Rummy Posted September 11, 2008 Posted September 11, 2008 Oh hell no. The Oracles were the shit! What about Phantom Hourglass? Haven't played it yet, but because it has toon Link it strikes me with the fear of a letdown. A man who knows. I actually just played through Seasons again in the past month. The Oracles were commendable for both their newness AND oldness and nods to old things, and the inter-linkability of the two and the story made for a brilliant touch, and some added replayability! As for Phantom Hourglass, I'd recommend you play it EEVIL, as I said already it's hardly the challenge and you could probs breeze through it within a few days if you cane it(20 hours or so of gameplay at most? Dunno), but the uses it makes of the DS was really nice imo, just a shame it lacked challenge. It is kind of like WW extended to DS though, so if you hated WW then you might get annoyed at the reminders of it from this version. Edjamakated, I would just like to say not to let all this criticism put you off writing your next part, I think your post has actually opened up some rather interesting discussion, and I'd like to hear your next ideas too. On the note of Mario, I feel maybe it's getting more and more linear(irony, considering it basically evolved from running in a straight line in one direction)? SS and SMG led you very much through this to that, SM64 led you less and it was a case that when you got X amount of stars it didn't open just ONE possibility, but a couple(at first anyway, the 1star/3star doors, then the caps and switches gave you the ability to go back and such, opening new paths in different places). There were more secrets in the older games, those 'optional' extras, like different overworld paths on SMB3 or SMW(and secret exits), even secrets like warps have been in since SMB1, LL, SMB2, SMB3 AND SMW, there wasn't enough things like that in recent Marios, or TP. I think it's one big factor lacking from making these games as good as they could be, at least for me.
Emasher Posted September 11, 2008 Posted September 11, 2008 In 3D you don't advance in a world, you have a hub that's like a playground and you enter levels from it. I would try to make a 3D version of the SMB3 or SMW game structure, create an overworld where Mario advances and discovers levels along the way, eventually reaching Bowser's castle. That could be good if it had enough levels. Remember the 2D Mario games had alot more actual levels than the 3D ones, the 3D ones just added more stuff in each level. The game would probably end up being too short if they just did the same number of levels as in the other 3D ones, so they would need to spend a lot more time on the game than 3D Mario titles in the past. Perhaps what they could do is instead of having levels, do something like Metroid Prime where there's an open world and you need to travel around in it exploring. You would travel around it looking for stars and to progress in the story you would fight bosses and complete specific story related challenges that would give you stars. As you got more stars you would be able to access the rest of the world and when you got a certain amount you would be able to got to the final castle.
Falcon_BlizZACK Posted September 11, 2008 Posted September 11, 2008 While it is true that if you expect too much, you'll pretty much be disappointed, I don't think that is exactly the case with TP and WW. TP and WW just felt incomplete rather than below par of what a Zelda should be. OOT and MM were awesome because you had an expansive world where things changed; wether by night or in seven years into the future. You had temples and dungeons of about just the right size and difficulty for where you were in the game, and the difficulty always increased the further to the end you got, unlike TP. Its fair to say OOT sets the standard of play concerning 3D Zelda games and nostalgia aside TP just didn't have the ingenious qualities that OOT had, all TP did was extend the parameters of foundations set in OOT, but that was it and in that dogged process Nintendo forgot to add the little quirks and charm that was so evident in their N64 offerings. Having a horse with a name set as Epona is a major clue. Nintendo played on our nostalgic feelings for OOT as a major selling (and hype) point. WW was a brilliant game bar the fact the world was incredible small (and incomplete). Atleast one water temple was missing which was disguised in Ganon somehow attacking the island before you got there....:/...so in effect you are merely given a pearl and go on to the lack-lustre Tower of the Gods. WW's overworld was probably smaller than OOT's Hyrule, but it was just annoyingly fleshed out with tedious sailing. To top it off, Nintendo had a chance to include an otherworld in the game by the way of ancient Hyrule which would have dramatically increased the game but also add great depth of