Unfortunately, longer games with lots of content like Zelda, Metroid, Pokemon, and Fire Emblem are exactly the types of single player games complex enough that putting additional information on a second screen would actually be beneficial.
Yeah, Ocarina of Time sure was crap, it then magically became good on 3DS because of the dinky touchscreen.
Honestly the only thing that the second screen is really good for is moving UI off of the main display. An advantage that, to my knowledge, only Capcom has really taken advantage of in Monster Hunter. Because Nintendo supports the fatwa on options menus.
Ocarina of Time was a masterpiece. Ocarina of Time 3D just made it better. Also, Wind Waker HD did the same thing. Most of the time, there's not enough to stress you out in the environment that pausing the game to access the inventory is necessary, so these two titles, along with Majora's Mask 3D, don't require you to do so. It's arguable that just having an extra button like the N64 did would be better than having two touch screen only buttons, but it's hard to deny that Ocarina of Time 3D is the definitive version of that game.
Also, I'm not saying it's completely necessary or that games without a second screen in those genres are crap, just that they're really the type of game that would benefit most from removing clutter that the player doesn't need to see all the time. It's certainly better than the cloned screen Nintendo does for most titles...
Unfortunately, longer games with lots of content like Zelda, Metroid, Pokemon, and Fire Emblem are exactly the types of single player games complex enough that putting additional information on a second screen would actually be beneficial.
Yeah, Ocarina of Time sure was crap, it then magically became good on 3DS because of the dinky touchscreen.
Honestly the only thing that the second screen is really good for is moving UI off of the main display. An advantage that, to my knowledge, only Capcom has really taken advantage of in Monster Hunter. Because Nintendo supports the fatwa on options menus.
Pardon my language, but what?
Current games: Everything on Switch
Switch Friend Code: SW-5075-7879-0008 | My Nintendo: LzWinky
Unfortunately, longer games with lots of content like Zelda, Metroid, Pokemon, and Fire Emblem are exactly the types of single player games complex enough that putting additional information on a second screen would actually be beneficial.
Yeah, Ocarina of Time sure was crap, it then magically became good on 3DS because of the dinky touchscreen.
Honestly the only thing that the second screen is really good for is moving UI off of the main display. An advantage that, to my knowledge, only Capcom has really taken advantage of in Monster Hunter. Because Nintendo supports the fatwa on options menus.
Ocarina of Time was never bad, but it's easily the worst 3D Zelda. The 3DS version is a lot better due to similar gameplay tweaks to those in WindWaker HD, where they fixed problems that may have well ruined the game for some players.
Unfortunately, longer games with lots of content like Zelda, Metroid, Pokemon, and Fire Emblem are exactly the types of single player games complex enough that putting additional information on a second screen would actually be beneficial.
Yeah, Ocarina of Time sure was crap, it then magically became good on 3DS because of the dinky touchscreen.
Honestly the only thing that the second screen is really good for is moving UI off of the main display. An advantage that, to my knowledge, only Capcom has really taken advantage of in Monster Hunter. Because Nintendo supports the fatwa on options menus.
Ocarina of Time was never bad, but it's easily the worst 3D Zelda. The 3DS version is a lot better due to similar gameplay tweaks to those in WindWaker HD, where they fixed problems that may have well ruined the game for some players.
I mean, Ocarina of Time is great. It's combat is janky, mechanics are janky, textures are janky, (or on the 3DS resolution is tiny) but it still holds up. The world, puzzles, bosses, and story are all still great.
Skyward Sword had the benefit of time, so it looks a lot better, has smoother mechanics largely, and has good combat. Despite all that I think it ended up as the worst 3D Zelda. Probably because it also made the misstep of centering a 50 hour basically JRPG around motion controls. That and the annoying, I feel, uninspired overworld.
The story and quests are all so boring, though. I never cared about any of the characters or plotlines. It's so weirdly generic, the plot is this real basic gender-rolled-my-eyes, hero's journey, you've done this before, good vs evil affair. I mean really, tell me how a game released in 2011 can end up with a more generic plot than was simultaneously overbearing and too thin. I mean Ocarina of Time had the Hylians and other races of the world invaded by Ganondorf, a darklord type, who came from the Gerudo culture. There was this whole prophecy about him, too. Skyward Sword was just this humans vs rando western demons thing.
