Ganepark32 Posted November 29, 2008 Posted November 29, 2008 @ K-Project - I my eyes, the definition of a hardcore gamer is still someone who plays loads of different types of games. Someone who sits and plays shooters only is considered more of a casual gamer than someone who goes out their way to try Boom Blox or De Blob purely because it is so common place for people just to sit and play shooters that it has become the casual.
darkjak Posted November 29, 2008 Posted November 29, 2008 K-project said: I would say not really, but by default he spends hours playing 360 shooters, and that seems to be the definition most go on these days. A hardcore gamer used to be someone who played lots of different types of games, but it seems if you spend all your life shooting things in Xbox 360 games you are "teh hardcorez". Nope. That is NOT hardcore. It's mainstream. The PSOne never was aimed at the casual gamers, it was aimed at the mainstream. In other words, people whom are interrested in what seems to be cool (sports games, violence, "realism"). But unlike casuals, they are interrested in playing games that take some time to learn. THESE people are intimidated by games that are different. K-project said: I'm fed up of the fake debate around the Wii and it's status as a hardcore games machine. It's a load of crap. I'm sick of everyone who has a 360 offering their extremely boring and oft repeated opinions on why their Wii's are currently "gathering dust in a corner". There are loads of quality games on the Wii, with more to come. If you don't like it, bugger off back to your shooters. As it is, I don't consider myself hardcore at all. Or casual. I just like to play games, and there is plenty to keep me extremely happy on the Wii. Certainly nothing has enticed me on the other consoles one bit. Not one pang of jealousy has struck me in the 18 months of Wii ownership. And I'm no fanboy either. I just like the games I like, and the Wii has the games I like. I've currently got 20 excellent titles. That to me is a brilliant personal library at this stage in it's lifespan. Basically, my point is, don't fall for the fake discussion about the Wii, and just play the games you like. True, thing is that developers should stop releasing shovelware on the Wii, and really bring in the big guns, like Burnout, Gran Turismo beaters, Rainbow Six, Bioshock, Fallout and whatnot. The Wii lacks many types of games.
K-project Posted November 29, 2008 Posted November 29, 2008 darkjak said: Nope. That is NOT hardcore. It's mainstream. The PSOne never was aimed at the casual gamers, it was aimed at the mainstream. In other words, people whom are interrested in what seems to be cool (sports games, violence, "realism"). But unlike casuals, they are interrested in playing games that take some time to learn. THESE people are intimidated by games that are different. Hmmm. The thing about that, and the whole problem I'm having with the discussion, is the needless attempts to pigeon-hole people and gamers into categories. The idea has already cost EA a whole department employed purely to develop "casual" games. To me, there are people who are fairly deeply interested in gaming and play games regularly, and there are other people who only have a fleeting interest. Either one or the other will comprise the audience of any gaming platform at any one time. But there I go now categorising people. I don't know what demographic I'm supposed to fit, but I'm mid thirties and love quality games on the Wii. The execs will just dismiss that I suppose. "He doesn't fit the 'casual' or 'hardcore' profile! Run!" darkjak said: True, thing is that developers should stop releasing shovelware on the Wii, and really bring in the big guns, like Burnout, Gran Turismo beaters, Rainbow Six, Bioshock, Fallout and whatnot.The Wii lacks many types of games. It'd be great if popular platforms had whole catalogues that were entirely free from shit, but while ever there are people out there who think they can judge a game from the pictures on the back of the box, shit games will be prevalent. It's the same for the Wii as it was for the PS2, PS1, MD, etc, etc. Shit games made by chancers are a by product of a popular system sadly, but if we champion the good stuff (and buy it occasionally) we'll get to the end of the Wii lifespan and look back and say, "You know what? That was a bloody good set of games we had on that". I only buy the good stuff, and I'm sure you're the same. I can only hope that the people who make Burnout and GT etc can see that. If not, well I'm sure there'll be other developers who will fill their voids before long.
