of people is because they've already mastered playing 3d Zelda's so of course Twilight Princess is going to be easy since you know how things work and what to do.

Bull. I've played OOT after Wind Waker and still found it MUCH more difficult. TP is much easier than OOT.

Funny that so many professional reviewers disagree with you. Then again if you say it enough it must be true right?

[WuTangTurtle]

I declare shenanigans on the both of u (Luigi Dude and KDR_11k).  Zelda the Wand of Gamelon CDI had to be the most difficult of the series.....the most difficult to endure that is.

Seriously though its all a matter of opinion, for instance I would say Wind Waker is the easiest by far (yet not the shortest) and Ocarina of Time the toughest due to it being the first 3D Zelda, that brought us new puzzles and ways to do complete them for the first time.  I could also say Zelda II because i had a tough time dealing with the 2D side scrolling.

[KDR_11k]

Funny that so many professional reviewers disagree with you. Then again if you say it enough it must be true right?

Perhaps they're either misevaluating their skill gain since OOT or don't fall into the bracket that can beat TP easily but cannot deal with OOT? I've had severe trouble in dealing with OOT to the point of frustration but I had almost zero problems with TP. I don't know about the difference between WW and TP, after all WW was my first 3d Zelda so I wasn't used to it yet but I did find WW pretty easy.  

[segagamer12]

Maybe its not so much they are easier its more like after playing the first four or five Zeldas you kinda know what to expect and nothing is hard anymore.  

[JonLeung]

The first two Zelda games are freaking hard.  I thought it was because I was young when I first played them, but even going back to them recently, I can't finish them.  >_<  Some Zelda fan I am!  I keep getting killed in the sixth or seventh dungeon in the First Quest of The Legend Of Zelda, and I keep getting killed on the way to the final dungeon in Zelda II.

For the most part, every game after that is a cinch to finish, I'm only missing certain unnecessary-for-completion-of-the-story type of things like catching the Hylian Loach in Ocarina Of Time and some Kinstone match-ups in Minish Cap.

Why are we talking about Zelda?  I thought we were complaining about Capcom.  I'm guessing someone started this by complaining about Minish Cap or something.

[Smash_Brother]

Quote
Originally posted by: GoldenPhoenix Funny that so many professional reviewers disagree with you. Then again if you say it enough it must be true right?

I have to step in for KDR here: I wouldn't trust the combined weight of all the "professional" reviewers in the world to barricade a door, let alone believe that their opinions and mine would stand coterminous.

I loved TP, but I think my biggest letdown for the game was that the bosses were all silly easy (even the last bunch).

Maybe I'm a bit of a masochist, but I've come to love Castlelvania's boss style where you basically need to learn through trial and error how to defeat it before you'll be victorious.

But I also think there's merit in the "You've done this before" argument, since I fully agree that I figured out how to kill all of these bosses almost immediately as though I knew how the developers had designed them beforehand.

I think the last boss made the difference for me in calling the game AA and AAA. IMHO, defeating the last boss should be an ACCOMPLISHMENT, something you'd be proud to say you managed to do, and I just didn't get that from this one.

[vudu]

Quote
I think the last boss made the difference for me in calling the game AA and AAA. IMHO, defeating the last boss should be an ACCOMPLISHMENT, something you'd be proud to say you managed to do, and I just didn't get that from this one.

While I completely agree with this statement, I can't help but feel the slightest bit bad for folks like Ian who never beat Metroid Prime 2 because he couldn't beat Emperor Ing.

Quote
Maybe I'm a bit of a masochist, but I've come to love Castlelvania's boss style where you basically need to learn through trial and error how to defeat it before you'll be victorious.

Portrait of Ruin had some pretty darn good bosses.  Dracula was especially hard in Old Axe Armor mode; Richiter mode was also quite a challenge.

[GoldenPhoenix]

Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_Brother

I think the last boss made the difference for me in calling the game AA and AAA. IMHO, defeating the last boss should be an ACCOMPLISHMENT, something you'd be proud to say you managed to do, and I just didn't get that from this one.

So wait Zelda TP is not a AAA title either? Wow, just wow. All because the final boss wasn't frustrating? There is a heck of alot more to Zelda games than the bosses, they are just one of many parts that make up not only TP but every Zelda game. Guess what, I didn't feel Ganon in Zelda: OOT was that hard either, so I guess if I adopted your logic that would be only be AA? Pretty sad that bosses have to be frustrating or reflex intensive to be good, because I had more fun with Zelda: TPs bosses than about any boss fights since OOT.  Zelda: TP is one of the most polished and deep games released in quite sometime.
 

[Kairon]

This whole AAA label is ridiculous. End of story.

~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com