Zechs Merquise

No neither do I, I really don't see the issue here. I am calling out a shit looking game, which really doesn't make any decent use of new hardware and looks like an iOS game. People in other threads call out games like Star Fox Zero, Legend of Zelda Twilight Princess HD, NSMBU and Captain Toad and many, many more. These games are accused of many things, shoe horning in control schemes not needed, being lazy, looking uninspired, being cash-ins etc. Yet, when I call this game out, all of a sudden it is an emotional attack on the developer and there's a giant storm of criticism of a game. Bizarre, almost like there is a double standard...

This is the real world, these are adults, grown people that are releasing a product into a highly competitive market. We're not talking about children sat in a kindergarten making finger paintings to take home to their mum! This isn't about their feelings, and if their feelings are getting to get hurt over someone suggesting their game is shit and they shouldn't have bothered, then really they need to do some real growing up. What's more, if they are upset over my comments, what happens when their game gets bad reviews? Or when people don't buy their games? Are they going to cry, moan or feel bad? What if their game doesn't perform and they lose their jobs or their company closes? And if all that happens - it is part of life. I've seen countless threads where people have described Nintendo games as lazy, pointless updates, rehashes etc, are Nintendo employees crying over this? Shall we censor all discussion as feelings might get hurt? I don't know why you have had to turn this into some emotionally fuelled issue. If you're an adult, deal with things. The big corporate world isn't a kindergarten where everything is soft and all the corners are rounded off so people can't get hurt. You've turned what I've said into something ridiculous, based around a warped world view that people's feelings take precedent over anything else and we should all try ever so hard not to upset people. But no one here is going out of their way to upset anyone! A developer has produced a product and I've voiced an opinion. If those who have worked on this game are literally hurt and crying over that, than maybe they should do some growing up, as well as obviously learning how to make better games!

Not at all. I am suggesting launch titles should at least try to show off what the system if capable of and show that the system warrants purchase. For example, when the Wii U came out games like Nintendo Land showed what the gamepad could do - but third party efforts like Batman Arkham City and Black Ops 2 also helped with this showing how the gamepad could be used in other ways. I am not expecting all games at the launch of a system to be ground breaking masterpieces, but then again I do expect some effort to be put in and when I see a game that looks like it would have been redundant and out dated in 1998 and looks like games that could be found and bought for pennies on the App Store I am going to call out that game and the developer behind it. As I've said before this is akin to games in the early days of the Wii that were shovel ware with waggle shoe horned in because the developers saw an opportunity. The shocking difference here is you're in this thread in some way defending this garbage, had this been on the Wii or Wii U or a Nintendo produced game that was so lazy and piss poor you'd be saying so and any one disagreeing would be a fan boy who was taking things too personally. In fact there has recently been criticism of the Star Fox Zero control scheme and how an unsuitable control system has been foisted upon a game - a controls scheme that many don't think is necessary, don't think adds anything new to the game and people don't want to have to use! Now here we have a game that has VR shoved into it, doesn't really need it, adds nothing new to the experience and on top of all that looks like total shite to boot, yet I am criticising that and somehow I am wrong for doing so?

Er... great? I never said it didn't, I was pointing out how the correct software sells hardware. Wii Sports sold the Wii, it was a proof of concept. Whether these games prove VR's worth is yet to be seen. They do however use the technology correctly and do a great job of selling it. I hadn't seen the underwater exploration game and was thinking how well Endless Ocean would work using VR and done from a first person perspective. The improvement that VR can offer a game like Endless Ocean can be seen clearly and it would present a fresh and exciting experience. I'm please you posted this, because you've rally supported the point I was trying to make. The software you have shown all utilises the VR hardware to provide an enhanced experience. When I tried Oculus I played a racing game, it felt so real and the feeling of motion was like riding a roller coaster and felt more 'real' than any other racing game I've ever played. Now let me make something clear - it didn't feel like driving a car, because when you drive a car you can feel the road surface and weight of the vehicle, but it was far more like driving a car than playing with a standard TV and controller. The games you have shown utilise VR and look like they have had real effort put into them. The developers have clearly tried and I think they offer a tantalising view to what VR could offer in the future - a far cry from a 3D fox bouncing around in a basic platformer which would have felt out of date in 1998!