dazzybee Posted November 29, 2008 Posted November 29, 2008 darkjak said: Nope. That is NOT hardcore. It's mainstream. The PSOne never was aimed at the casual gamers, it was aimed at the mainstream. In other words, people whom are interrested in what seems to be cool (sports games, violence, "realism"). But unlike casuals, they are interrested in playing games that take some time to learn. THESE people are intimidated by games that are different. True, thing is that developers should stop releasing shovelware on the Wii, and really bring in the big guns, like Burnout, Gran Turismo beaters, Rainbow Six, Bioshock, Fallout and whatnot. The Wii lacks many types of games. The most popular console will ALWAYS have piles of shit - the NES did, SNES did, Playstation 1 + 2 did, the DS and the WIi do. I don't give a shit about all the crap games; I care about what is good; why focus on those games? It's just negative for negative sake, it doesn't mean anything!! Also, all three consoles are limited in game genres so again, why single out the Wii has having limited game genres? For me the Wii is the most varied yet! We're going round in circles, we've all said our piece and there's not much further to say. I will however end with this. A couple of my best friends both love the 360 and play all the classic game that always get brought up. I love the Wii. I have been playing games my whole life, have had EVERY SINGLE console and handheld ever (Jaguar, Virtual Boy and 3di included). The 360 is the FIRST CONSOLE either have them have ever had. Now please can you tell me how this fits in with your hardcore = 360 and Wii = Casual thinking!!!
Marcamillian Posted November 29, 2008 Posted November 29, 2008 Amen brother. As long as creative games have sales whatever "group" buy them I see THOSE people as a positive force in gaming. Personally im looking for new experiences and videogames are able to provide me with a range of experiences that I couldn't get elsewhere...or atleast without signficant cost. Champion creativity people!
Rummy Posted December 1, 2008 Posted December 1, 2008 dazzybee said: Good post. But again, I just can't agree with it; you complain of the delays of Twilight Princess; do you NOT remember the delays for Ocarina? A lot worse! It just sounds like you built up too high expectations of these games; which is bound to happen, though i did as well and I would put both of them probably my favourite games of all time. And your question on what does Galaxy do differently is just....bizarre; the level design and the gravity are two pretty huge shifts in gameplay for mario and platformers in general. I would love to know what 360 PS3 games that is so revolutionary for the industry. And I don't understand your Rare point, they made great games on the N64 and have been distinctly average/poor ever since. I don't get what point your making. Just to respond to this; I'll admit firstly, I don't entirely remember the delays of OoT, I was alot younger at the time and followed news and release alot less, the information was alot less readily available too. All I remember is waiting ages for it, and it arriving one day when I decided to mope in bed. It would seem(admittedly sourced from wikipedia) that both games took about 3 years for release from announcement. Also looks to be 6 years between LttP and OoT, and then 6 between MM and TP then 4 between WW and TP, which I guess put the both of them on even footing. However, I feel that TP did alot less in comparison to OoT(or even MM). How did they manage to bust out those two(OoT, MM) cracking titles so close to each other? WW followed just 2 years later after MM, too! I realise the game engine was practically exactly the same for MM and OoT, but they're still radically different games. I've stuck to single player, main quest type zeldas, and ignored the others in between due to not fitting this, and the oracles were made by capcom, not Nintendo(though a brilliantly done job, captured the zelda essence just as they should have). I feel TP, given it's dev time, did not do enough new and also somehow lost the Zelda charm it should have had. It was also a GC game in essence, not a Wii game, and I still expect to see a Wii one. Galaxy, level design and gravity? Whilst interesting new twists on gameplay, hardly revolutionary(the gravity wasn't even that big a deal) and the levels LOOKED good, but were they really all that different to SM64? They were worse imo, as they were just linear things the game ran you through, rather than the free roaming beforehand. The hub world style off SM64 was also sacrificed, the castle was an adventure in itself! It keep things mixed up too, with the switch palaces, and a few levels having a different way of entering them. Also as I mentioned before, the secret stars were another good addition, and stayed secret for longer than 30 seconds. The Rare point? Well, it wasn't so much a point, just I feel personally that Rare largely carried Nintendo through the N64 era, that's all. Alot of the cracking and best selling titles on the N64, were Rare made. It's also my point about Brawl at the end, it wasn't even developed by Nintendo, really.
