Retro_Link Posted November 20, 2006 Posted November 20, 2006 Really good Red Steel video review: http://www.gametrailers.com/player.php?id=15173&type=wmv&pl=game Should help you decide on the game!
LazyBoy Posted November 20, 2006 Posted November 20, 2006 The thing I don't get about this gamespot guys post, and to some extent everyone else who talks about re-inventing the series, is how? Now I agree more of the music could be orchestrated, and there could be some voice-work (though I like the idea of them speaking in Hylian as someone in the other thread came up with), and maybe a few other small things. But I cannot honestly think of changing the series to the extent that RE4 did. The original Resi games had camera problems, they were too slow, the environments were un-interactive and ammo issues were annoying - a lot to improve on. But if someone could tell me a major way in which you would want to change Zelda, please say, because I think on the gameplay side of things, its reached near perfection.
Din Posted November 20, 2006 Posted November 20, 2006 Exactly, Resident Evil needed to be changed because it was outdated. Just look at the poor controls and dodgy camera angles. The series needed to change and it did - for the better. There isn't alot wrong (if anything!) with Zelda so there is no need for a radical change in gameplay.
gmanprime Posted November 20, 2006 Posted November 20, 2006 I cant see how TP could deserve to be 2nd. Its just a well polished sequel! Every other game in the top 10 is either origional or revolutionary, how is TP any of those things? To me its more akin to TeS: Oblivion, a very well polished game of substantial size that ticks all the right boxes but is ultimately just the previous games with a new story and some new features tacked on. It is so much more thatn any of the other zelda games have ever been. Nothing about the story feels tacked on. This is the best game experience I have ever had, and most sertently out leagues The Ocorina of Time. I am five hours into the game and I am loving every second. The graphics look nextgen. (Yes I know it is gamecube)
Yoshiking Posted November 20, 2006 Posted November 20, 2006 I, for one, don't care what people say. I'm so incredibly glad they haven't made major changes to the gameplay, as, let's face it, it's pretty damned astonishing. As you said, near perfection. No changes needed.
mcj metroid Posted November 20, 2006 Posted November 20, 2006 I cant see how TP could deserve to be 2nd. Its just a well polished sequel! Every other game in the top 10 is either origional or revolutionary, how is TP any of those things? To me its more akin to TeS: Oblivion, a very well polished game of substantial size that ticks all the right boxes but is ultimately just the previous games with a new story and some new features tacked on. Many others are too.i mean what is tekken 3 doing there so? I see, well, i do agree Soul Calibur is the best overall 3D beat em up, 2 and 3 cant compare. Tekken 3 still remains the street fighter 2 of the 3D beat em up however. still believe soul blade for ps1 is still the king.Best intro anyway ha
Zechs Merquise Posted November 20, 2006 Posted November 20, 2006 That gamespot guy should hang himself. I agree fully!
The Bard Posted November 20, 2006 Posted November 20, 2006 Solitanze should hang himself. A tad harsh perhaps, but still a perfectly justifiable way to get him to SHUP THE FUCK UP!
river_rage Posted November 20, 2006 Posted November 20, 2006 The thing I don't get about this gamespot guys post, and to some extent everyone else who talks about re-inventing the series, is how? Now I agree more of the music could be orchestrated, and there could be some voice-work (though I like the idea of them speaking in Hylian as someone in the other thread came up with), and maybe a few other small things. But I cannot honestly think of changing the series to the extent that RE4 did. The original Resi games had camera problems, they were too slow, the environments were un-interactive and ammo issues were annoying - a lot to improve on. But if someone could tell me a major way in which you would want to change Zelda, please say, because I think on the gameplay side of things, its reached near perfection. I can kinda see where that gamespot guy is coming from in regards to the formula being the same. As I haven't played the game yet I'm relying on what he's saying. It seems you have the same basic overworld/dungeon concept as in all other Zeldas. I guess it all comes down to if you like the classic Zelda formula or not. I myself have always loved the formula of Zelda. Nintendo always comes up with enough changes to keep it fresh, interesting and different from previous iterations. eg. sailing in WW, The three day thing in MM (which sadly I haven't played yet, but the VC will make up for that ) and the wolf transformation in TP are things that spring to mind. As near perfect as most Zelda games are, you can hardly say that they are unique. Ico and Shadow of the Colossus seem to have this unique quality to them. At least that seems to be the general consensus but since I'm not a playstation owner I haven't played them. Then again they aren't part of a series as such like Zelda is so one could argue that the developers have more freedom to make them truly unique experiences. edit: However can you knock a game for not being unique when everything in the game is done near perfectly? /edit Miyamoto said it well at the first presentation of TP when he said: (And I'm totally pulling this quote out from the back of my memory) "...In order to grow Link cannot stand still (and neither can I. So thank you)" Haven't Nintendo themselves said that TP will be the last traditional Zelda? (or am I pulling this out of my ass?) Maybe they themselves feel that the franchise needs to move forward in order to once again redefine 3D (adventure) gaming? Don't think I'm bashing TP though. I'm looking forward to this game as much as everybody else here. I do my best to avoid anymore spoilers because I want my playing experience to be as pure as it can be when I finally sit down with the game especially because the story of the game seems to be where the game really excels and stands out from the others.
river_rage Posted November 20, 2006 Posted November 20, 2006 That strip is hilarious! Funniest thing I've seen in a while. Is that Jeff Geerstman or just jaded games journalists in general?