I never said that, I said on release of new hardware games should show off the advantages of that hardware. Another example would be Wii Sports, I'm sure if the Wii was bundled with Tetris it wouldn't have had the same effect as that game wouldn't have benefited from the controls which were central to the new system and its appeal. Not really, Nintendo obviously did have more resources and had the ability to develop the software alongside the hardware. But at the same time these developers did have early access to VR development kits and producing rubbish and shovel-ware is still a poor show. If a developer doesn't have the skill to show off what a new system or new hardware can do and what the applications are of that new hardware, well then they deserve criticism for that. Which leads on to the next point... Yes, this game looks cheap - in fact it looks like a sub-par N64 game ported to iOS, the sort of thing played on a tablet and bought for $0.95 on the app store! This is embarrassing and a waste of time. I can just imagine the laughs and criticism this would have garnered had it been part of the Wii U launch line-up, and rightly so. I am not setting expectations too high if I expect new hardware to launch with something that justifies that hardware - this is what is expected of hardware. Hardware in itself is not a reason to go out and part with cash, it's what you can do with the hardware - or in this case what games can be played on it. Why would you buy hardware if the games are terrible or if they don't offer new experiences and fail to justify the asking price? Developers have been using these VR units for years, hell I tried one around 30 months ago. If these developers haven't got to grips with them by now - at least to the point where they can produce something that at least offers something new and fresh and justifies using that technology, then that either suggests the developer is pretty rubbish, or the hardware doesn't offer too much. In this case, I believe the developer is pretty rubbish and isn't using the hardware correctly, which is why I feel this game is pointless. Because I am a consumer with an interest in gaming, I have the right to say what looks rubbish and what looks good, I have the right to say what looks like it works and what doesn't. Funny, because over in the Star Fox Zero thread lots of people are saying the new controls don't look like they will work, or look pretty rubbish! I can't take total issue with that, because they do look and sound odd. I don't see you over there on damage control duty though as you are with this title! By your logic, I shouldn't tell Michael Bay that Transformers Extinction is a steaming pile of horse shit and he shouldn't have bothered because I have yet to try to make a AAA £300 million dollar action film based on a toy franchise! Or maybe I shouldn't tell Digital Homicide or any of the other rubbish game developers not to bother when they have produced total hack jobs of games because it might hurt their feelings! What nonsense! I will tell these people they shouldn't have bothered - and I'm guessing the people who developed this haven't been developing games for over 29 years, because if they had they would be pretty lucky to still have jobs churning out something like this. If you are churning out iOS quality games in order to cash in on VR and get a quick sale as you're the first 3D platformer to 'use the hardware', DON'T BOTHER! This game doesn't push any boundaries. There are probably hundreds of these games on the App Store doing no business at all. These guys just ported one and added some poorly thought out VR that isn't needed. Just in the way lazy developers ported crappy platformers to the Wii and added waggle - but slagging them off was fine. Should we go back and give all the party games and added waggle rubbish on the Wii a free pass because the developers tried to get their game working with motion controls - and afterall we don't want to hurt their feelings? I stand by my initial comments - this game is pointless, the devs shouldn't have bothered. It is a lazy cash in on new hardware and a wave of interest in VR. It should be viewed on the same level as added waggle in early Wii games.

You've answered your own question in saying: "Sure, it may not show VR at its best". That is exactly why this was a pointless exercise. When the N64 came out it did so with Mario 64, which essentially justified the system and showed off both the hardware in terms of its 3D ability and what could be done in a 3D world and it showed off the importance of the analogue stick - which at the time was something new. Now if the N64 had launched with a 2D Mario game it certainly wouldn't have had the same effect. The game does indeed show a couple of things that VR can do, but when the reviewer states that the things that the VR does could be largely handled better using a second thumb stick and a regular pad, that isn't saying much for those VR features. What's more, the fact the game itself looks like the kind of sub par shovel-ware that would have been critically panned if it had been released on the N64 is also rather embarrassing. I'm not sure what point you're making when you say it is "better to try than to sit back criticising", I'm not a game developer, yet I have been playing games since 1987, so I'm pretty well versed in what will and won't work. I don't intend to try developing VR games, or any other games, but to suggest that people can't criticise something that obviously looks shit and should instead "try" I assume to develop games is a ludicrous point to make. It's like saying when you watch a shit film you can't say it is shit and should instead go out there and try to make a film. Finally, it is hardly ridiculous to say what VR will and will not have good applications for. Virtual reality by its very definition tries to create a virtual reality for the user, it is a way to bring a greater degree of realism and immersion into a game through altering the perspective of the player to make them feel as though they are not looking at a screen but actually in the computer generated world. Straight away VR can be seen as hardware that will have applications for flight sims, racing games, games where you explore in a first person perspective or FPS games as viewing the world from the first person perspective using such hardware will only add to immersion. It doesn't have the same effect when you're watching an N64 quality 3D fox running around. And equating knowing the application of VR to the limits of the SNES is nonsense! Star Fox on the SNES pushed boundaries and although the 3D world was very crude, at the time it was ground breaking. This game pushes no boundaries - either in game play or through the application of VR itself.