And to top it all off Skyward Sword did this r.a.n.d.o.m. time travel plot twist that was totally undeserved. I mean, it was THE prequel and probably will be the only one for a long time, but it has all these robots and demons that did all of these things further in the past. WHY AREN'T WE DOING ALL THAT IN THAT TIME? That's writing 101; set your story in the most interesting time in that world. There was no reason for all of this time-travel BS besides a half-hearted Ocarina of Time reference.
I mean, at least Twilight Princess channeled what Ocarina of Time was all about in the actual game. Skyward Sword just cut it up and wore its skin around like it was Halloween.
Gah! Anyway, tl;dr I think Ocarina of Time holds up far better than Skyward Sword, despite the latter's every opportunity to be better (time, technology, etc.) It just goes to show that tech doesn't make better art, creativity and hard work does.
Getting back to the actual topic rather than the ongoing "people who don't own the Wii U moaning about the Wii U's library". There was this post from a few pages back responding to my argument about why the NX is more likely a portable. Although I'm going to ignore the bit about the Wii U in this post because it was nothing much in it. Well the implication was that the Wii U has hit market saturation and that the 3DS hasn't..... that rebuttal writes itself.... moving on!
The 3DS has competition. There are about 1 billion smart phones out there. The problem with releasing a new portable in the next two years is that Nintendo just launched a new portable. Their new portable has so few changes in design and hardware that even hardcore Nintendo fans can't tell it's new-- even though Nintendo intently put the word New in its name. The New 3DS is a new portable. The old 3DS can't play games built for the New 3DS and that is what defines a new platform. After 30-something years, Nintendo has come full circle to the mistakes of the Atari generation-- making iterations of hardware instead of a whole new product.
For a start I specifically said that the 3DS doesn't have any real competition in the dedicated handheld gaming device space. Mobile gaming has eaten into that market, for sure, but that doesn't mean it's dead. There's definitely a market for that sort of device hence why there is an install base of 50mill 3DS. Whatever the success of Nintendo's future platforms, if it's a monopoly vs a three horse race? It'll be only very occasionally that their portable device isn't the one kicking most of the goals.
Then there's the bit about the New 3DS being their next portable. I simply don't agree. The New 3DS is a revision, it's not a new portable. As of right now the only game out that's New 3DS exclusive is Xenoblade. And TBH I can only think of a few interesting titles that are coming out for the 3DS at all and none of them are New 3DS exclusive. So your point about "games", what games? There might be some interesting indie titles on the way but other than that, there isn't much. In the history of Nintendo portable revisions as of now it's more of a DSi than a GBC. It's a nice device for sure, if I was to buy a 3DS now it'd be the one I'd get. But it's not the start of a new generation of portables.
You say they need a platform that moves 50mill units. The 3DS has been that platform but it isn't that platform anymore. The Wii U won't be that platform either for sure but I doubt any new home-console will be if it's living in the shadow of the PS4. If however they release a new portable console, one that's actually a decent upgrade? Spend the next year and a half working on software for it's launch so it doesn't flop like their previous platforms have on day 1. Make a not-quite-a-PS3 that you can pocket that launches with Mario and Zelda. People would line up around the block.
Unfortunately, longer games with lots of content like Zelda, Metroid, Pokemon, and Fire Emblem are exactly the types of single player games complex enough that putting additional information on a second screen would actually be beneficial.
Yeah, Ocarina of Time sure was crap, it then magically became good on 3DS because of the dinky touchscreen.
Honestly the only thing that the second screen is really good for is moving UI off of the main display. An advantage that, to my knowledge, only Capcom has really taken advantage of in Monster Hunter. Because Nintendo supports the fatwa on options menus.
Ocarina of Time was never bad, but it's easily the worst 3D Zelda. The 3DS version is a lot better due to similar gameplay tweaks to those in WindWaker HD, where they fixed problems that may have well ruined the game for some players.