DCK Posted November 20, 2006 Posted November 20, 2006 Everybody bashing Geerstman (especially those wishing him to kill himself) are a bunch of retards. Firstly the fact that you hate him for giving this game under 9 is terrible. Secondly, and maybe this hasn't come in your fanboyish mind, but maybe he has a point. The graphics are indeed outdated. Those saying the game looks next-gen should really go out and go play an Xbox 360 demopod so you can see how bland the textures in Twilight Princess really look. Take it or not, but Twilight Princess has done near to zero to actually improve the series much, and that can be offputting. Maybe you, as a blind fanboy don't mind as you'll put everything up your ass that has Zelda stickered on it, but normal people may actually care. Except one of you nobody has actually played the game, there's no way you can objectively judge it. And still you get enraged by a score that only says 'Great game' instead of 'Near perfection'. Go to your mommy and cry. Yeah, Hellfire's post really pissed me off.
Teppo Holmqvist Posted November 20, 2006 Posted November 20, 2006 That strip is hilarious! Funniest thing I've seen in a while. Is that Jeff Geerstman or just jaded games journalists in general? Jaded games journalists in general. It was made for Enchanted Arms, X360's first and pretty good JRPG that was often shafted in reviews for being "more of the same".
Shino Posted November 20, 2006 Posted November 20, 2006 Everybody bashing Geerstman (especially those wishing him to kill himself) are a bunch of retards. Firstly the fact that you hate him for giving this game under 9 is terrible. Secondly, and maybe this hasn't come in your fanboyish mind, but maybe he has a point. The graphics are indeed outdated. Those saying the game looks next-gen should really go out and go play an Xbox 360 demopod so you can see how bland the textures in Twilight Princess really look. Take it or not, but Twilight Princess has done near to zero to actually improve the series much, and that can be offputting. Maybe you, as a blind fanboy don't mind as you'll put everything up your ass that has Zelda stickered on it, but normal people may actually care. Except one of you nobody has actually played the game, there's no way you can objectively judge it. And still you get enraged by a score that only says 'Great game' instead of 'Near perfection'. Go to your mommy and cry. Yeah, Hellfire's post really pissed me off. Well maybeSTFU!
Teppo Holmqvist Posted November 20, 2006 Posted November 20, 2006 Except one of you nobody has actually played the game, there's no way you can objectively judge it. I don't personally care what Gamespot gave for TP, but to put it bluntly, I don't need to play game to say that review was written poorly, pretty incoherent and felt forced. But I'm still thinking that both sides are going overboard with whole issue. You are idiotically calling everybody blind fanboy, and Hellfire did indeed go overboard with his comment.
Retro_Link Posted November 20, 2006 Posted November 20, 2006 What vast improvements did GTA: San Andreas, make over Vice City?? But it still walks away with 9.6 SUPERB!! Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas expands the series' concept to encompass three entire cities, as well as the countryside between them. The gameplay similarly expands, packing in some explosive set pieces and amazing action-movie-like thrills while maintaining that same remarkably fun, freefom GTA feel. In short, Rockstar has done it again. San Andreas definitely lives up to the Grand Theft Auto name. In fact, it's arguably the best game in the series.Surely Twilight Princess has made exactly the same improvents over OOT/WW!
DCK Posted November 20, 2006 Posted November 20, 2006 Oh there's no doubt about elements in the review were provocative and the I've no doubt the writer likes the attention he's getting now; the reaction to it however just goes to show how childish even grown up people really can be. Dismissing the points he's making because of the title of the game in the way they're done now, is terrible.