memorabilty. By far the greatest moments of that game happened in ancient hyrule; seeing the Hero of Times statue, the sages and the final fight were all truely nostalgic, but once again they fell short - they could have easily open up Hyrule just a little bit, atleast as a means to reach the Wind and earth temples as they were rather than blow up a stone from above a jump down a hole. It was incredibly frustrating mainly because it was so obvious. TP had elements of these short-comings within the Twilight Realm, where again, a vital location and a location based on the race that game was featured around, only housed the palace and Twili with no dialogue, no story... Just nothing memorable. A complete alternative Hyrule, devoid. MM is the shortest 3D Zelda but yet it didn't feel incomplete, it felt just right. Rather than housing much of the adventure within dungeons, the scenes before them were strong. You had a host of additional, yet vital items to seek out if you wanted to, you could also track peoples lives with the Bomber notebook - you didn't have to get the notebook but yet it felt so integral to MM. Basically, you had choice and freedom and it were these elements that made OOT's Hyrule Field feel so amazing, especially when you combo it with Epona. The 'perfect' zelda lies somewhere inbetween the difficulty of OOT, the NPC and choice of MM and the freshness and individuality of WW. My opinion is that Zelda should always be linked with time, time management and/or time manipulation. Mainly because the series is set in a timeline and the history of Hyrule is always reflected upon within the game. The Hero of Time is the figurehead for the Zelda series, and having a 'Hero of Wind' feels very tacked on and cliched. I don't care one bit for the technologies used as thats not the problem - I wouldn't mind if all Zelda games looked like TP - its the foundations of the game that are to be questioned and maybe also the work ethic/commitment of the teams making Zelda.
EEVILMURRAY Posted September 11, 2008 Posted September 11, 2008 Its fair to say OOT sets the standard of play concerning 3D Zelda games and nostalgia aside TP just didn't have the ingenious qualities that OOT had, all TP did was extend the parameters of foundations set in OOT, but that was it and in that dogged process Nintendo forgot to add the little quirks and charm that was so evident in their N64 offerings. Having a horse with a name set as Epona is a major clue. Nintendo played on our nostalgic feelings for OOT as a major selling (and hype) point. And all Ocarina of Time did was extend the parameters of foundations set in Link To The Past. Many people seem to forget this. you had choice and freedom and it were these elements that made OOT's Hyrule Field feel so amazing, especially when you combo it with Epona. I will admit I used Epona on Hyrule Field, because I was too lazy and couldn't be bothered to take the time running there. Which technically negates the point of having a wide field to piss about on, if it takes the same amount of time getting from one side to the other in the same amount of time as were smaller fields in previous games just because you've got faster transport, you might as well keep it smaller.
Falcon_BlizZACK Posted September 11, 2008 Posted September 11, 2008 And all Ocarina of Time did was extend the parameters of foundations set in Link To The Past. Many people seem to forget this.. But naturally, OOT was the first 3D Zelda afteral.
tapedeck Posted September 11, 2008 Posted September 11, 2008 One day they should remake OoT with a few new features (like more on Hyrule field) and new graphics. It's un-fracking-real. Design, graphics, writin....Oh sod it....You all know it makes sense I was dissapointed that TP didn't use the Hyrule in the N64 version as it's foundation. Always found that a little strange (but understandable). Returning "home" with new areas/dungeons would be fabulous. I know TP took the OoT template to a degree with Zora/Goron/Desert/Lake etc..areas but the OoT universe was a pinnacle in design.
EEVILMURRAY Posted September 11, 2008 Posted September 11, 2008 Returning "home" with new areas/dungeons would be fabulous. You people got Master Quest you ungrateful sods , what more do you want?
Falcon_BlizZACK Posted September 11, 2008 Posted September 11, 2008 ^ Yeah, and no fracking Gerudos!!?, or Sheikah (forget Impaz, I mean the real shadowy, purple-wearing, stealthy, back-flipping, deku-nut-for-disappearing-using, crying-eye symbol wearing shadow folk). Actually I think a Zelda based on the Sheikah's story is due. I think the mechanics used to create the WW overworld should be the norm. It was all so fluent with no etchy-disc loading. In that department, WW was superior than TP. But yeah, I wouldn't mind a directors Cut version of OOT... I think they had that in mind (perhaps for the 64DD?) but settled for the meh-ster Quest.