dazzybee Posted December 1, 2008 Posted December 1, 2008 Rummy said: Just to respond to this;I'll admit firstly, I don't entirely remember the delays of OoT, I was alot younger at the time and followed news and release alot less, the information was alot less readily available too. All I remember is waiting ages for it, and it arriving one day when I decided to mope in bed. It would seem(admittedly sourced from wikipedia) that both games took about 3 years for release from announcement. Also looks to be 6 years between LttP and OoT, and then 6 between MM and TP then 4 between WW and TP, which I guess put the both of them on even footing. However, I feel that TP did alot less in comparison to OoT(or even MM). How did they manage to bust out those two(OoT, MM) cracking titles so close to each other? WW followed just 2 years later after MM, too! I realise the game engine was practically exactly the same for MM and OoT, but they're still radically different games. I've stuck to single player, main quest type zeldas, and ignored the others in between due to not fitting this, and the oracles were made by capcom, not Nintendo(though a brilliantly done job, captured the zelda essence just as they should have). I feel TP, given it's dev time, did not do enough new and also somehow lost the Zelda charm it should have had. It was also a GC game in essence, not a Wii game, and I still expect to see a Wii one. Galaxy, level design and gravity? Whilst interesting new twists on gameplay, hardly revolutionary(the gravity wasn't even that big a deal) and the levels LOOKED good, but were they really all that different to SM64? They were worse imo, as they were just linear things the game ran you through, rather than the free roaming beforehand. The hub world style off SM64 was also sacrificed, the castle was an adventure in itself! It keep things mixed up too, with the switch palaces, and a few levels having a different way of entering them. Also as I mentioned before, the secret stars were another good addition, and stayed secret for longer than 30 seconds. The Rare point? Well, it wasn't so much a point, just I feel personally that Rare largely carried Nintendo through the N64 era, that's all. Alot of the cracking and best selling titles on the N64, were Rare made. It's also my point about Brawl at the end, it wasn't even developed by Nintendo, really. Ocarinas release changed a lot more than TP's And it's all subjective I guess, personally, I think Twilight Princess is the best Zelda there is, and I bought Zelda on its original release on the NES and loved the series since. I also think Galaxy is better than 64, though again, completely subjective. Though I do find your the castle is a level in itself a little odd! Isn't Rosalinas Space Station as much of a level in itself as the castle? Not better, but it's still big, has a lot of character, hunting and the library!! And Rare carrying Nintendo? I loved rares games, but Nintendo's were still better. Also, I think rares games since show that i think it may have been the other way around! dazzybee said: I will however end with this. A couple of my best friends both love the 360 and play all the classic game that always get brought up. I love the Wii. I have been playing games my whole life, have had EVERY SINGLE console and handheld ever (Jaguar, Virtual Boy and 3di included). The 360 is the FIRST CONSOLE either have them have ever had. Now please can you tell me how this fits in with your hardcore = 360 and Wii = Casual thinking!!! Can anyone answer this?
Guest Maase Posted December 1, 2008 Posted December 1, 2008 DazzyBee said: I will however end with this. A couple of my best friends both love the 360 and play all the classic game that always get brought up. I love the Wii. I have been playing games my whole life, have had EVERY SINGLE console and handheld ever (Jaguar, Virtual Boy and 3di included). The 360 is the FIRST CONSOLE either have them have ever had. Now please can you tell me how this fits in with your hardcore = 360 and Wii = Casual thinking!!! OH SHI---- Rummy, even though i hate Mario Galaxy (its not exactly hating, its just that i got so hyped for it, and i got disappointed with the final result), most of the things you said are clearly not true. The Rosalina hub is as good as the castle. The level's may be linear, but they're still a lot harder and different from each other than Mario 64 And as soon as you deny that TP is not the best Zelda game, you are in my Death-List
Tellyn Posted December 1, 2008 Posted December 1, 2008 Maase said: And as soon as you deny that TP is not the best Zelda game, you are in my Death-List But it's not (in my opinion). That honour goes to The Wind Waker.