I'm really surprised they bothered to make this game as it's a very poor showcase of VR and 3D platformers gain nothing from using the VR, the reviewer even said that the controls would have been better handled via a regular camera control stick than the VR headset. I think VR to play regular games - 2D games and 3D person games is pretty pointless, VR is really a way to experience worlds from a first person perspective.

Could Pokémon work on a home console? If that is the question (which it is, as it is written there in the thread title), then the only answer is 'YES'. It can clearly WORK on a home a console. Literally everything in the game would work perfectly on a home console - in fact the world and the Pokemon could be realised to a far greater degree than on a handheld. To say otherwise and claim Pokemon couldn't work on a home console is untrue. I think what @Serebii is getting at is that by moving from a handheld to a home console 'something' would be lost. The whole idea of Pokemon is that the titular creatures are 'Pocket Monsters', they travel around with you in your pocket so you can battle your friends and take on their monsters when you meet them. The whole idea of Pocket Monsters literally extends the game into the real world. As Ash you walk around the game world battling with other trainers when you bump into them. As a gamer you walk around the real world and can battle other gamers when you bump into them. It is a novel and highly popular concept that has sold millions of games. However this concept was born in a time when there was no online, no wifi and smart devices didn't exist. There was no option but to carry your Gameboy on your side and connect to a friend with a link cable! We have moved on from there now, we live in a connected world where we don't have to huddle around one TV to play multiplayer games and we don't need to sit next our friends and use a link cable to connect our devices to play together. So the argument shouldn't really be 'Could Pokemon work on a home console?', as clearly it could. The argument is more based on whether taking away the mobile aspect of the game would in some way take away the soul of the game and remove a certain charm that despite being a design choice from another era is something certain gamers know and love and see as integral to the 'experience' of a Pokemon game. For me personally, I'd happily see a Pokemon game on the Wii U in a massive seem less world akin to the world Xenoblade Chronicles X where you saw the animals playing, fighting, hunting and living in their natural habitat and where online arenas, tournaments and competitions were the connected portion of the game. But for other people, this would clearly remove the aspect they know and love of taking their handheld with them to events and trading and battling Pokemon in the way they know and love and have done since the 1990s.

You are basically rebranding this to suit your point. A quick google search and you will see that everyone, both consumers and critics refer to the Wii Remote controls in both COD and Resident Evil as motion controls. You choosing to call them pointer controls makes no difference, you can't alter widely used terminology to suit yourself and your argument. Also, your argument about Resident Evil falls a little flat if you are choosing to condemn motion controls, as if the difficultly in your game arises from a cumbersome control scheme or a control scheme which in some way hampers your movement or aiming then that is not a positive thing, that is bad. If the only argument for analogue control in Resident Evil 4 is that it is more difficult that way, then maybe that control scheme is flawed, as difficult should come from what is going on in the game, not you wrestling with a control scheme that makes it difficult for you to keep up with the action. Hence why the Wii version of RE4 is so often regarded as the superior version. And of course, it offers multiple control schemes, which offers the player choice as well.

Actually, I think you're the one that is confused - a pointer or reticule can be controlled via an analogue stick, a mouse or by the use of something like a Wii Remote. If the pointer or reticule is controlled by the Wii Remote, you are using motions to control it, you move your hand left or right to move the pointer left or right. So as the reticule in Star Fox Zero is controlled by moving the game pad - is that a motion control or a pointer control? Essentially, if you look at any game like COD or Resident Evil 4 that offered both analogue controls and motion controls, the pointer controls as you term them were always referred to as 'motion controls', so stop nit picking. In fact, using the pointer has always been referred to as motion controls, even from the earliest examples of games using it as such. Turning off motion controls doesn't help when the level design is based around them? Well, Resident Evil 4 was designed to be played with a conventional pad, it was improved with motion (or pointer if we are nit picking) controls. COD was designed for conventional pads, but played really well with motion controls. I played both with motion controls, I played online with motion controls on COD - but some people still played with conventional pads. As neither of us have played Star Fox Zero, neither of us know how it plays with either control scheme - we do however know that the difficultly can be adjusted in the game to cater for a range of skill levels. Finally, I'm not really sure why you added the bit about Super Mario 64 on the DS. I didn't claim that, stop with the straw man arguments.

