Ganepark32 Posted May 30, 2011 Posted May 30, 2011 Been watching/reading this thread over the last few pages (although not all of it) and it has provided some amusement, especially Darkjak's ridiculous expectations of the game in that it should beat out Mass Effect and Dragon Age for quality (although it shouldn't be hard to beat the latter if we're basing it on the second game) and that voices would aid in furthering Miyamoto's idea of a 'magical world' when in reality having the characters presented visually and remain muted allows the player to delve further into the game by having them give a voice of their own to each of the characters to define them as they see fit. It's further helped prove two points for me: firstly, that Zelda fans don't really know what they want from their Zelda games and will often build up ridiculous fantasies about what it should include. This of course leads on to the second point which is, no matter what Nintendo put out, people will still piss and moan that it's not the Zelda game they want. Simple as. What do I want from Skyward Sword? I simply want a great game to play; one which I'll enjoy from start to finish, which is something I did with TP. You may now all go back to what ever little argument was previously running. :wink:
Ronnie Posted May 30, 2011 Posted May 30, 2011 I don't really care whether it has voice acting or not (apart from Link having to stay silent), what I want from Zelda is to get back to the MAGIC of old games. Wind Waker was full of it, as were OOT and MM. The vibrant colour pallette, little details like the oversized mushrooms in the forest and especially, the eyeball door that you have to make dizzy with your sword, lead me to believe Skyward Sword will be a return to form and will be fun and magical. The dizzy eyeball would never have worked in the dull, lifeless Twilight Princess for instance.
Retro_Link Posted May 30, 2011 Posted May 30, 2011 The thing that annoys me is the interactive eyeball doors have just been ripped straight from Okami... which just makes me think a small ammount of that spark/imagination has been lost from the Zelda team somewhere along the line.
Fused King Posted May 30, 2011 Posted May 30, 2011 What do I want from Skyward Sword? I simply want a great game to play; one which I'll enjoy from start to finish, which is something I did with TP. Define great, Define game, Define enjoy, Define TP. : peace:
Diageo Posted May 30, 2011 Posted May 30, 2011 This is silly. We don't decide what a Zelda game is, Nintendo does. Some people on here talk like they made the game and are angry with the direction of their little child. It's more like they want to change Nintendo's little child into some weird monster.
Grazza Posted May 30, 2011 Posted May 30, 2011 The thing that annoys me is the interactive eyeball doors have just been ripped straight from Okami... which just makes me think a small ammount of that spark/imagination has been lost from the Zelda team somewhere along the line. It's amazing the similarities between Okami and Twilight Princess: a wolf with a companion on its back "purifies" areas and fights demons in closed-off arenas. There's even a dungeon where you have to take ingredients back to a cooking pot. Thread about it here: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=142132 That said, I genuinely think Twilight Princess is the better game. It has much smoother, more solid graphics and it just feels much better to play (in my opinion).
Rummy Posted May 30, 2011 Posted May 30, 2011 I'm surprised voice acting is the biggest issue for some people regarding this game. Or maybe any game, for that matter. Personally it's a tiny minor thing for me, and I care not either way though I want link to stay silent. I'd probably prefer also no real voices/languages anyway, to tell a story without words is a very powerful thing imo.
Nolan Posted May 30, 2011 Posted May 30, 2011 to tell a story without words is a very powerful thing imo. Ico/SotC help to drive that point home.
Grazza Posted May 30, 2011 Posted May 30, 2011 I'd probably prefer also no real voices/languages anyway, to tell a story without words is a very powerful thing imo. Quite. Metroid Prime springs to mind, how you experience a very rich story without any dialogue. For me, it's all about conformity. I disliked it when Red Dwarf changed to film and CGI, allegedly to conform with Hollywood standards. I dislike it how Hollywood would probably not make a Metroid or Zelda film without dialogue. I dislike it how video games films always have to be changed to fit the norm. Games are special, and if we demand voice acting in something that doesn't need it, we are like those people who want diverse, international products to conform to a bland, westernised norm.
LostOverThere Posted May 31, 2011 Posted May 31, 2011 I still think Ganondorf would sound awesome if he were voiced by an angry Orson Welles.
darkjak Posted May 31, 2011 Posted May 31, 2011 I still think Ganondorf would sound awesome if he were voiced by an angry Orson Welles. I'd prefer an angry James Earl Jones.
dazzybee Posted May 31, 2011 Posted May 31, 2011 I'd prefer an angry James Earl Jones. Mark Hammil to voice Link and Carrie Fisher to voice Zelda and you'll be good to go!