darkjak Posted December 1, 2008 Posted December 1, 2008 Maase said: OH SHI---- Rummy, even though i hate Mario Galaxy (its not exactly hating, its just that i got so hyped for it, and i got disappointed with the final result), most of the things you said are clearly not true. The Rosalina hub is as good as the castle. The level's may be linear, but they're still a lot harder and different from each other than Mario 64 And as soon as you deny that TP is not the best Zelda game, you are in my Death-List I picked up Galaxy yesterday. I know, very late, but I thought that patience would give me a lower price. I just lately realised that any Wii game that isn't pure out s**t won't drop in price. EVER. I didn't buy Sunshine because it didn't seem to match up to the level of quality of SM64. I'd say that Nintendo should have made a slightly smaller ammount of surroundings, and allow the players to do more on each. But sometimes the difficulty is just immense, and it still doesent piss you off. I'd like to complain a bit about the camera though, it's to zoomed out most of the time, making it hard to make precise movements. And also, I got like 20 stars during the three hours I played. Feels a bit too easy (although the game might get a lot harder).
Jonnas Posted December 1, 2008 Posted December 1, 2008 I still don't know wether the best Zelda is OoT or WW. I really need to replay OoT to be sure.
Grazza Posted December 1, 2008 Posted December 1, 2008 First of all, I'm sorry if I upset anyone the other day. I stand by most of what I said, but it was stupid of me to use the word "fanboy". Clearly, there are a lot of types of people who love the Wii, and it doesn't mean they're biased. Now, Matt's article was excellent, and I do think it represents a huge amount of multi-format gamers and the slightly less dedicated Nintendo fan. People like myself, who genuinely appreciate Nintendo's good points, but who will also be critical. IGN, GameCentral and CVG have all expressed similar views this year. Snobbery does exist amongst those who like to call themselves "hardcore", but these articles are not caused by snobbery. Also, I have to say, Smash Bros is really a case of Europeans getting a 2007 game late, rather than getting a Christmas 2008 game "early". Not that regional delays particularly bother me, but it really is from the same "batch" as Mario and Metroid (ie. E3 2006). A December 2008 release would have been as long a wait as Twilight Princess! I had to post in here because I completely agree with Rummy about Twilight Princess. I do remember waiting for Ocarina of Time, and it wasn't anything like as bad. The wait for OoT was simply becuase it needed the development time, whereas Twilight Princess was tactical. Seriously, look at the playable demo from September 2005. It clearly was finished. Read the Iwata Asks interview and you'll see the development team considered it finished and were amazed they were called back to work on it. Looking at the E3 2004 video, it was perfectly developed and in line with early showings for other games. It was delayed too long, not shown too early. There's a big difference. To add insult to injury, both versions of the final game were optimised for Wii and, I suspect, are inferior to the pure GameCube game we would have received (due to the limitations of the Wii controller). Shield control was definitely in there and was taken out. Who knows what else? I suspect the Mirror Shield was also in there. Furthermore, all environments had to be designed assuming the player did not have camera control. Thus: no 3D forest with individual trees; and a zoomed-out, overhead view on Castle Town, to name two. The real problem with Zelda Wii is that the machine launched in 2006. When on earth will we see a Zelda for it? If we haven't even seen a screenshot yet, I can't imagine it'll be released until 2010. This is the difference with OoT, which Nintendo made sure was out for the system early enough, delay or not. dazzybee said: Can anyone answer this? Yes. Quite simply, you are a keen gamer (extra respect for owning the Jaguar and 3DO!) and they are mainstream (I don't mean that as an insult). I completely agree with Emasher's and K-Project's definitions on this matter.