LazyBoy Posted November 20, 2006 Posted November 20, 2006 I can kinda see where that gamespot guy is coming from in regards to the formula being the same. As I haven't played the game yet I'm relying on what he's saying. It seems you have the same basic overworld/dungeon concept as in all other Zeldas. I guess it all comes down to if you like the classic Zelda formula or not. I myself have always loved the formula of Zelda. Nintendo always comes up with enough changes to keep it fresh, interesting and different from previous iterations. eg. sailing in WW, The three day thing in MM (which sadly I haven't played yet, but the VC will make up for that ) and the wolf transformation in TP are things that spring to mind. As near perfect as most Zelda games are, you can hardly say that they are unique. Ico and Shadow of the Colossus seem to have this unique quality to them. At least that seems to be the general consensus but since I'm not a playstation owner I haven't played them. Then again they aren't part of a series as such like Zelda is so one could argue that the developers have more freedom to make them truly unique experiences. edit: However can you knock a game for not being unique when everything in the game is done near perfectly? /edit Miyamoto said it well at the first presentation of TP when he said: (And I'm totally pulling this quote out from the back of my memory) "...In order to grow Link cannot stand still (and neither can I. So thank you)" Haven't Nintendo themselves said that TP will be the last traditional Zelda? (or am I pulling this out of my ass?) Maybe they themselves feel that the franchise needs to move forward in order to once again redefine 3D (adventure) gaming? Don't think I'm bashing TP though. I'm looking forward to this game as much as everybody else here. I do my best to avoid anymore spoilers because I want my playing experience to be as pure as it can be when I finally sit down with the game especially because the story of the game seems to be where the game really excels and stands out from the others. Good post. Now I definitly agree that TP hasn't added anything dramatically new. And as someone who hates constant Fifa rehashes, I should hate the Wind Waker right? New art direction, but basically more of the same (dungeon/overworld). But I don't, and the reason quite simply is, that it is a different type of game. Take Fifa, with any iteration of it, the challenge it poses changes everytime you play. Effectively if you want a game, you can stick to one version, because the variable challenge is not made by the game itself, but how and who you are playing. So in essence one version of the game is all you need. With games like Zelda it is different. I'm going to use the timeless classic of Shenmue to demonstrate (and I think Dabookermen might see the same in Metal Gear). The challenge the game poses comes from the game, and playing through it. Once you've completed a puzzling section in shenmue, you know how do it. Now if you loved Shenmue for the fighting alone, why buy the second one. Its essentially the same, just with a few new moves. Its because you're playing for those new challanges, the story and the journey in itself. What i'm trying to say is, that you can play a Fifa game forever, but only have to ever buy one version, since the formula is perfect, works, and is not going to change for the next game. The same is true of Zelda, its gameplay being perfect (or near), but you still buy the next one, because you want something new, and that is provided through means in which only a game like this can. As for those who aren't fans of the type of game, i'm not a big fan of driving games, but I don't expect them to change the formula of Gran Turismo for me, because I can't get along with the genre. Oh and i'm not in this little ratings bitch you guys are having. I'm reserving my judgement of the game now. I'm just commenting on the gamespot quote. Ta.
Hellfire Posted November 20, 2006 Posted November 20, 2006 Yeah, Hellfire's post really pissed me off. Your post kind pisses me off too. I don't care if you want to seem like a non fanboy and defend the guy, but the truth of matter is that score is ridiculous. Most cources are claiming it is the best Zelda ever, so for a lot of people, the best game ever? So what if the graphics aren't TECHNICALLY as good as 360 games? They're prettier than anything on there, because every spot on the game was made with atention and a good art direction. We all knew this was a GC game, and that should be taking into acount when scoring the game, since what really matters is gameplay. It didn't evolve the Zelda series? PES6 didnt evolve the PES series, Fifa 07 yadda yadda, GTA:SA yadda yadda. Every sequel is a game with new stuff placed on it, it's basic knowledge. But Nintendo actually made a Zelda with motion controls for sword swiping, aiming and fishing. I say that's evolving the series. Also, it has a darker tone with a more deep storyline, something that for some was a defect in Zelda. So as far as evolving the series goes, it seems this game evolved more than any other sequel out there usually does. I'm not pissed off or crying over the score, the objective of these forums are for us to speak our minds and I'm speaking mine: on a scale of 1 to 10, giving Twilight Princess 8.8 is retarded. I can confidently say this without play the game. I didn't lose sleep over it and I won't in the near future. I couldn't care less if he scores 9.9 or 5.5, I'm just spending my time discussing a flawed review. But, hey guess what, I must be a fanboy. Wow DCK, you're so cool, you're not attacking the guy, I wanna be just like you.
Dilli Gee Posted November 20, 2006 Posted November 20, 2006 You're all moaning like nagging wives. It's a review. The game got 8.8 (that's 9/10). Now shut the hell up.
Fierce_LiNk Posted November 20, 2006 Posted November 20, 2006 You're all moaning like nagging wives. It's a review. The game got 8.8 (that's 9/10). Now shut the hell up. The game didn't get 9/10. It got 8.8/10. If what you're saying is right, then what's the difference between a 8.6 or a 8.9. Also, what about a 9.4. Meh, it's all daft anyway.
flameboy Posted November 20, 2006 Author Posted November 20, 2006 The game didn't get 9/10. It got 8.8/10. If what you're saying is right, then what's the difference between a 8.6 or a 8.9. Also, what about a 9.4. Meh, it's all daft anyway. personally i think thats part of the problem, percentages and decimal scores just don't work if you ask me, straight out of 10 is the best and only way it should be done. whats best an 84% game or a 85%? obviously the 85% but what makes it get 1% more than another game?hate 5/5 ratings aswell, a 3/5 game for example is a 6/10 say, yet 3/5 is only 2 marks away from perfection, but still only a half way mark, to be honest gamespot 8.8 doesn't make me care at all, its a great game it wouldn't have got so many 9's and 10's if otherwise. to be honest, i would say an 8.8 is a 9, rounding up and all, gamespot must have just knocked that off to be controversial, I mean what did they knock off the 2 points for? the mind ponders...
dabookerman Posted November 20, 2006 Posted November 20, 2006 See, this is exactly what gamespot wanted.
Recommended Posts