Fused King Posted May 31, 2011 Posted May 31, 2011 You're all delusional. Cammie Dunaway should voice Zelda, Miyamoto should voice Link, and Reggie should voice Ganondorf. Koji Kondo should voice Himself (Tingle) , and Iwata......NAVI: HEY LISTEN! IT PRINTS RUPEES!
Jamba Posted May 31, 2011 Posted May 31, 2011 Do we think that people will see this as the swan song for the console?
Retro_Link Posted May 31, 2011 Posted May 31, 2011 I really don't like this Zelda cycle we've got into. The series used to be a real showcase for a consoles, not shoved to the back as the focus moves on to bigger and better things and leaving Zelda somewhat underwhelming.
Jamba Posted May 31, 2011 Posted May 31, 2011 Mario Galaxy did kind of take Zelda slot this generation didn't it?
Kav Posted May 31, 2011 Posted May 31, 2011 Mario Galaxy did kind of take Zelda slot this generation didn't it? True, but what a way to take it! Wow!
Fused King Posted May 31, 2011 Posted May 31, 2011 Do we think that people will see this as the swan song for the console? Well, a console goes out in style with a Zelda game if you ask me.
Rummy Posted May 31, 2011 Posted May 31, 2011 Still insist Galaxy is weaker than 64. I agree Zelda's gotten a bit old(though having said that if you actually look at the series all the games ARE fantastic), I think maybe it's just...hit its peak? How can it be made more awesome without being less Zelda? It can't. Maybe anything new for Zelda just inevitably changes it so much so as to shoot it in the face at the same time.
Grazza Posted May 31, 2011 Posted May 31, 2011 I really don't like this Zelda cycle we've got into. The series used to be a real showcase for a consoles, not shoved to the back as the focus moves on to bigger and better things and leaving Zelda somewhat underwhelming. Couldn't agree more. The N64 got it totally, utterly perfect: Mario at launch, a Zelda game that built upon it within two or three years and a same-engine Zelda swansong a couple of years after that.
Kav Posted May 31, 2011 Posted May 31, 2011 Couldn't agree more. The N64 got it totally, utterly perfect: Mario at launch, a Zelda game that built upon it within two or three years and a same-engine Zelda swansong a couple of years after that. I completely agree with this post! Mario first, followed by Zelda... that's the way it should be!
darkjak Posted May 31, 2011 Posted May 31, 2011 Still insist Galaxy is weaker than 64. I agree Zelda's gotten a bit old(though having said that if you actually look at the series all the games ARE fantastic), I think maybe it's just...hit its peak? How can it be made more awesome without being less Zelda? It can't. Maybe anything new for Zelda just inevitably changes it so much so as to shoot it in the face at the same time. As I've previously mentioned, the thing is that Zelda isn't moving with the times. In essence, Zelda has a formula that's still relevant. The issue is that people see solutions that Nintendo made due to technical limitations and then labled that as "Zelda-ness". I remember reading a magazine two months prior to the release of Ocarina, where a reader wrote an angry entry about how Zelda shouldn't be in 3D, how Link was too detailed because you could actually see his face and how 3D would generally ruin the game. To my understanding, Nintendo are going to get rid of the old-fashioned midi-music in favor of high quality orchestra music for Skyward Sword. So that's one step in the right direction. I hope that the Zelda Cafe will be a true Zelda and crush every other game when it comes out. I have high hopes for a Zelda game. Much higher than for any other franchise on this planet. And that's because of the series own history of excellence. But saying that they're demands is wrong. It's not like I won't buy it if it won't be the greatest game of all time. I am intrigued by the controls, and there's a lot that Nintendo haven't told us yet which may boost it. But this game should have been released in 2008. Releasing it now is nearly pointless. It'll prove absolutely nothing. First they're launching a game for the Wii that's supposed to show how lazy everyone else has been, and prove that motion controls work for core games and that you can make good looking games with the hardware, the thing being that they also say that it's pointless to try, by revealing a new console before the game is even released. It's like Saab would enter the WRC with the current generation 9-3 to show what a potent machine it is, when they're going to replace the current 9-3 during next year. Skyward Sword should never have been shown for the Wii. Instead Nintendo should launch Cafe with an HD Zelda, proving what an excellent new machine they have and what a lineup people can expect in the future. As retro link so nicely put it: Zelda used to be the creme de la creme of video games. If a Zelda was due to come out that year, every other game developer just had to realise that no matter how hard they tried, they would not be able to get any game of the year awards from multi format magazines. Because what would be released that year would in all probability yet again be referred to as the best game of all time.