I mean, Ocarina of Time is great. It's combat is janky, mechanics are janky, textures are janky, (or on the 3DS resolution is tiny) but it still holds up. The world, puzzles, bosses, and story are all still great.
Skyward Sword had the benefit of time, so it looks a lot better, has smoother mechanics largely, and has good combat. Despite all that I think it ended up as the worst 3D Zelda. Probably because it also made the misstep of centering a 50 hour basically JRPG around motion controls. That and the annoying, I feel, uninspired overworld.
The story and quests are all so boring, though. I never cared about any of the characters or plotlines. It's so weirdly generic, the plot is this real basic gender-rolled-my-eyes, hero's journey, you've done this before, good vs evil affair. I mean really, tell me how a game released in 2011 can end up with a more generic plot than was simultaneously overbearing and too thin. I mean Ocarina of Time had the Hylians and other races of the world invaded by Ganondorf, a darklord type, who came from the Gerudo culture. There was this whole prophecy about him, too. Skyward Sword was just this humans vs rando western demons thing.
And to top it all off Skyward Sword did this r.a.n.d.o.m. time travel plot twist that was totally undeserved. I mean, it was THE prequel and probably will be the only one for a long time, but it has all these robots and demons that did all of these things further in the past. WHY AREN'T WE DOING ALL THAT IN THAT TIME? That's writing 101; set your story in the most interesting time in that world. There was no reason for all of this time-travel BS besides a half-hearted Ocarina of Time reference.
I mean, at least Twilight Princess channeled what Ocarina of Time was all about in the actual game. Skyward Sword just cut it up and wore its skin around like it was Halloween.
Gah! Anyway, tl;dr I think Ocarina of Time holds up far better than Skyward Sword, despite the latter's every opportunity to be better (time, technology, etc.) It just goes to show that tech doesn't make better art, creativity and hard work does.
Now we're getting into serious debate territory, because while I disagree with the majority of what you've just said, I don't feel like your opinion is any less-informed than my own. I feel it's more a case of differing perspectives. See, to me, OoT commits the cardinal sin of having a boring cast. Zelda only comes off as interesting when she's Sheik, everything that happens to the characters happens off screen and you're left to clean up the mess (with the potential exception of Darunia. I'm not asking to watch them die, but some of these characters really seem to come and go.) And the whole time, I feel like Link is oblivious to absolutely everything, which at times (being scolded by Ruto for disappearing) looks like an admirable piece of writing to take into account the fact that he's been asleep for seven years, but at others just makes him seem genuinely detached. Maybe that was the point, but it doesn't come off as good writing to me. It really just seems like Link is doing all of this stuff because he thinks he has to and has no other motivation whatsoever.
On top of this, for how big and wonderful the world is, it sure seemed to be pretty empty to me. I much prefer that if you're going to leave the HUB world empty, you at least make it small enough to not be a hassle to cross. (Majora's Mask is so far the only 3D Zelda I think hasn't made this mistake, though WW gets points for making the boat faster in the remake to counteract this problem. Not the best pity points, though, as WW is easily the worst one about this.)
I also think Demise and Ghirahim are a tad more interesting than Ganondorf was in OoT, but again, that's only in Ocarina. In Wind Waker and Twilight Princess (both of his next appearances in the timeline) they gave him far more characterization and made him stand out. I think that's what bothers me so much about Ocarina. No characterization. Everyone feels flat. Like a cardboard cutout. Even when they have personality, it's always one-note with no real complexity and they only gave Zelda herself any depth by making her act different as Sheik than she does as Zelda. Indeed, Zelda and Ruto are possibly the most well-written characters in the game, but even they feel lifeless compared to the characters in Skyward Sword.
And the time travel plot line "twist" didn't really feel much like a twist so much as feeling like where the story was going all along. I might've liked to see it more fleshed out and not existing for the sake of a final fight against Demise, but it didn't feel at all out of place and gave us one of the most emotional scenes a Zelda game has been able to deliver. /One of/ being the thing. They did some pretty emotional stuff back on the Gameboy with Link's Awakening. So, OoT doesn't get a pass for weaker hardware.