Retro_Link Posted September 11, 2008 Posted September 11, 2008 I was dissapointed that TP didn't use the Hyrule in the N64 version as it's foundation. Always found that a little strange (but understandable).What I didn't like was the fact WW was set not long after OOT, yet the Hyrule under the sea was completely different!
Falcon_BlizZACK Posted September 11, 2008 Posted September 11, 2008 What I didn't like was the fact WW was set not long after OOT, yet the Hyrule under the sea was completely different! TBF, 'not long' could be anything up to 200 hundred years. Maybe its actually time Shigeru and co actually look into this timeline business. Zelda can be so much than what it is right now; I'm sure it could rival Harry Potter in novels, maybe even as a cartoon series (not the old crappy one - something like Pokemon manga-ish). But the problem with Nintendo is that they don't fletch out on their games. They just create the software, give or take a few plushy toys and thats it - no major fan service or even anything like the bonus disc you got with FFX.
Retro_Link Posted September 11, 2008 Posted September 11, 2008 TBF, 'not long' could be anything up to 200 hundred years. Maybe its actually time Shigeru and co actually look into this timeline business. Zelda can be so much than what it is right now; I'm sure it could rival Harry Potter in novels, maybe even as a cartoon series (not the old crappy one - something like Pokemon manga-ish). But the problem with Nintendo is that they don't fletch out on their games. They just create the software, give or take a few plushy toys and thats it - no major fan service or even anything like the bonus disc you got with FFX.I'd have just liked a cel-shaded OOT overworld to look out on for nostagia's sake!
EEVILMURRAY Posted September 11, 2008 Posted September 11, 2008 What I didn't like was the fact WW was set not long after OOT, yet the Hyrule under the sea was completely different! What I didn't like about Wind Waker was that is was shit. Cel shaded graphics aside [which I wasn't a fan of] the game on the whole felt tacked together and quickly made. From the third pearl being given away without any dungeon action to a 50 floor "dungeon" for one piece of the Triforce, which otherwise involved sailing pointlessly until you reached a shining area. The combat was poorly designed, with simple circling until you had the counter button. I beat Ganondorf with simple button bashing. I don't expect that from a Zelda game. Or any game for that matter. ^ I think the mechanics used to create the WW overworld should be the norm. It was all so fluent with no etchy-disc loading. In that department, WW was superior than TP. I can't remember this, but was there disc loading for Twilight Princess? I have the Wii version, was this an issue on the cube? But yeah, I wouldn't mind a directors Cut version of OOT... I think they had that in mind (perhaps for the 64DD?) but settled for the meh-ster Quest. I thought Master Quest was what they did for 64DD? I'd have just liked a cel-shaded OOT overworld to look out on for nostagia's sake! Why the hell would you want that?
Falcon_BlizZACK Posted September 11, 2008 Posted September 11, 2008 I can't remember this, but was there disc loading for Twilight Princess? I have the Wii version, was this an issue on the cube? I thought Master Quest was what they did for 64DD? Yeah, Hyrule in TP wasn't one cohesive land mass, so when you were on your way to different sections of Hyrule the screen will go black and load for a sec. Whilst with WW, you can go from Outset island to Windfall with no black loading frames. Master Quest was what we got as the bonus disc with WW that featured the original OOT. It was just basically the same game with rearranged monsters in the dungeons. The one for the 64DD, I think was called Zelda Gaiden or something.
Retro_Link Posted September 11, 2008 Posted September 11, 2008 Why the hell would you want that?Well after having fought to save Hyrule in OOT, and seeing as WW follows on from OOT...Once you get down to the flooded Hyrule in WW it would have been nice to actually see a place and field I recognised, the Hyrule I had fought to protect, frozen in time. Instead I looked out on a place I didn't recognise and just thought WTF this isn't Hyrule!
Guest Maase Posted September 11, 2008 Posted September 11, 2008 Rummy, answering to your question, its simple: Better graphics, great sound (well, that's like the others xD), great story, and better dungeons, the items are better too (excepting, maybe the Masks) Its pretty much to me the best Zelda Game ever, and it was the first i played. I can guarantee to you, that no matter how many times i'l try, i'l never be able to like some other Zelda game as much as i liked this one, simply because this was my first one, just like your case.