Jonnas Posted December 1, 2008 Posted December 1, 2008 darkjak said: I didn't buy Sunshine because it didn't seem to match up to the level of quality of SM64. Odd. Every review site/magazine I read hyped the hell out of SMS.
D_prOdigy Posted December 1, 2008 Posted December 1, 2008 Grazza said: IGN, GameCentral and CVG have all expressed similar views this year. Snobbery does exist amongst those who like to call themselves "hardcore", but these articles are not caused by snobbery. GameCentral have turned into two snobs. Too long have they been imposing their own personal opinions on almost every single letter and news story to make them seem ultra-superior and omnipotent, while their Features are always laughably contridictory and incoherent. Hopefully, the switch to digital will bring about the death of Teletext "journalism".
darkjak Posted December 1, 2008 Posted December 1, 2008 Grazza said: The real problem with Zelda Wii is that the machine launched in 2006. When on earth will we see a Zelda for it? If we haven't even seen a screenshot yet, I can't imagine it'll be released until 2010. This is the difference with OoT, which Nintendo made sure was out for the system early enough, delay or not. The reason people are still saying that 2009 MIGHT be a great year with many first party titles to look forward to is that Nintendo have announced a policy of not announcing games until really really late. In theory, we might get a new Zelda by easter (although it's not likely).
Emasher Posted December 1, 2008 Posted December 1, 2008 I just got around to watching the last two episodes of GT's Bonus Round podcast. Apparently Wii owners "don't care about online".
dazzybee Posted December 1, 2008 Posted December 1, 2008 Emasher said: I just got around to watching the last two episodes of GT's Bonus Round podcast. Apparently Wii owners "don't care about online". They were a joke! An absolute joke! The woman is a complete idiot, who obviously doesn't know what the hell she's talking about - saying generally Wii owners arent the type to go online with Smash, Mario Kart or Wii Sports!!!! Wii Sports? Online? Fuck off will you! They completely infuriate me!!
K-project Posted December 1, 2008 Posted December 1, 2008 D_prOdigy said: GameCentral have turned into two snobs. Too long have they been imposing their own personal opinions on almost every single letter and news story to make them seem ultra-superior and omnipotent, while their Features are always laughably contridictory and incoherent. Hopefully, the switch to digital will bring about the death of Teletext "journalism". Absolutely, completely and utterly agree with this. GameCentral is currently going through the same thing Edge went through before I packed that in. It's disappearing up it's own arse. There I said it. I too am absolutely fed up of reading a snooty reply to a letter that, as you say, imposes their insular opinions on the broader gaming spectrum (if you like) generally. If elitism and snobbery exists within gaming, then surely both GameCentral and Edge are the main sources of perpetuating it. I don't understand it either; GameCentral used to be a good read and a good trusted reviews page, but now I find it just winds me up every morning. No thanks, I can do without that, so I might stop bothering with it. I thought, well, is it just because I'm a Wii owner, but the amount of letters they get from disgruntled PS3 and 360 owners would suggest not. I'm really glad you brought up GameCentral, because it has been preying on my mind lately. Thought it was just me!
Emasher Posted December 1, 2008 Posted December 1, 2008 dazzybee said: They were a joke! An absolute joke! The woman is a complete idiot, who obviously doesn't know what the hell she's talking about - saying generally Wii owners arent the type to go online with Smash, Mario Kart or Wii Sports!!!! Wii Sports? Online? Fuck off will you! They completely infuriate me!! I usually find bonus round to be good, but the Nintendo bit of the online ones was just...
