...

The key is making the game world seem alive. Stream the whole goddamn thing, add dynamic weather and have events happen in cities, don't make it stale. Also make the dungeon design more organic, so that it doesn't feel like just another obstacle in the player's way. Nothing's wrong with how they are now, but they can be bettered, so to disguise the puzzle elements and make them more part of the story.

Finally? It's almost everyone's favourite track from the game!

All joking aside, Zii could very well be some kind of logo for Zelda Wii (like the film Independence Day became known informally as ID4). They might already have some logos prepared.

Ice Mario was cool, but I think my favourite power up was Fire Mario, simply for nostalgic reasons. It was the first time we had Fire Mario in 3D. It was just a shame that it was a timed power up and the music was annoying. But definitely keep Fire Mario in ALL future 3D (and 2D) Mario platformers, it's just classic. As for favourite galaxies, the Desert one is way up there, and the Melty Molten Galaxy also, both for the galaxy itself and also the excelent music. A great thing about SMG is that it had so many one star galaxies, which made the game so much more varied than its predecessors. I never counted but it probably has more levels than SM64 and SMS put together.

Well, I guess I'm the only one that liked this trailer, thus far. I haven't yet played the current-gen PoP, but having replayed The Sands of Time just this week, I'm excited for a new game in its style. The Sands of Time is one of the best 3D platformers I've played. Much different than any of the Mario games, so not really comparable, but I love both styles. PoP:SoT was a more linear game, much like the old 2D ones and I liked that. I've always wanted a 3D Mario game that was completely linear, as opposed to a bunch of sandbox levels. You can say that SMG is like that, actually, I thought its levels were much more linear and I welcomed that. Anyway, Sands of Time is one of the greats and I welcome this new PoP.

The hype is from old school gamers that played SMB3 and SMW almost 20 years ago. It's kind of like a blast from the past.

I don't hate TP either. I spent somewhere around 80 hours on it, which is roughly the same time I spent on Fallout 3. And I loved OoT at first sight, and I also loved MM at first sight. As for WW, before playing it I thought that the screens were goofy and that Link looked bad, but when I played it, I loved it even before hitting start, just listening to the music as the background story was told. All those 3 games are superior in feel to TP in my opinion.

I disagree. I love Zelda, but the Hyrule from TP looks plastic in comparison to Cyrodiil. I understand they are a generation apart, though, just saying. In Hyrule there's nothing to discover. You basically arrive at a new section of Hyrule Field and it's just a vast area with nothing to it. In Cyrodill you'll be walking in the wild and suddenly arrive at a farm or a small group of huts, or some thieves' campsite, or a cave or a ruin or a fort, or a shrine at which you can pray to rid yourself of negative spells, etc. Just walking in the middle of the forrests and then you suddenly spot a hut way over in the distance. You arrive there and go inside and there's people living there, or if empty, there's background story on people who lived there and items left behind. Each of the 7 major cities in Cyrodiil is different from the next and they all have personality, different architectures and peoples. You can say that the hundreds of caves and dungeons all look alike, and I agree. Those lack personality. In that department, it's no Zelda. But Cyrodiil itself is an amazing piece of open world design with snowy mountains to the north, marshes to the south, yellow plains to the west, lakes, rivers, ponds, etc, and it feels totally magical and alive. Cyrodiil lives without you. There are characters wandering the land and they can die at any moment, without your influence. You will just happen upon them (or not) and find them either alive or dead. I've seen people diss Oblivion's world because "it just looks like ordinary reality and there's nothing special about that". I just don't agree. Oblivion felt really magical to me. Zelda was great in Ocarina of Time's day, I played that game to death in 1998/9 and I still play it (last time I did I think was in 2006 or 2007), it's part of my life and I'm grateful for it. It was also great in Wind Waker's day. But TP just feels bland. Hyrule Castle Town was the biggest disapointment to me. I'd seen pictures and it looked so alive with so many people. When I arrived there, they were all just scenery! You can interact with only a handful of people, yet you see dozens of them walking around, with no purpose other than scenery, eye candy. If you want an example of graphics over gameplay, look no further than TP's towns. They look well populated and have many people for you to look at, but you can't interact with most of them.

I know, I got that (hence the "Zelda doesn't have to be Oblivion" comment), but Oblivion just happens to be just like he described.

