darksnowman Posted September 26, 2008 Posted September 26, 2008 Considering you can't switch between them at will, one of them disappears quickly, and they offer nothing significantly different than each other (except plot events), then no, it shouldn't. I would have to say that plot events is a pretty good reason to justify the Twilight Realms importance.
Jonnas Posted September 26, 2008 Posted September 26, 2008 I would have to say that plot events is a pretty good reason to justify the Twilight Realms importance. Ok, I'll rephrase that: It doesn't use the 2-world system, regarding gameplay. Just because there are two worlds in the plot, it doesn't mean they use the system also seen in LttP, OoT and the Oracles.
Falcon_BlizZACK Posted September 26, 2008 Posted September 26, 2008 You know, for a 14 year old, maase still holds his own pretty well. Impressive.
Sheikah Posted September 27, 2008 Posted September 27, 2008 You know, for a 14 year old, maase still holds his own pretty well. Impressive. What?! XD Worst holding of one's own I have seen. He thinks that one of the games can be factually better. :p
yesteryeargames Posted September 28, 2008 Posted September 28, 2008 zelda oot 100% zelda ww 98% zelda tp 98% id rate them
DanielTimothy Posted September 29, 2008 Posted September 29, 2008 Windwaker and Minish Cap are the best Zelda games, I thought everyone knew that?
Kurtle Squad Posted September 30, 2008 Posted September 30, 2008 And just by coincidence, most of the ones who didn't play OOT at the time, loved TP better. I prefer OOT to TP, and I never played it back in the day. Of course you have to slightly ignore the stiffness of OOT, the only thing TP has over it really (appart from the graphics, duh). TP lacks the character OOT, MM & WW all had, and didn't really know what kind of Zelda game it wanted to be.
SKINNYERIC1 Posted October 4, 2008 Posted October 4, 2008 Agreed. I think Wind Waker is far more unique and will without a doubt stand the test of time better. Agree but prefer gameplay on TP.
K-project Posted October 4, 2008 Posted October 4, 2008 Agree but prefer gameplay on TP. Same here. I can't help feeling that a lot of the fan love that's emerged recently for Wind Waker is quite often based on nostalgia for the GC. It's a classic case of "you'll miss it when it's gone", and that's what Wind Waker is currently enjoying. These forums were full of disappointment when the game was actually out. My feeling is that while Wind Waker is a cracking game, there just isn't enough of it to justify the fuss. It's all over so quickly, and there's a nagging feeling of Nintendo just going through the motions with the actual game itself, that it almost killed off the impact of the amazing art direction. It feels like a mini Zelda adventure, rather than a fully fledged and finished article. Even more criminally, Nintendo had to drag parts out, which to me should be completely uncalled for in such a short game. There was so much unfulfilled potential with it. I only hope that Nintendo go back to this style at some point in the future and complete it. Though Twilight Princess takes it's lead from Ocarina quite heavily, it still delivers a grander and more rewarding experience for me. It might be tough at some bits, or easy at others, or even boring at some other moments, but that's the nature of such a large scale game. On balance, I'll take that over brief any day. While I have very, very fond memories of Wind Waker, I have relished almost all of Twilight Princess just like I once did the beautiful Ocarina of Time and the majestic Majora's Mask. That to me is what a Zelda game is about, and for me Wind Waker fell shy.
Grazza Posted October 4, 2008 Posted October 4, 2008 I can't help feeling that a lot of the fan love that's emerged recently for Wind Waker is quite often based on nostalgia for the GC. It's a classic case of "you'll miss it when it's gone", and that's what Wind Waker is currently enjoying. These forums were full of disappointment when the game was actually out. Maybe, maybe, but I promise you that is not the case with me. I guarantee that I was blown away the first time I played it and kept thinking "this is the best game ever". My feeling is that while Wind Waker is a cracking game, there just isn't enough of it to justify the fuss. It's all over so quickly, and there's a nagging feeling of Nintendo just going through the motions with the actual game itself, that it almost killed off the impact of the amazing art direction. I respect your opinion, but I couldn't disagree more. I got the feeling that everything had been completely reinvented and dragged into the new generation. A huge amount of this is simply to do with taste. I thought the fact it was short benefitted it. I'd call it medium length for a Zelda, but very long for a normal game. There are some RPGs I've started off loving, but they outstayed their welcome. I'm glad Zelda keeps it tight. That's not to say we won't look back fondly at Twilight Princess. I preferred it to Phantom Hourglass and the next Zelda might actually be worse than both of them.