Hellfire Posted December 2, 2008 Posted December 2, 2008 Grazza ignoring your comments about mirror shield the "pure version", because we've been over this, Iwata asks doesn't show anything of what you say. Long quotes: Reveal hidden contents Quote Iwata: We had originally planned to release Twilight Princess at the end of 2005, but as we entered the final period before completion, we decided to postpone the release by a year. Quote Oyama: When the extension was finalized, part of me was relieved that we would have more time to create more things in the game, but another part of me realized that this meant having to work on the same project for another year. In the end, the feeling of happiness at being able to create more things in the game was much greater. This was because I realized how big the expectations for this game were from the time the first footage was revealed at E3 in 2004. In terms of the volume of development, there was even more than there was with Ocarina. I felt that rather than hurrying to implement everything by a particular deadline, I would rather have the time to do it right. Quote Nishimori: I felt glad to have more time to polish the game. Zelda is a type of game, that the only reason you end development is because the deadline is approaching, so completely finishing the game with time to spare before the deadline is nearly impossible. In other words, it's the kind of project where you can always use more time to continue polishing it. With that extra time you don't merely make minor adjustments, you continue to improve it as a game by adding as many new elements as possible. So the more time I have the happier I am. But at the time it was initially decided to postpone the release, I didn't have a clear understanding of how much time I would need to finish my work. Quote Kitagawa: Honestly, I was one of the people who was happy to hear about the delay. At the beginning of the project, the director (Eiji) Aonuma-san told me how many dungeons to make, and it wouldn't have been possible to make that many by the original deadline. But with the delay, it was possible to put together a realistic plan to create that many dungeons. Of course, I mean this in terms of quality as well as quantity. The dungeons in Zelda games are the biggest part of the gameplay, so it wouldn't make sense if only the outside parts of the game were complete. We constantly received feedback from people whom we have asked to test play, about how to have the player use certain items or at what angle to place the camera, and we used that feedback to improve the dungeons. With the extra year, I felt that we were able to polish the dungeons to a level that I am personally satisfied with. Quote Miyagi: I had always felt that it wouldn't have been possible to finish everything by the original deadline, so I felt that the one year delay was only natural. Since the game wasn't nearly ready in terms of both quality or volume, and we were lacking a clear roadmap for how to proceed, when the decision to postpone release was made I felt that I had to reassess things. Before that, in the period when I felt that it would be impossible to complete everything with the way things were going, I was personally burned out. Readjusting myself, in all sorts of ways, was really quite a struggle. Before the decision to delay the game was taken, I was working on what had to be done every day with the deadline right in front of me. The release date being moved back felt like a chance to begin afresh, and it was of real significance that we could fundamentally reconsider our approach to completing a whole range of issues. Quote #Tominaga: In my case, I only joined the team right before the decision to push back the release date was made, which meant I didn't really feel too deeply affected by it. I didn't think much beyond: "that's a pain." In fact, I was more worried about the decisions to develop a Wii version or release it at nearly the same time worldwide. But seeing first-hand how Nintendo comes together and co-operates when they have a tight deadline approaching really made me take a step back and appreciate what a great company this is. Quote Kyogoku: When the schedule was extended, sure enough I felt relieved as I would have more time to work on the game. But as I was responsible for the in-game text, localizing the game into all the languages needed for the simultaneous worldwide release was no easy task, even with the release date postponed by a year. With text, you're still making changes right up to the last possible moment. Honestly, even now I wish we could put back the release date another month... Quote Aonuma: I really felt bad for all the fans who were waiting for the game, but to be completely honest I was grateful for it. At the time the decision to