Talking about motion controls as some people do just makes me laugh! As if all motion controls are awful and motion controls are the worst thing to ever happen to gaming. As if there can't be good implementation of motion control and bad implementation of motion control! For example, motion controls implemented well brought about games like Resident Evil 4 Wii Edition, largely accepted as the definitive edition of the game, where the pointer controls made for far more fluid game play and aiming. Sin and Punishment 2 is another fantastic example of using the pointer controls - the game was much more fun that the first because the controls were far more intuitive and fluid than using a thumb stick. The controls in Call of Duty on the Wii were also superb and gave a superior level of aiming far closer to mouse and keyboard allowing you to run in one direction and shoot in another rather than the dual analogue controls where it feels like you are 'driving' the player and pointing yourself in the direction of your target. Let's not forget the Tennis and Golf in Wii Sports or the fact that the Tiger Woods games on Wii not only sold better, but reviewed better too. Golf and Tennis both lend themselves to motion controls which enhance the experience. Then you have the other side of the coin - games that either missed the mark like the first Red Steel which was sadly lacking as things like twisting the controller to zoom in with rifles were actually a pain and felt unnatural and threw off your aim, or games that simply didn't work - like when boxing sims tried to have you punch using the remote and nunchuk and it never quite worked or when games forced you to pull of complex shapes with the remote and you weren't sure where you were going wrong. It is silly to say that motion controls were all good or all bad, as there are examples of both and the implementation is not down to motion controls themselves, but the skill of the developer and how that developer implements them. I haven't played Star Fox Zero yet, but I am excited too. I welcome the fact they've done something new - if it works. Personally, I have reservations about this. Had the game gone down the Sin and Punishment route and used the Wii Remote as a pointer so you could aim and move independently I would understand exactly what they were doing. But two screens and the second or independent aiming, I don't get it, but I didn't get Metroid Prime 3's control scheme until I played it and realised that the game was far better for it! Ultimately, it is odd that Nintendo moved down this route - as with the Wii Remote they simplified gaming and the control scheme. The gamepad does the opposite, it is more confusing. Where as for the vast majority of things I knew right away what the remote would do - tennis, golf and rail shooters were just three easy to understand applications. The gamepad is much harder to explain - and I think that is evident in the fact you are constantly reminded by on screen prompts where to look and where to shoot! But with Star Fox Zero you can at least turn off the motion controls - and what more could you want? You see more options are better than fewer options and if some people like the motion controls, they can use them - and if you don't, turn them off! Surely everyone is a winner then?

Well, I don't think anyone saw the PS4K coming out and potentially dividing the PS4 user base and essentially (and to a greater degree) doing what the New 3DS did. So if Nintendo do something wild as well it would certainly be an interesting year for gaming! All we would need is MS to pull something mad out of the hat and E3 would be total carnage!

I preferred the Galaxy levels to 3D World, but I enjoyed Galaxy 2 more than Galaxy, which is odd, as Galaxy 2 was almost like all the ideas and crazy bits that never made it to Galaxy, which in a way made it less of a cohesive experience, but at the same time was so diverse in game play and just such a joy to play. I think the strength of 3D Mario titles is they are all so different. 3D World felt different to Galaxy, which felt different to Sunshine which felt different to Mario 64. I think after so long, Nintendo are still innovating and still finding new ways for the game to play. But with it being Nintendo they're damned if they do and damned if they don't. When they move something in a different direction or change the formula they are shouted down because it isn't Mario 64 Version 2.0. Equally, when Nintendo stick to a formula like they do with the 2D games they are shouted down for not changing the formula! It's similar to Xenoblade Chronicles X, the complaints that Nintendo weren't producing huge, involving games in massive open worlds that were aimed at the core gamer were answered with that title, but then no one bought it as it wasn't a replay of the Wii title. (For the record, XCX is not as good as XC, but it is still an excellent game)

Come on, that has to be utter bollocks, as Xenoblade Chronicles basically required sub quests and enemy farming at times to ensure you were correctly levelled to fight bosses. There were several difficultly spikes which sent people off farming enemies for hours! Xenoblade Chronicles X is an excellent game. Whilst it losses some of what was in the first in terms of story, it adds a hell of a lot more in terms of the Skells and the size of scope of the world. Literally hours and hours can be spent just exploring and if you set your classes up correctly there is a LOT less farming needed in this game, in fact I found I always over levelled for all the main story levels. Missing out on a game like this is crazy, especially if you enjoyed the first. It is well layered that each time you think you're getting to a point where you are comfortable a whole new layer open up and you realise there is so much to do.