Jonnas Posted October 4, 2008 Posted October 4, 2008 Of course it all boils down to taste. I've said it once and I'll say it again, here's how OoT spoiled us: -There are two main aspects of the Zelda series: Adventure and Exploration. -The adventure side is the main storyline, the driving point. Dungeons, plot, storyline pacing, etc. Are all part of this aspect. Those whose goal is to complete the game while having a hell of a ride appreciate this; -The exploration side is the whole world. The side-quests, minor characters, hidden spots, secrets, etc. Are all part of this. Those who take their time, and enjoy the journey, and look for every detail, nook and cranny enjoy this. -OoT offered both sides of the coin, and they were great. That's why it's so popular. -WW was more focused on exploration. The Great Sea was immense, and Windfall Island was full of life. However, the adventure side was harmed by the triforce quest, the sailing slowed the pace down, and the lack of some dungeons left some people thinking the game was rushed. Even the combat system was fun only for the exploration fans, as the adventure fans thought it was too easy. -TP had a good adventure. Good dungeons, epic bosses, and lots of main storyline quests and events. However, the world was empty, the NPCs were lifeless, and there was a severe lack of side-quests. Even the whole "put rupees back in the chest" was bad, because it discouraged me from cutting grass. I mean, come on! Me and Grazza are obviously exploration fans. Our love for WW has nothing to do with nostalgia. (I bought WW because of Master Quest. I ended up enjoying WW a lot more ) K-project is obviously an adventure fan. He sure loves TP, and I can understand what he didn't like in WW.
Grazza Posted October 5, 2008 Posted October 5, 2008 I completely agree with your entire post, Jonnas. I must admit, I did "complete" Wind Waker faster than other Zeldas, but I spent many days afterwards exploring the Great Sea, which provided so much I hadn't seen. I consider the game to be 6 dungeons + several mini-dungeons and side-quests, which works for me. Even the whole "put rupees back in the chest" was bad, because it discouraged me from cutting grass. I mean, come on! That and the way it kept telling you how much each rupee was worth were two design mistakes I'm very surprised they put into the game. Me and Grazza are obviously exploration fans. Our love for WW has nothing to do with nostalgia. (I bought WW because of Master Quest. I ended up enjoying WW a lot more ) Indeed! (Master Quest is pretty bad though ) People are beginning to think praise of the old games is due to nostalgia, and any disappointment with Twilight Princess is down to expectation and hype. Personally, I'm not a nostalgic person with games. Though I loved Link to the Past at the time, for example, I now find it quite outdated and prefer TP. On the other hand, I don't find the 2D Marios and Metroids outdated (not the "SNES quality" ones anyway). As for Twilight Princess, well, it did have a lot to do with expectation, I suppose, but only in the way that it was so different to the 2004 trailer. Never before (to my knowledge) have expectations of a game been based so much on one trailer. I think it's quite unfair to blame the fans hyping it up, because that very trailer was the reason they were so excited by the game in the first place. I believe over time it will become apparent just how much the Wii optimisation affected the original GameCube game (but I've said a lot about that). Just one more thing, because I'm curious if anyone else got this same feeling. In the Goron Mines of Twilight Princess, do you remember when you first encountered the fire-breathing "gecko" lizards? They were based on the Dodongos from the N64 games, in that they breathed fire, rotated in the same way and you had to hit their tails. That was a key moment for me when I thought "This doesn't have the Zelda magic". They reminded me of the feeling of being in Dodongo's Cavern, and how far removed this was from it. Just curious if anyone else thought that when they encountered them?