postpone the release date was taken, we had an abundance of really interesting material for the game but we hadn't finished tying it all together. Of course there were parts of the game that were complete but there were also lots of places which simply weren't yet playable at that time Iwata: When you showed that playable version at E3, I saw just how many great elements were in the game but that they were still in a state of disarray. You faced a big challenge bringing them all together, didn't you? Aonuma: Right. For that reason, I was very grateful for the extra year. I don't know how the other staff reacted to the news though. Perhaps they felt that even though they had worked so hard, they still had another year to go. But I think that in order to fully realise everything they had come up with, that extra time was vital. Iwata: Well, I have asked a total of twelve members of staff about this, and without exception they have said that they were glad about the postponement. Quote Iwata: Miyamoto-san, when the decision to postpone the game's release was made, how did you feel about the Zelda game as it was at that point? Miyamoto: I thought it was enjoyable, but that it was really a long way from being ready! (laughs) When I thought about where we needed to focus our attention in the time we had left, my head started spinning. Quote Miyamoto: Even though we managed to find our way through that particularly grueling stage, probably the biggest obstacle we had to face on the long journey to completion was at the beginning when the team leaders were under the impression that, even though the game was going to be released on Wii, they didn’t think they’d have anything to do with the development of that version. Iwata: I see. Back when you first decided to produce it for Wii? Miyamoto: Precisely. The staff only thought they were to be involved in the GameCube version, which would be compatible with Wii. They believed that the Wii version wasn’t for them to worry about. So it was only myself, Aonuma-san and the lead programmer who had fully devoted ourselves to doing this version! Once the revelation that “we’re making a Wii version of Zelda!" had sunk in, everybody began putting their all into the project. Of course the reason to delay for a year was to implement the Wii controls, which to me is the superior version, as shield control hardly adds anything except if you used the mirror shield and I miss camera control, but fortunately it's not needed as it works perfectly. I's more than obvious that they used that time to add plenty new stuff and polish the game. Do you really think they'd completely redesign the forest and the main town in one year with it already done? The town, maybe, but considering how ugly it was turning out before being shown top down and the fact that only WW doesn't feature only top-down towns, I don't think so. The forest? No way, that individual tree thing doesn't stick. oO Development changes happen all the time, most of the stuff we don't know about, so we don't comment, but the amount of things that get cut and added all the time is abysmal. Also, E3 2005's demo was the first playable demo, expecting the game to be completly finished at that point doesn't make much sense. Anyway this isn't another Zelda discussion so I just thought I'd add those quotes I thought needed to rectify things :P
Blue_Ninja0 Posted December 2, 2008 Posted December 2, 2008 Grazza said: To add insult to injury, both versions of the final game were optimised for Wii and, I suspect, are inferior to the pure GameCube game we would have received (due to the limitations of the Wii controller). Shield control was definitely in there and was taken out. Who knows what else? I suspect the Mirror Shield was also in there. IIRC the controlling of the shield would be absolutely pointless as it would be just activate/deactivate. I happened in OOT and there was no reason for that because you had no drawback in having the shield activated. And forget about the mirror shield. There was not a single clue about it. Much less would the Wii be a reason for them to remove it. You're just taking that out of your head. About the "inferior controller", I'm all neutral for the sword waggle controls (a button press would be fine), but don't tell me that the aiming in the GameCube with a joystick was better than the Wii pointer. Grazza said: Furthermore, all environments had to be designed assuming the player did not have camera control. Thus: no 3D forest with individual trees; and a zoomed-out, overhead view on Castle Town, to name two. 3D forest? Wait, what? My head hurts now. WW was the only Zelda with camera control and I don't remember having to use it once. It would have been nice for TP to have it on the Wii but I really didn't miss it. Plus, widescreen is nice.
