Then why the issue in the first place! Chuckling exasperation!
Anyway, plenty of video games have cartoony physics for the gameplay mechanics, especially in combat. That's fine, it's just glaring incongruencies in the plot that bug me (rarely a problem I have with Zelda.)
Haha I didn't make an issue. I mentioned it, in an intended "that's funny isn't it" sense. And you assumed it was a serious criticism. Case 90023 of the internet leading to false understanding due to the lack of voice tone.
My position is the same as iKhan's though. Story needs justification, gameplay is justified by whether it's more or less fun. That's all. The fact that you recharge ink in Splatoon whilst in squid mode despite the fact that the amount on the environment remains the same is a good violation of physics! It allows more swimming and less painting walls.
Really? Are we really that fussed about verisimilitude in a fantasy game? The first suspect thing about that gif would be the dream cloud dimension and then the undead, talking ghost wolf.
Ha! You were the one who claimed a month or so back that every scientifically inaccurate phenomena in games needed an explanation. Make your mind up.
I don't know where this discussion came from, but I'll add my 2 cents.
For stories in games, just like stories in movies and TV, phenomena that aren't understood by a layman need to be explained (scientific or not). Otherwise, it can feel like a contrivance. This was a major issue in movies like Frozen and Lucy, which just made up how the universe was supposed to work as it went without really establishing the worlds rules well. In games, it's a significant problem in many JRPGs. TP is the only Zelda game I know that falls into that hole though. Towards the end it does tend to get overcomplicated. Zelda materializes out of the blue, Ganon gets power that seems pretty poorly defined, etc.
On the other hand, IMO, abnormal gameplay need not be explained. The fact that it's gameplay makes it feel far removed enough to just accept at face value. I don't care that Link has a magic meter or that Amaterasu had an ink limit.
Yes, but it would raise a lot of questions if Amaterasu didn't have the divine brush and the inklings were just normal children, not squid.
And honestly, how are you confused by Frozen? Ice magic, tied to emotions, job done.
And all of those qualms you had with Twilight Princess are explained by playing Ocarina of Time again. It's all their magic Triforce powers. That revives Zelda, powers Ganondorf, and he wants to collect her to get the Triforce again. It's really not that complicated, it's just calling on previous knowledge and introducing new plot elements.
There's really no explaining away magic. Sure, you can do a Xenoblade and talk about 'ether' this and that, but at the end of the day you just have to choose yes/no to 'is there magic?' and explain roughly (magic is rather vaguely defined by nature) how it works.
I don't know where this discussion came from, but I'll add my 2 cents.
For stories in games, just like stories in movies and TV, phenomena that aren't understood by a layman need to be explained (scientific or not). Otherwise, it can feel like a contrivance. This was a major issue in movies like Frozen and Lucy, which just made up how the universe was supposed to work as it went without really establishing the worlds rules well. In games, it's a significant problem in many JRPGs. TP is the only Zelda game I know that falls into that hole though. Towards the end it does tend to get overcomplicated. Zelda materializes out of the blue, Ganon gets power that seems pretty poorly defined, etc.
On the other hand, IMO, abnormal gameplay need not be explained. The fact that it's gameplay makes it feel far removed enough to just accept at face value. I don't care that Link has a magic meter or that Amaterasu had an ink limit.
Yes, but it would raise a lot of questions if Amaterasu didn't have the divine brush and the inklings were just normal children, not squid.
And honestly, how are you confused by Frozen? Ice magic, tied to emotions, job done.
And all of those qualms you had with Twilight Princess are explained by playing Ocarina of Time again. It's all their magic Triforce powers. That revives Zelda, powers Ganondorf, and he wants to collect her to get the Triforce again. It's really not that complicated, it's just calling on previous knowledge and introducing new plot elements.
There's really no explaining away magic. Sure, you can do a Xenoblade and talk about 'ether' this and that, but at the end of the day you just have to choose yes/no to 'is there magic?' and explain roughly (magic is rather vaguely defined by nature) how it works.
I still wouldn't care too much if Amaterasu didn't have the brush.
I'm not confused by Frozen. I just think it does a poor job of explaining the mechanics within which it operates. Elsa's powers just seem to do whatever is convenient for the plot. The idea of "true love" is really poorly defined. It's not as bad as Lucy, but it's a major flaw the film had.