Rummy Posted May 31, 2011 Posted May 31, 2011 I'm not going to deny I feel in some respects they are behind the times with Zelda, but not in the same way you mean. I don't think lacking voice acting is behind the times. I don't think not having crazy style 360 quality graphics is behind the times. I mean it in the same way I referenced the Spaceworld 2000 video. It seems like...it's not moved as fast as it could from what it was. I suppose actually mentioning the video, which is mainly graphics orientated, does in some way say I'm agreeing with you. But just for the record, I'm not. At least not entirely. Lots of games have voice acting, I neither need nor want it in Zelda. I don't want it in Mr Bean, either, something I still thoroughly enjoy when I see it. It's just an inherent part of the nature of the game. The original premise of Zelda begins when you start your game/data, and you enter your name into it, that's the kind of reason why Link is and should stay silent, it's not a technical issue, it's the way it's meant to be. Nobody thinks the little fat plumber in red and blue is called Peach or Daisy or Bowser, why then do people think the gay little elf all clad in green is called Zelda? It's a rhetorical question, btw. As I've previously mentioned, the thing is that Zelda isn't moving with the times. In essence, Zelda has a formula that's still relevant. The issue is that people see solutions that Nintendo made due to technical limitations and then labled that as "Zelda-ness". Other than your angry reader letter example, how so? What wasn't "Zelda-ness" about whatever it is you're referring to? I'm not meaning to seem overly defensive, I'm just as cynical if not more than a lot of people, but I can't really have a conversation/argument/discussion about something when I'm entirely sure of the points being made. As retro link so nicely put it: Zelda used to be the creme de la creme of video games. Why?
darkjak Posted May 31, 2011 Posted May 31, 2011 Other than your angry reader letter example, how so? What wasn't "Zelda-ness" about whatever it is you're referring to? I'm not meaning to seem overly defensive, I'm just as cynical if not more than a lot of people, but I can't really have a conversation/argument/discussion about something when I'm entirely sure of the points being made. As I've stated before, Link should remain mute. That's a clever way to create immersion, which has been used in the likes of for example Half-Life. But I see no reason why the rest of Hyrule should communicate with text. It feels cheap and old fashioned. Like I said: Zelda-ness to me is a formula of gameplay elements, in combinations with storytelling and controls that both are cutting edge for their times, in combination with graphics that push its hardware to a new level. Plus a whole bunch of technical and gameplay wise advancements that everyone else copies afterwards. Why? What do you mean why? Look through the reviews of Ocarina, A Link to the Past and all the Zeldas prior to that. Look at the top lists over the best games of all time! I read a top list published in a magazine in 2010 yet again stating that Ocarina is the best game of all time. The list contained A Link to the Past as well. But Twilight Princess wasn't mentioned. Nor was Wind Waker or any of the portable games. And this list isn't unique: nearly all top lists include the old Zeldas and ignore the newer ones. Ocarina is the Zelda I played the most and it pioneered in a lot of ways. The innovative combat system, the day/night cycle, the huge free-roaming world, the graphics and the story telling. Ocarina set a new standard for how games should be. Game developers could no longer state that they don't want to develop games for the n64 because you couldn't tell stories. Even PC-gamers had to start talking about Myst and other games with pre-rendered backgrounds to claim that the graphics weren't the best ever. In other words: Ocarina of Time was the Mass Effect/Dragonage of 1998. Like A Link to the past was the MA/DA of the early 90's, Link's awakening was the same for handhelds and both NES outings were the same for the late 80's.
Ronnie Posted May 31, 2011 Posted May 31, 2011 (edited) Like I said: Zelda-ness to me is a formula of gameplay elements, in combinations with storytelling and controls that both are cutting edge for their times, in combination with graphics that push its hardware to a new level. Plus a whole bunch of technical and gameplay wise advancements that everyone else copies afterwards. What a hollow way of describing Zelda games. You've pretty much described a formula that is applicable to any or most games on the market. Again, Zelda to me isn't about 'cutting edge controls or hardcore graphics', it's about MAGIC, that hard to quantify sense of joy you get when you play it's latest adventure. Floating with the Deku leaf across Outset Island to a hard to reach ledge, playing hide and seek with poes, taking a boat tour ride to the Deku palace, the sense of accomplishment after defeating a boss and collecting your pendant/mirror shard/medallion/triforce piece.... The lovely visuals, the puzzles, the humour, the sense of scale and scope. Edited May 31, 2011 by Ronnie
Recommended Posts