Rummy Posted December 2, 2008 Posted December 2, 2008 dazzybee said: Ocarinas release changed a lot more than TP's And it's all subjective I guess, personally, I think Twilight Princess is the best Zelda there is, and I bought Zelda on its original release on the NES and loved the series since. I also think Galaxy is better than 64, though again, completely subjective. Though I do find your the castle is a level in itself a little odd! Isn't Rosalinas Space Station as much of a level in itself as the castle? Not better, but it's still big, has a lot of character, hunting and the library!! And Rare carrying Nintendo? I loved rares games, but Nintendo's were still better. Also, I think rares games since show that i think it may have been the other way around! I guess, yes, the problem is that it's all subjective. But did you feel magic in TP? Don't you miss the charm of the villagers of Market Town/Kakariko/Clock town, their evolutions over time? The minigames, their own variety, the prizes in place? The side quests? The trading sequences? I miss the faries random tidbits, too. And the scarecrows! Where's Darunia dancing to my HOT beat?! TP doesn't create anywhere near as many memories in my mind, cool looking gorons, the little kid who ran the shop...but not alot springs easily to mind like from the others, I barely even remember the minigames! As for Rosalina's Space Station compared to the Castle. Well, the former FELT much more hubby, the latter felt like a Castle full of secrets, especially with the Toads and their information, and Bowser's random ramblings. The ways to the Switch Palaces(for want of better names). The fact to progress you had to fight Bowser for a Key, then find the door to which it fit. I liked how levels would change depending on the star, and the fact that what you did in some levels affected the castle, and you'd fall into random bits of the castle out of certain levels! The worlds not hidden simply in Portrait; The Secret Slide, the Secret Water Level, Boo's Mansion, The twist of Big-Little Land, The mirror hidden Snowman's Land. The secret stars HIDDEN in the castle, the random little rabbit, the red coins in secret stages and palaces, the 100 coin stars. I feel Galaxy just held alot less secrets for me, I liked secrets, finding something hidden that I wasn't sposed to easily(though I guess, in the end, I was...otherwise it wouldn't be there!). The DS built upon all these, making it an excellent remake too. Maase said: OH SHI---- Rummy, even though i hate Mario Galaxy (its not exactly hating, its just that i got so hyped for it, and i got disappointed with the final result), most of the things you said are clearly not true. The Rosalina hub is as good as the castle. The level's may be linear, but they're still a lot harder and different from each other than Mario 64 And as soon as you deny that TP is not the best Zelda game, you are in my Death-List I explained my reasons for preference of the castle above. It had alot more effort put into it, imo. Tell me what was not true! I also disagree that the levels are harder than SM64, I've replayed SM64 in part since, and still find myself dying alot more in that than in Galaxy(I recall only dying a few times due to black holes, and on daredevil comets), AND you have more health in SM64! I find myself struggling to regain it more, too. You say you didn't like Galaxy btw, what were your reasons for that? Same for TP, don't just say it's the best game, tell me why you think it is! Because it's pretty? Has good graphics? Good gameplay? Funky music? Nice charm? What, what MAKES it a good game, if it's so good? For the record I'll restate, I think it's a fantastic game, a brilliant and very well made game, but as far as the Zelda series go, it's a lacklustre Zelda game, imo. For me, TP seems closer to what I know of the FF series than what I know of the Zelda series, though it could be argued that's due to my ignorance of the FFs :p darkjak said: The reason people are still saying that 2009 MIGHT be a great year with many first party titles to look forward to is that Nintendo have announced a policy of not announcing games until really really late. In theory, we might get a new Zelda by easter (although it's not likely). I should hope so, it's a policy I wished they'd adopted a long time ago, because they never ever seemed to manage to stick to deadlines. I won't deny, my cynical self half thinks they announced stuff early just to keep the interest, I believe(as I may have already said here in this thread) Nintendo were rather down on their luck before the Wii and DS truly took off. I agree with Grazza too, I believe the TP delays were entirely tactical.
Hellfire Posted December 2, 2008 Posted December 2, 2008 Rummy said: I guess, yes, the problem is that it's all subjective. You provide enough response to your post :P
Rummy Posted December 2, 2008 Posted December 2, 2008 Hellfire said: You provide enough response to your post :P Funny, you pull me up on it, but not dazzybee who originally mentioned it. The point of this thread surely, is for discussion? Not instant dismissal of other people's ideas? If you don't wish to contribute productively, why contribute at all? Given that we both mentioned the subjectivity that surrounds such discussions, did you think you were bringing something more to the thread by pointing it out, or just trying to make yourself look smart and win some imaginary argument? Or did you actually believe yourself so much smarter and superior than anyone else who reads this thread, that none of them would appreciate the issue of subjectivity, without having it pointed out to them in a bolded way? Such an attitude doesn't really help threads like these, imo.
Shino Posted December 2, 2008 Posted December 2, 2008 darkjak said: I didn't buy Sunshine because it didn't seem to match up to the level of quality of SM64. What the?!
Recommended Posts