Jonnas Posted October 5, 2008 Posted October 5, 2008 I completely agree with your entire post, Jonnas. I must admit, I did "complete" Wind Waker faster than other Zeldas, but I spent many days afterwards exploring the Great Sea, which provided so much I hadn't seen. I consider the game to be 6 dungeons + several mini-dungeons and side-quests, which works for me. Yeah, whenever people mention the lack of dungeons in WW, I wonder: "Lack of dungeons? Whoa, WW had half of the dungens OoT had? I didn't even notice!" WW had a bigger amount of side-quests, though. That certainly made up for that. Indeed! (Master Quest is pretty bad though ) Aww...Don't say that. It was pretty challenging. The only bad things were the slowed-down port, and lack of N64 control. People are beginning to think praise of the old games is due to nostalgia, and any disappointment with Twilight Princess is down to expectation and hype. Personally, I'm not a nostalgic person with games. Though I loved Link to the Past at the time, for example, I now find it quite outdated and prefer TP. On the other hand, I don't find the 2D Marios and Metroids outdated (not the "SNES quality" ones anyway). True, it depends. I thought Metroid 1 and LttP were outdated, while Metroid II and Link's Awakening still hold their own (Note: I only played these games relatively recently) Just one more thing, because I'm curious if anyone else got this same feeling. In the Goron Mines of Twilight Princess, do you remember when you first encountered the fire-breathing "gecko" lizards? They were based on the Dodongos from the N64 games, in that they breathed fire, rotated in the same way and you had to hit their tails. That was a key moment for me when I thought "This doesn't have the Zelda magic". They reminded me of the feeling of being in Dodongo's Cavern, and how far removed this was from it. Just curious if anyone else thought that when they encountered them? Not in that moment, no. I just realized how disappointing the game was becoming gradually. A combination of few side-quests and putting rupees back in the chest, I suppose.
Grazza Posted October 5, 2008 Posted October 5, 2008 True, it depends. I thought Metroid 1 and LttP were outdated, while Metroid II and Link's Awakening still hold their own (Note: I only played these games relatively recently) What it is for me, is that Zelda was improved so much by putting it into 3D. Metroid hasn't (yet) gained from being in 3D, in my opinion, and Mario has been done extremely well in 3D, but it's totally different gameplay. Super Mario World, New Super Mario Bros, Metroid: Zero Mission and Metroid Fusion (haven't played Super Metroid yet - gargh!) are all superb because their gameplay really suits seeing it from the side at a fixed angle. Zelda, on the other hand, totally benefits from 3D - more immersion, being able to look up at the ceiling etc.
Jonnas Posted October 5, 2008 Posted October 5, 2008 What it is for me, is that Zelda was improved so much by putting it into 3D. Metroid hasn't (yet) gained from being in 3D, in my opinion, and Mario has been done extremely well in 3D, but it's totally different gameplay. Super Mario World, New Super Mario Bros, Metroid: Zero Mission and Metroid Fusion (haven't played Super Metroid yet - gargh!) are all superb because their gameplay really suits seeing it from the side at a fixed angle. Zelda, on the other hand, totally benefits from 3D - more immersion, being able to look up at the ceiling etc. Wether you prefer 2D or 3D is still a matter of taste. Example: Super Mario 2D (levels) =/= Super Mario 3D (exploration) Zelda and Metroid are very similar in both realms. Some minor differences between them, but they've managed to recreate them well. I liked both iterations equally. But I think we're getting a bit off-topic here...
Grazza Posted October 5, 2008 Posted October 5, 2008 Zelda and Metroid are very similar in both realms. Some minor differences between them, but they've managed to recreate them well. I liked both iterations equally. True, but what Mario and Metroid have in common is the jumping, which works very well on a 2D plane and perfectly well in 3rd-person 3D, but not 1st-person. But I think we're getting a bit off-topic here... True!
Recommended Posts