The problem with TP is that you have to play OoT to understand that stuff, and even then you have to make those assumptions you made. Most Zelda games aren't that reliant on prequels or sequels. WW and SS are pretty standalone. And I say this as a huge fan of TP's story.
It's not about complexity, it's about how well the world's rules are established. Good superhero stories do this really well. Spider-man's powers and the world he lives in is very clearly defined. When new elements come in, the rules are clearly established. When a story just pulls something out of it's butt, it's not complex, it's bad writing.
Currently Playing: Steamworld Heist, The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask, Tales of Graces F
I don't know where this discussion came from, but I'll add my 2 cents.
For stories in games, just like stories in movies and TV, phenomena that aren't understood by a layman need to be explained (scientific or not). Otherwise, it can feel like a contrivance. This was a major issue in movies like Frozen and Lucy, which just made up how the universe was supposed to work as it went without really establishing the worlds rules well. In games, it's a significant problem in many JRPGs. TP is the only Zelda game I know that falls into that hole though. Towards the end it does tend to get overcomplicated. Zelda materializes out of the blue, Ganon gets power that seems pretty poorly defined, etc.
On the other hand, IMO, abnormal gameplay need not be explained. The fact that it's gameplay makes it feel far removed enough to just accept at face value. I don't care that Link has a magic meter or that Amaterasu had an ink limit.
Yes, but it would raise a lot of questions if Amaterasu didn't have the divine brush and the inklings were just normal children, not squid.
And honestly, how are you confused by Frozen? Ice magic, tied to emotions, job done.
And all of those qualms you had with Twilight Princess are explained by playing Ocarina of Time again. It's all their magic Triforce powers. That revives Zelda, powers Ganondorf, and he wants to collect her to get the Triforce again. It's really not that complicated, it's just calling on previous knowledge and introducing new plot elements.
There's really no explaining away magic. Sure, you can do a Xenoblade and talk about 'ether' this and that, but at the end of the day you just have to choose yes/no to 'is there magic?' and explain roughly (magic is rather vaguely defined by nature) how it works.
I still wouldn't care too much if Amaterasu didn't have the brush.
I'm not confused by Frozen. I just think it does a poor job of explaining the mechanics within which it operates. Elsa's powers just seem to do whatever is convenient for the plot. The idea of "true love" is really poorly defined. It's not as bad as Lucy, but it's a major flaw the film had.
The problem with TP is that you have to play OoT to understand that stuff, and even then you have to make those assumptions you made. Most Zelda games aren't that reliant on prequels or sequels. WW and SS are pretty standalone. And I say this as a huge fan of TP's story.
Well everyone here has played Ocarina, so that's good for us, innit?
And, you know, Frozen is a Disney movie! True love is true love. It's not supposed to was philosophical about the true nature of love, etc.
Frozen is a Disney movie sure, but the True Love trope is very old, and in my opinion, not very good for the reason I described.
But they didn't go the normal "true love" route, they went for another type of love, that is typically not seen in fair tales.
That doesn't fix the problems with the trope. It's extremely poorly defined, not believable, and just feels hamhanded.
Anyone can type a sentence doesn't make it true. In your case Frozen did a great job establishing the fact that Anna and Elsa loved each other as children and even as adults. Why else would Anna go into the mountains in a blizzard to try to get her sister back?
Frozen is a Disney movie sure, but the True Love trope is very old, and in my opinion, not very good for the reason I described.
But they didn't go the normal "true love" route, they went for another type of love, that is typically not seen in fair tales.
That doesn't fix the problems with the trope. It's extremely poorly defined, not believable, and just feels hamhanded.
Anyone can type a sentence doesn't make it true. In your case Frozen did a great job establishing the fact that Anna and Elsa loved each other as children and even as adults. Why else would Anna go into the mountains in a blizzard to try to get her sister back?
Except that love didn't make a whole lot of sense. I could see the connection as kids, but then Anna basically never saw Elsa again.
But that's aside the point. My issue is with the trope in general. The key calamity of a story being tied to true love doesn't usually seem believable to me. I have no idea where Elsa got her power, and no idea why that's the condition. The definition of what "True love" is sometimes feels incredibly arbitrary and forced. I suppose what it is is actually pretty well defined in Frozen, so I guess I'll take that complaint back.
That doesn't make the trope any better in my eyes though. The only film where I really think it works is "Beauty and the Beast", where we actually see where the curse comes from, and it makes logical sense why the curse would be made like that.