It's an amazing game, I think I prefer Galaxy 2 to 3D World though. However saying that, I feel that 3D World is a gaming masterpiece and almost a logical extension of the Galaxy games. The fact that each level was so distinct and there are so many unique and wonderful moments in it really does say an awful lot - especially for a series that has been going so long. I always find it amazing how Nintendo can introduce a mechanic or a theme in a single level of 3D World, teach you that mechanic and then play it out to perfection in that single level, when other lesser developers would take that one theme or mechanic and hang a whole game around it, still not getting it as right as Nintendo do in that single level. I also like the run button! I think with analogue control people over rate how it used. Yes, of course you can walk with a little pressure or jog with a little more and then run with the stick fully pushed in one direction. However for the most part the stick is either pushed tentatively or pushed the whole way. In effect, the run button was fine, I also think the run button in Sonic The Lost World was a good thing!

I'm the opposite! I play my Wii U and my Wii almost every single day. Due to the bird getting a new job which means she is up at 6am I just get up and play on the Wii doing more pick up and play or VC games whilst she gets ready, then when she leaves I start getting ready for work. I play the Wii U in the evening for an hour or so and have been loving the output so much I still have a backlog of new sealed games - Mario Maker, Project Zero and Kirby are all waiting to be played. This year I have been playing Twilight Princess, Devil's Third, Splatoon and Captain Toad. I think there's a lot of variety in those games. I'm also really looking forward to Star Fox and have the first print edition on pre-order. Then there's Fire Emblem and Zelda still to come and I really want to pick up Pokken as well. I really don't feel as if I've missed out on anything by not owning the other consoles. As of yet, I haven't seen anything on them that I have felt is fresh or compelling enough to justify purchasing them. What's more, when I see the shit EA and Ubisoft pull with some of their bigger franchises and the fact that games are now basically being carved up so they can be sold to consumers at £89.99 with a season pass included, I'm pleased I'm not part of that.

You need to listen this - it is hard advice to swallow, but listen! If you love someone, you will upset them from time to time - whether accidental or not - that is part of life. Equally, if someone loves you, whether by accident or intention, at times they will upset you. But if you are genuinely in love, you forgive those things, especially if they are accidents. If someone leaves you on the pretext of something you did by accident, they are most likely using that one thing as an excuse to get out or a focal point to vent built up anger and feelings that are based on wider ranging issues and have been building for some time. When ever someone says to me "Me and my girl were fine, but I then did 'X' and she flew off the handle and left", it's 99% of the time safe to say that 'X' wasn't the real reason they left, but was simply used as the reason to justify leaving. The break up was actually caused by many other reasons, but the person doing the breaking up didn't want to raise those reasons or talk about them so was looking for an excuse to leave and found it when 'X' took place. You don't need to forgive yourself, you need to realise that the relationship you were in wasn't right for you - and it wasn't your fault. You can't live your life walking on egg shells trying not to upset someone so they don't have a pretext to leave. If someone loves you, they won't be looking for a pretext to leave and you won't need to walk on egg shells and constantly analyse your own behaviour. Ask yourself this - if someone you loved hurt you by accident, would you leave? If the answer is 'no', then maybe the person you were with didn't love you in the way you thought, and if that is case, then maybe you are better off looking for someone who does.

Don't worry about it, just don't engage with time wasters. Tinder is a quick way to get to see if you like the look of someone, a place where you can arrange to meet up - or at least talk on the phone! Did you talk on the phone to her? If not, then there is something wrong. If you've met someone on Tinder and you haven't at least tried to arrange a date in the first week or so of talking, it is a little odd. People who are on these apps or on dating websites and just spend their time talking to people with no intention of meeting are wasting other people's time. If a you've been chatting to someone for well over a month and you haven't met or even spoken to them properly, odds on they are a time waster or some kind of weirdo! Save you time and energy for someone who actually wants to meet up with you and spend quality time together so you can actually see if you click.

I'm pleased this is doing well and I hope it brings people into the Nintendo fold, but for me, I honestly don't see the appeal at all.

Don't take that as a bad thing, she is obviously a time waster and a complete freak. If you spend over a month talking to someone and they haven't actually met you and won't even accept friend requests then they are clearly messing you around or some kind of nutcase! You dodged a bullet, just dust yourself off and keep looking, Tinder is a numbers game, swipe enough times, get enough matches and sooner or later you'll end up sat in a restaurant with a nice lady!