What wound up happening was that the ambition for Ocarina of Time was far greater than the N64 could get anywhere near handling. It was supposed to be a whole hell of a lot more than it wound up being. The original idea was so great it would've even made Skyrim blush. But the N64 wasn't even close to that level of power. Not even the infamous N64DD could've played such a game. So instead of making the full game, they started cutting off features. The day/night cycle had to be shortened from real time to something minute-based so the N64 could handle it, since the 64 didn't have an internal clock and they couldn't build one into the game cartridge. They cut object permanence because it would create too many objects for the 64 to handle. Link lost the ability to jump, side quests were removed so the game would fit on the cartridge, and tons of characters supposedly lost tons of dialogue. In an effort to make the game feel big, they took a weak story line and stretched it so thin it could cover the time it takes to play this game. So while the game is big and at the time it was pretty, the substance was weak and it left what still feels like an incomplete game. A working engine with great level/world design, but super thin content. The only good thing that came out of all this was that in an attempt to avoid remaking this game the way Miyamoto originally imagined it, the team made Majora's Mask and it's still what I consider to be the best-executed Zelda title to date. Essentially, I feel like it fixes most of Ocarina's biggest problems by making the world not as pointlessly huge and relying on the Expansion Pak to get more memory space with which they were able to give more people more character and actually make Link seem like he feels something.
There are two things in your post I do agree with, however: 1) Ocarina was still a great game. (Just not as great as any of the 3D Zeldas that followed it.) and 2) Ocarina did more with what it had than Skyward did. Ocarina is technically more impressive given its limitations. I don't feel, however, that that makes Skyward Sword bad by any sense of the word. I don't agree with most of what you said about the game. I felt the story was far more interesting than any other Zelda game, yet. I loved the characters and felt Link was more than a blank canvas for once. I even actually really liked the motion controls. (And as an added bonus, Skyward Sword still has one of the best--if not THE best--soundtracks in a Zelda game to date.)
I still think Zelda U is gonna blow Skyward Sword (and probably most 3D Zeldas) completely out of the water. It looks amazing so far, and I'm heavily anticipating the day we see more of it.
I also think the Wii U is a failure creatively in that I haven't seen a lot of new ideas introduced or technological progress that distinguishes it or gives it a defining identity. It's mainly coasting on past successes (particularly the Wii). Hardware wise, there's not much the Wii U can do that the Wii or DS couldn't, having a second touch screen and gyroscopic controls are nothing new and have been done before with the Wii and DS. And Off TV Play isn't really a useful feature in its own right either. Software wise, the games have gotten more and more formulaic and for the most part fail to introduce new ideas or put a new twist on the gameplay (most of the games that do being niche third party games). As I said before, this is especially true of the platformers, which have been moving more and more to 2D linear style and have been reverting to their classic formulas instead of introducing quirky concepts to freshen things up like we saw in 5th, 6th, and early 7th gen. For a company that routinely brags about how innovative they are it really comes off as being hypocritical.
How many threads are going to be turned into dudes who don't own Wii U's complaining about how forumlaic software they haven't played? Of course you think it's formulaic, YOU HAVEN'T PLAYED IT! You're judging it based on what you think it's like. Which not surprisingly is precisely the same as other games in the series....
Hey guys, guess what. That new Avengers movie? I haven't watched it. But it's an Avengers movie so I bet it's precisely like the first one. Because it's still an Avengers movie. That new Star Wars? I know it's going to be just another Star Wars movie. I watched Episode 1, I know what Star Wars is like. It's going to be pretty average.
@Bolt_Strikehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_Wii_video_g... This list implies you think the Wii is also a creative failure. Not seeing a lot of new ideas, here. Wii Sports and Wii Sports Resort came with the system, so that's an unfair comparison. The other Wii [blank] titles were all mostly following along that idea, and lord knows Wii Fit isn't the first fitness game out there. And what's left? Mario Kart. New Super Mario Bros. Mario Galaxy. Smash. Mario Galaxy. Donkey Kong. Twilight Princess. A sequel to a Rhythm game (those almost never do any real innovation.) Heck, the first actually innovative title on the list that did well without having to be packaged with the system was Link's Crossbow Training. Which is essentially a light gun game. Duck Hunt with a much more impressive facade.