... Posted September 11, 2008 Posted September 11, 2008 That could be good if it had enough levels. Remember the 2D Mario games had alot more actual levels than the 3D ones, the 3D ones just added more stuff in each level. The game would probably end up being too short if they just did the same number of levels as in the other 3D ones, so they would need to spend a lot more time on the game than 3D Mario titles in the past. Actually, I think SMG has a lot of levels. I haven't played SM64 in years (I still have it for the N64 in a drawer ) but I think SMG might be the 3D Mario game with more "paths". And with that I mean that each star in the same level has a very different path to it than the others. For example, whilst in SM64 in Tall Tall Mountain you basically just scaled the fucking moutain 7 times (one for each star) with very little variation in paths, in SMG you have completely different paths for different stars in the same level. Plus you have a lot more secret or stand alone levels like the Cookie Galaxy, Bonefin Galaxy, etc, etc. SMG has a lot of levels and a lot of variation. They should just have changed the hub which was, IMO, boring. As for your suggestion of a Metroid style structure, I've thought about it too, and I think I've said it here also a few months ago. It would be cool. For me, anything that would be different from a lame hub would be nice for a change in the next Mario game(s).
EEVILMURRAY Posted September 11, 2008 Posted September 11, 2008 As for your suggestion of a Metroid style structure, I've thought about it too, and I think I've said it here also a few months ago. It would be cool. For me, anything that would be different from a lame hub would be nice for a change in the next Mario game(s). Mario levelling up and finding new abilities to use later on? Awesome as that sounds. I doubt they'll make a future game with that.
tapedeck Posted September 11, 2008 Posted September 11, 2008 I'd have just liked a cel-shaded OOT overworld to look out on for nostagia's sake!
Retro_Link Posted September 11, 2008 Posted September 11, 2008 That's cool! Stick Hyrule castle in that picture and you've got what WW gave us! and since when was the castle on Lake Hylia!
Sheikah Posted September 11, 2008 Posted September 11, 2008 Exactly Diageo, the problem is Overhype and Nostalgia Goggles, just that, the game deserves 95/100, without any doubt the best Zelda i played in my opinion (I played all the 3D ones)Also, moving the vision with Nunchuck would be awful, the motion sensing from Nunchuck is weak, and it would be boring to be all the game changing perspectives with the Nunchuck You would say that, you're barely old enough to have played the others. You can say people are viewing with 'nostalgia goggles', but others could say you're viewing older games with modern expectations. Swings and roundabouts. But rest assured, it was nothing on Majora's Mask.
EEVILMURRAY Posted September 11, 2008 Posted September 11, 2008 Stick Hyrule castle in that picture and you've got what WW gave us! and since when was the castle on Lake Hylia! Since the time it got flooded to fuck and I guess the landscape changed. The castle/temple of time didn't look like what they did in Wind Waker either. Let us bitch about how dissimilar they are.
Gaijin von Snikbah Posted September 11, 2008 Posted September 11, 2008 and since when was the castle on Lake Hylia! It was more like a piddle.
tapedeck Posted September 11, 2008 Posted September 11, 2008 Isn't a link to the past just after the flood? It's all wrong I tell yaz! Oh, sod it, the timeline doesn't even exist. Shigsy made it up. They make games 1 at a time and they barely ever continue from the last one. Hence Mario 1-2-3-world/yoshis island 1/2/story all being completely, utterly bloody different. :p
Retro_Link Posted September 11, 2008 Posted September 11, 2008 Since the time it got flooded to fuck and I guess the landscape changed. The castle/temple of time didn't look like what they did in Wind Waker either. Let us bitch about how dissimilar they are.Yeah cos I'm really bitching about it! Fucks sake! I don't actually care that much, just expressing an opinion that I'd have liked more continuity. It was more like a piddle.Watch the above video, it's a massive lake!
Guest Maase Posted September 11, 2008 Posted September 11, 2008 You would say that, you're barely old enough to have played the others. You can say people are viewing with 'nostalgia goggles', but others could say you're viewing older games with modern expectations. Swings and roundabouts. But rest assured, it was nothing on Majora's Mask. My friend has a N64 and a Gamecube, we had a Zelda mahraton (we love Zelda) I played all the 3D games, and to me, no one compared to the first one i played, TP.
Recommended Posts