Congratulations - you're looking much better. Keep it going, you could end up being a poster boy for weight loss as you've achieved so much! Remember - be the best person you can, be fit, be athletic, be clean, sharply dressed and smart. You will feel better about yourself and with that will come extra confidence which in turn will make those around you respect you more. If you always strive to be the best you can be, you are far more likely to succeed, especially when it comes to getting a partner and achieving goals in the work place. But even if you things go wrong, if you're the best you can be, at least you went down looking great and you'll have no regrets as you gave it your best! Keep up the good work

Well, the herding goats was to get you used to riding Epona. So if you missed that, I'm sorry, but there was a reason. I still believe it was a very charming and interesting way of introducing you to the story, the mechanics, Link's past and many of the characters. But that's what Zelda is about, Zelda isn't a pick up and play game. When I play Mario I don't expect a large intro, nor do I need to know the type of person Mario is or where he comes from. But Zelda is a different franchise. Applying the logic of pick-up and play games with bite size levels to a game like Zelda is broken logic. Often you can spend 2 hours or more in a single dungeon and once you exit that dungeon the new items you earned open up whole new areas of the over world. I wonder if the whinny little bitch ever played Fallout 3 and moaned because there was a similarly large intro where you started life in the Vault with your father and literally went from being born to right through to the day you set foot outside and saw real sunlight for the first time? You see, games like Fallout 3, Zelda or Xenoblade can't be stacked up and held to the same rules of design as games like Mario or Tetris which are much more 'pick up and play' and hence you can just dive in. What's more - just an extra point, I've been playing Zelda since the NES. Hell I even have the Game and Watch Zelda! But you know, for some people Twilight Princess would have been their first Zelda experience, I'm happy for tutorials like this - that actually exist as part of the larger world and overall narrative, that teach you as you play. They are especially good for those getting into the franchise. It's far better than having a separate tutorial mode or having to pour over the instruction booklet. I loved Xenoblade Chronciles X, in many ways it is a masterpiece, but sadly it falls a little short and one of those ways it does fall short is how inaccessible it can be at times. A lack of tutorials and explanations held that game back, possibly because I'm not a masaive JRPG fan or possibly because several facets of game play needed better explanation. Twilight Princess holds upward of 60 hours of game play, if thirty minutes of gently being eased into the world and meeting the cast and getting to know a little about protagonist is a problem, then maybe the guy playing the game is playing a game not suited to his needs!

I actually really disliked that review of Twilight Princess, I thought the guy reviewing came over as a whinning bitch to be honest. He likes to nit pick every single thing - even the intro and essentially the training around the village. It's something he banged on and on about, even to the point of being irritated by the inclusion of the sling shot. But for me, I felt differently, I loved the beginning. Yes, it was a lengthy tutorial - but it was also a puzzle and a way to meet the opening cast. The way you solve all the little problems around the village and it introduces you to the cast, I liked that! It felt like the whole Zelda mechanic was introduced not in a boring training level or dojo, but actually out doing things in the village - the cat ran away, so you get a fish for the cat etc. The way he boils everything down to the time when he felt the quest really started, I didn't even think of it like that. I felt it was all part of a cohesive game. It wasn't like shooter where you start at a firing range, it was illustrating the village life that Link came from, it told his story as a humble farm hand. Obviously it is his opinion, but I disagree with him and feel he went about the review in a very dull way - I lost interest in it around the half way mark.

Oh man, for a big box with Amiibo? I'm in!

I still think the game world is large, just because others are bigger doesn't mean that makes Hyrule small. What's more, games like Xenoblade Chronicles X are much bigger, but they don't have the dungeons that Zelda does, when you take the world and the dungeons (which on their own take a couple of hours, longer for some) it is a pretty huge game. If you do everything I can see the game lasting you 60 hours, which is pretty damn big for a single player game. I think Twilight Princess HD stands the test of time - and considering it's an HD uplift of a Gamecube game, it really is remarkable how good it looks at times. Obviously it's not going to look at good as certain game son the PS4, but that again does not mean it looks 'rubbish'. Also, I forgot to mention the use of the gamepad, having all the items on the pad in front of you, or alternatively a mini-map is great! Top use of the gamepad and makes item management much easier as you're not in and out of menus. Of course Nintendo could have made it look better by fully remaking it, and of course it's going to play differently to modern games - but the fact a ten year old title is still so engaging and fun is a testament to the fact that it's another Nintendo masterpiece!