For the sake of comparison, let's go here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_Nintendo_Ga... and look at Gamecube titles. Another Smash, alright. Another Mario Kart (easily the most different one in the series). Mario (again, easily the most different one of the series). Wind Waker (not the most different one, but didn't feel at all like its N64 predecessors). Luigi's Mansion. Animal Crossing (a port from the N64, but still an original game). Mario Party. Prime. Poke'mon Colosseum. Looks like this would be a far more creatively successful platform, then. And yet, that creativity got outright ignored by the gaming market with the Wii selling over 4 times as much as the Gamecube.
Different times, different audiences, but that doesn't change the fact that clearly, how "creative" the library is doesn't really make a big difference in the grand scheme of things, and I'm inclined to agree entirely with that sentiment. I love the Wii U's games, even the ones that really do feel like "just the next logical step in the series." But yet again, you've overstepped your boundaries because yet again, you're criticizing games you haven't played on things you wouldn't actually know because you haven't played those games, so I'm not going to pick that apart again. You get the idea, by now. Either you're blind to it or willfully ignorant.
Also, lay off with the Platformer hate. We get it. Not your genre. You can't fathom how the game can be entirely different without changing the theming one bit, and yet, as someone who has played all four NSMB games, I can attest that only NSMB2 ever felt like "more of the same." None of the others did, and that's what sets you apart from me as gamers. If you don't like reiterative titles, then maybe you should go chase down the indies. That seems to be far more your style.
Now we're getting into serious debate territory, because while I disagree with the majority of what you've just said, I don't feel like your opinion is any less-informed than my own. I feel it's more a case of differing perspectives. See, to me, OoT commits the cardinal sin of having a boring cast. Zelda only comes off as interesting when she's Sheik, everything that happens to the characters happens off screen and you're left to clean up the mess (with the potential exception of Darunia. I'm not asking to watch them die, but some of these characters really seem to come and go.) And the whole time, I feel like Link is oblivious to absolutely everything, which at times (being scolded by Ruto for disappearing) looks like an admirable piece of writing to take into account the fact that he's been asleep for seven years, but at others just makes him seem genuinely detached. Maybe that was the point, but it doesn't come off as good writing to me. It really just seems like Link is doing all of this stuff because he thinks he has to and has no other motivation whatsoever.
A large degree Link's detachment is the whole 3-4 states of facial animation Link had. Not to mention Miyamoto's awful 'you are the character' cop out for actual writing. And Link doesn't have a single line of voice acting in either game so, you know, glass houses. Also, Ocarina's faces were poor, but at least they look good on the 3DS. Skyward Sword has a big uncanny valley to answer for.
That's even scarier than the Majora's Mask transformations!
On top of this, for how big and wonderful the world is, it sure seemed to be pretty empty to me. I much prefer that if you're going to leave the HUB world empty, you at least make it small enough to not be a hassle to cross. (Majora's Mask is so far the only 3D Zelda I think hasn't made this mistake, though WW gets points for making the boat faster in the remake to counteract this problem. Not the best pity points, though, as WW is easily the worst one about this.)
Ocarina of Time and Twilight Princess were basically as small as Termina, point to point, they just didn't have the Goron's Mask. That being said OoT, MM, TWW, and TP all had fast travel so -_- Skyward Sword. And sections like Gerudo Valley, Death Mountain, etc were full of secrets and hidden skulltulas, so I wouldn't at all call them empty.
I also think Demise and Ghirahim are a tad more interesting than Ganondorf was in OoT, but again, that's only in Ocarina. In Wind Waker and Twilight Princess (both of his next appearances in the timeline) they gave him far more characterization and made him stand out. I think that's what bothers me so much about Ocarina. No characterization. Everyone feels flat. Like a cardboard cutout. Even when they have personality, it's always one-note with no real complexity and they only gave Zelda herself any depth by making her act different as Sheik than she does as Zelda. Indeed, Zelda and Ruto are possibly the most well-written characters in the game, but even they feel lifeless compared to the characters in Skyward Sword.