I'm also a single gamer, and I am drawn to this game. I haven't got it yet (in fact, Disaster was the last Wii game I bought, a year ago) but I will at some point, when I find it cheaper. To me it looks like Super Mario World, is that single player enough for you?

You want Oblivion. If you have a 360 or PS3, buy that game. It's a great game, awesome game, a masterpiece really. But it's not Zelda. And I don't think Zelda should be like Oblivion. Maybe the overworld could be like it (Zelda's world is made of plastic next to Cyrodiil), but not the game itself.

Hey, an open world game that takes place in Paris is just what I've craved for years! This looks like a cool game. Maybe not AAA, but good nonetheless.

I wanna hear and see more about the sequel.

A link to a forum that has a link to another forum... Hmm, makes me wonder why didn't you put the neogaf link directly. Anyway, if that packet of crisps thing is for real, I'm in.

Yeah, I've been wrong lots of times before and now I've managed to see a video on Youtube before it got deleted and the reason I thought it was hard to believe was

Hmm, I highly doubt that's true...

I think Oblivion's map is bigger than Fallout's. F3's world isn't as big as it seems after you've become a little familiar with it. And yes, navigating downtown DC through the tube tunnels is a low point of the game for me too. I would have prefered if there weren't so many dead ends that make you go back into to the tube. But seeing the Washington Monument all the way from Tenpenny Tower's balcony (these structures are on almost completely opposite sides of the map, for those of you who don't know) through a sniper scope makes up for any faults the game might have.

I think it is like it in the perspective that enemies you face for the first time in the begining of the game are a challenge and may kill you and later on, once you've leveled up (I consider you level up in Metroid) they are cannon fodder. In Fallout 3, with sufficient level and a combat shotgun with high Small Guns and Repair skills, most enemies are cannon fodder. The side quest Those, for example, is practically impossible to complete at the begining of the game, and that's when you'll most likely come across it. But you have to leave it aside and go do other things and come back many hours later and it'll be a walk in the park.

Like Metroid.

This game didn't fully start for me until about 17-20 hours of gameplay. Really, it took me that long to fully get into it. I liked it from the start, but at the begining your character is still too weak, you'll have to run from most confrontations and you won't know the world that well. After some hours, you'll have a stronger character, you'll know a bit more of your surroundings and you'll also know some characters better. Just don't rush the main quest, as if you do that, like in Oblivion, the game can be pretty short and also your character won't be at full level up. Explore and do side quests. All in all, Fallout 3 took me about 85 hours of gameplay. And it's full of amazing details... that you can miss entirely.

It's a Masterpiece. I haven't played any of the DLC, just the main game and it's THE best game I've played this gen and one of the best of my life, alongside such greats as Ocarina of Time and Metroid Prime. Man, I miss the Wasteland, I have to return there one of these days. The feeling you get whilst slowly walking the Wasteland is unbelievable... if you are that kind of player, ie, not in a hurry. Just stop in the middle of nowhere and look around you, hearing the wind sadly blowing and that melancholic mood music. Better than Oblivion in that regard.

It's not making games too easy, it's giving the option to the gamer to make the games too easy. There's a difference. Think of it like difficulty levels. Not everyone plays the COD games on Veteran. Most people I know play them on Normal. The COD games are a walk in the park on Recruit or Normal and extremely hard on Veteran. The player is given the choice of how he want to play the game, easy or hard. Same here. If you want a hardcore pure racing experience, turn off all assists and don't use the rewind button. If someone else just wants to have fun without frustrations, then that someone will use some assists and the rewind button if needed.

Well, Nightmare 3 is one of the better sequels, but the only ones I really consider good are the Wes Craven ones.

I agree with both of you (and probably the rest of the world except one guy), if an option can be turned off, I don't see the problem. Just don't use it, it's optional. It's like the in-race music, something I didn't like that they added in Forza 3. But I can turn it off in the menus, so it doesn't bother me. The way I see it, the more options the better. You like 'em, you use 'em, you don't like 'em, you don't use 'em.

I stopped caring at number 2. The first one is the only good film of the series. All the sequels are travesties and missed the point of the original, which wasn't cheap gore. Well, they're still decent gore films, just not quality films like the first one is. Kind of like the Nightmare on Elm Street series, the only actual good ones are the two Wes Craven directed, that is the 1st and the 7th.