Currently Playing: Steamworld Heist, The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask, Tales of Graces F
Frozen is a Disney movie sure, but the True Love trope is very old, and in my opinion, not very good for the reason I described.
But they didn't go the normal "true love" route, they went for another type of love, that is typically not seen in fair tales.
That doesn't fix the problems with the trope. It's extremely poorly defined, not believable, and just feels hamhanded.
Anyone can type a sentence doesn't make it true. In your case Frozen did a great job establishing the fact that Anna and Elsa loved each other as children and even as adults. Why else would Anna go into the mountains in a blizzard to try to get her sister back?
Except that love didn't make a whole lot of sense. I could see the connection as kids, but then Anna basically never saw Elsa again.
But that's aside the point. My issue is with the trope in general. The key calamity of a story being tied to true love doesn't usually seem believable to me. I have no idea where Elsa got her power, and no idea why that's the condition. The definition of what "True love" is sometimes feels incredibly arbitrary and forced. I suppose what it is is actually pretty well defined in Frozen, so I guess I'll take that complaint back.
That doesn't make the trope any better in my eyes though. The only film where I really think it works is "Beauty and the Beast", where we actually see where the curse comes from, and it makes logical sense why the curse would be made like that.
So you can't get behind something unless its spelled out for you? You must have really enjoyed Star Wars Episode 1, 2 and 3
So you can't get behind something unless its spelled out for you? You must have really enjoyed Star Wars Episode 1, 2 and 3
Lol, Star Wars episode 3. "She appears to have died of a broken heart". I remember genuinely thinking that was a realistic cause of death as a kid. I think I went and checked in a medical textbook at one point. They really needed a disclaimer in those kinds of fairy tales "NOTE kids: Your heart actually just pumps blood. The thing we call "heart" is actually in your head and it definitely can't break."
Frozen is a Disney movie sure, but the True Love trope is very old, and in my opinion, not very good for the reason I described.
But they didn't go the normal "true love" route, they went for another type of love, that is typically not seen in fair tales.
That doesn't fix the problems with the trope. It's extremely poorly defined, not believable, and just feels hamhanded.
Anyone can type a sentence doesn't make it true. In your case Frozen did a great job establishing the fact that Anna and Elsa loved each other as children and even as adults. Why else would Anna go into the mountains in a blizzard to try to get her sister back?
Except that love didn't make a whole lot of sense. I could see the connection as kids, but then Anna basically never saw Elsa again.
But that's aside the point. My issue is with the trope in general. The key calamity of a story being tied to true love doesn't usually seem believable to me. I have no idea where Elsa got her power, and no idea why that's the condition. The definition of what "True love" is sometimes feels incredibly arbitrary and forced. I suppose what it is is actually pretty well defined in Frozen, so I guess I'll take that complaint back.
That doesn't make the trope any better in my eyes though. The only film where I really think it works is "Beauty and the Beast", where we actually see where the curse comes from, and it makes logical sense why the curse would be made like that.
So you can't get behind something unless its spelled out for you? You must have really enjoyed Star Wars Episode 1, 2 and 3
First, I do like Episode 1 and 3. 1 more for nostalgia, and 3 because it's frigging awesome.
Second, no, I can infer things from the story. But it's also the story's job to offer up a little more detail on how the world it creates works. This is why almost every superhero has an origin story. We learn what is and isn't possible in the world, and when new mechanics are introduced, we learn where the come from. That detail can be implied, sure, but when a story just wants you to take something at face value, that's a problem.
To see what I'm talking about, watch Lucy. Lucy just pulls whatever is convenient out of it's butt when it needs to. You just take her power at complete face value.
Currently Playing: Steamworld Heist, The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask, Tales of Graces F
For the record, Revenge of the Sith is not an awesome movie. Poorly written, poorly told, poorly acted, features a 30 minute dance routine as the climax, and then ends embarrassingly.
So Anakin kneels before Monster Mash and pledges his loyalty to the graveyard smash.
Poorly written, poorly told, poorly acted, features a 30 minute dance routine as the climax, and then ends embarrassingly.
Sounds like how the earth will end one day. Not with a bang, but a whimper.
For you, the day LordJumpMad graced your threads, was the most important day of your life. But for me, it was Tuesday. [url=http://www.backloggery.com/jumpmad]Unive...
Forums
Topic: The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild
Posts 2,261 to 2,280 of 15,210
Please login or sign up to reply to this topic