Yeah, I agree with you about Ocarina / TP / TWW's main characters. Demise was cool, but pretty 1 note as he's only in the literal last 10 minutes of the game as a character.
I like Ocarina's side character's more than the main cast. Saria, Malon, Darunia, and Ruto were all neat in their own little stories and cutscenes. The time travel really makes their characterization good, though, as you get to follow these characters through their, admittedly minor, arcs. And I know Fi's the obvious glowing eye weak spot but she really was weak, especially coming off of such a vibrant character as Midna who really owned Twilight Princess.
And the time travel plot line "twist" didn't really feel much like a twist so much as feeling like where the story was going all along. I might've liked to see it more fleshed out and not existing for the sake of a final fight against Demise, but it didn't feel at all out of place and gave us one of the most emotional scenes a Zelda game has been able to deliver. /One of/ being the thing. They did some pretty emotional stuff back on the Gameboy with Link's Awakening. So, OoT doesn't get a pass for weaker hardware.
Ehhh, while I don't get a lot of emotion from Ocarina and Skyward Sword, the other 3D Zeldas hit much harder in that respect. I just didn't like Link & Zelda's characterization in SS; too hero, too damsel, too 'will they, won't they OF COURSE THEY WILL IT'S A WRITTEN STORY, DUH!' Also, FAR too many gender roles. And Skyward Sword doesn't get as much of a pass as Ocarina here because the latter was in the 90's, the former was 2010's. I don't care about cultural excuses, either. You're publishing a product in English to sell the most in America. I don't want token racial characters or forced quotas, but just conform to stereotypes less, please.
What wound up happening was that the ambition for Ocarina of Time was far greater than the N64 could get anywhere near handling. It was supposed to be a whole hell of a lot more than it wound up being. The original idea was so great it would've even made Skyrim blush. But the N64 wasn't even close to that level of power. Not even the infamous N64DD could've played such a game. So instead of making the full game, they started cutting off features. The day/night cycle had to be shortened from real time to something minute-based so the N64 could handle it, since the 64 didn't have an internal clock and they couldn't build one into the game cartridge. They cut object permanence because it would create too many objects for the 64 to handle. Link lost the ability to jump, side quests were removed so the game would fit on the cartridge, and tons of characters supposedly lost tons of dialogue. In an effort to make the game feel big, they took a weak story line and stretched it so thin it could cover the time it takes to play this game. So while the game is big and at the time it was pretty, the substance was weak and it left what still feels like an incomplete game. A working engine with great level/world design, but super thin content. The only good thing that came out of all this was that in an attempt to avoid remaking this game the way Miyamoto originally imagined it, the team made Majora's Mask and it's still what I consider to be the best-executed Zelda title to date. Essentially, I feel like it fixes most of Ocarina's biggest problems by making the world not as pointlessly huge and relying on the Expansion Pak to get more memory space with which they were able to give more people more character and actually make Link seem like he feels something.
For whatever was cut, all these canceled game rumors, etc, I love what was there upon release. I think the Day / Night cycle works better shortened in these demi-open world Zelda games because it becomes a mechanics; the drawbridge, getting the fire arrow, day/night cycles. Skyward Sword didn't even have a dang day/night cycle! Just a fixed state on Skyloft that can be used to get you precisely 1 heart container and a single quest that you can never return to at the volcano. And when they flooded Faron Forest? That made no sense, the plane of water would've flooded the volcano and desert too. It was a damn Mario 64 level; Zelda games should be better than that; make more sense than that.
There are two things in your post I do agree with, however: 1) Ocarina was still a great game. (Just not as great as any of the 3D Zeldas that followed it.) and 2) Ocarina did more with what it had than Skyward did. Ocarina is technically more impressive given its limitations. I don't feel, however, that that makes Skyward Sword bad by any sense of the word. I don't agree with most of what you said about the game. I felt the story was far more interesting than any other Zelda game, yet. I loved the characters and felt Link was more than a blank canvas for once. I even actually really liked the motion controls. (And as an added bonus, Skyward Sword still has one of the best--if not THE best--soundtracks in a Zelda game to date.)
Oh, Skyward Sword is a fine game, just terribly designed in part, and certainly not 'great' like the other 3D Zeldas in my book. For instance the music, while some of the tracks are great, it was played ad nauseum the sky areas; ad-ad nauseum, even.
besides the game's aesthetic trespasses upon my taste, I have such vitriol for it not because it is an awful game, but because it is, I feel, undeserving of the lineage. A wolf in golden sheep's clothing, if you will.
I still think Zelda U is gonna blow Skyward Sword (and probably most 3D Zeldas) completely out of the water. It looks amazing so far, and I'm heavily anticipating the day we see more of it.
It'll have trouble unseating Twilight Princess and Majora's Mask. They both have quite fun mechanics which, thought they could be topped, say nothing of those game's stories and worlds. Twilight Princess is my favorite linear Zelda and Majora's Mask my favorite sidequesty one. Not to mention Wind Waker's successes. So I hope ZU is good, but I doubt it'll be that much better.
A large degree Link's detachment is the whole 3-4 states of facial animation Link had. Not to mention Miyamoto's awful 'you are the character' cop out for actual writing. And Link doesn't have a single line of voice acting in either game so, you know, glass houses. Also, Ocarina's faces were poor, but at least they look good on the 3DS. Skyward Sword has a big uncanny valley to answer for.
That's even scarier than the Majora's Mask transformations!
Ocarina of Time and Twilight Princess were basically as small as Termina, point to point, they just didn't have the Goron's Mask. That being said OoT, MM, TWW, and TP all had fast travel so -_- Skyward Sword. And sections like Gerudo Valley, Death Mountain, etc were full of secrets and hidden skulltulas, so I wouldn't at all call them empty.
Yeah, I agree with you about Ocarina / TP / TWW's main characters. Demise was cool, but pretty 1 note as he's only in the literal last 10 minutes of the game as a character.
I like Ocarina's side character's more than the main cast. Saria, Malon, Darunia, and Ruto were all neat in their own little stories and cutscenes. The time travel really makes their characterization good, though, as you get to follow these characters through their, admittedly minor, arcs. And I know Fi's the obvious glowing eye weak spot but she really was weak, especially coming off of such a vibrant character as Midna who really owned Twilight Princess.
Ehhh, while I don't get a lot of emotion from Ocarina and Skyward Sword, the other 3D Zeldas hit much harder in that respect. I just didn't like Link & Zelda's characterization in SS; too hero, too damsel, too 'will they, won't they OF COURSE THEY WILL IT'S A WRITTEN STORY, DUH!' Also, FAR too many gender roles. And Skyward Sword doesn't get as much of a pass as Ocarina here because the latter was in the 90's, the former was 2010's. I don't care about cultural excuses, either. You're publishing a product in English to sell the most in America. I don't want token racial characters or forced quotas, but just conform to stereotypes less, please.
For whatever was cut, all these canceled game rumors, etc, I love what was there upon release. I think the Day / Night cycle works better shortened in these demi-open world Zelda games because it becomes a mechanics; the drawbridge, getting the fire arrow, day/night cycles. Skyward Sword didn't even have a dang day/night cycle! Just a fixed state on Skyloft that can be used to get you precisely 1 heart container and a single quest that you can never return to at the volcano. And when they flooded Faron Forest? That made no sense, the plane of water would've flooded the volcano and desert too. It was a damn Mario 64 level; Zelda games should be better than that; make more sense than that.
Oh, Skyward Sword is a fine game, just terribly designed in part, and certainly not 'great' like the other 3D Zeldas in my book. For instance the music, while some of the tracks are great, it was played ad nauseum the sky areas; ad-ad nauseum, even.
besides the game's aesthetic trespasses upon my taste, I have such vitriol for it not because it is an awful game, but because it is, I feel, undeserving of the lineage. A wolf in golden sheep's clothing, if you will.
It'll have trouble unseating Twilight Princess and Majora's Mask. They both have quite fun mechanics which, thought they could be topped, say nothing of those game's stories and worlds. Twilight Princess is my favorite linear Zelda and Majora's Mask my favorite sidequesty one. Not to mention Wind Waker's successes. So I hope ZU is good, but I doubt it'll be that much better.
Not going to target this whole thing, since it's more a matter of preference at this point. Will hit a few key points, though.
First off, a character can be well-developed without the animations necessarily aiding that. (main argument being Marin from Link's Awakening) And a character doesn't need voice acting, either, though these things admittedly do help. There is such a thing as characterization by proxy. You can make Link seem more realistic and believable by making his ambitions and goals clear to and through the characters around him. I can't believe I'm about to praise a Team Ninja game for this, but Hyrule Warriors actually does that pretty well. Link never says a word, but with the other character's interactions and personality, Link's personality shines through his mute-character facade. Most notably, we see him get cocky, something Link almost never does in other games. He actually gets full of himself and winds up in over his head, and it doesn't dawn on you until the other characters step in to save his bacon. (Granted, this is lessened by the fact that in gameplay, you're nothing short of a God, but that's another issue entirely we may have to tackle in another debate. Suffice it to say that players will always notice when the gameplay and story don't sync up and it wrecks all immersion.)
Secondly, having a faster means of travel does make the game seem smaller, and fast travel is nice, but only helps so much when it only allows you to go to specific places. Why can't I fast travel to Lon Lon Ranch? I have to go to the Temple of Time and then cross Hyrule Field to get there! (And Hyrule Field is actually very massive, even compared to Termina Field. The biggest difference aside from the Goron mask is that Clocktown is big and central, making Termina Field look big, but feel small. Very clever design right there.) I would also agree that Skyward takes the cake on being too empty. The skies as a hubworld are boring. Even more boring than the seas. I kinda forgot there's no fast travel, though. Weird.
Third, I'd like to point out that saying "it was Miyamoto's fault" doesn't make the game better. Again, you can make blank canvases more interesting than Link is in Ocarina of Time. It's possible to do so without the character breaking all immersion for the player. Regardless of if that's a specific developer's mistake, Link often suffers from feeling uncharacterized, but OoT is by far the worst about it (in the 3D Zeldas, anyways.)
Also, "ad nauseum?" What is with you and vaguely (but not entirely) misusing words most of us haven't heard since English Comp? You can just say it gets irritating over time, which I don't agree with, but fair enough, if you think that. "Ad nauseum" however, refers to an argument that is dropped or allowed simply because people are sick of talking about it. Wonderful words to describe Bolt_Strike's insistence that he can know everything about a game without playing it, but not useful for describing a piece of music you've grown tired of.
Finally, let me get this straight: This whole time, we've been arguing not over a best or second best, but literally over what we both think constitutes 4th and 5th in the 3D Zelda compendium? Because funny enough, Twilight Princess is my favorite Zelda, but I believe Majora's Mask to be a better game, and Wind Waker is no slouch by any means.
Third, I'd like to point out that saying "it was Miyamoto's fault" doesn't make the game better. Again, you can make blank canvases more interesting than Link is in Ocarina of Time. It's possible to do so without the character breaking all immersion for the player. Regardless of if that's a specific developer's mistake, Link often suffers from feeling uncharacterized, but OoT is by far the worst about it (in the 3D Zeldas, anyways.)
Part of it is points off for regression. The Skyward Sword facial animations just feel so plastic after everyone looked so fluid and well animated in Twilight Princess. I dunno, much of Skyward Sword's visual aesthetic just looks ugly to me. shrug
Also, "ad nauseum?" What is with you and vaguely (but not entirely) misusing words most of us haven't heard since English Comp? You can just say it gets irritating over time, which I don't agree with, but fair enough, if you think that. "Ad nauseum" however, refers to an argument that is dropped or allowed simply because people are sick of talking about it. Wonderful words to describe Bolt_Strike's insistence that he can know everything about a game without playing it, but not useful for describing a piece of music you've grown tired of.
I would expect someone who likes stories, likes writing, writes on an online forum, to use the full breadth of their vocabulary. I also like having fun and word play, so, nadir, nadir, alliteration nadir, h8rz!!!
Anyway, your definition of 'ad nauseum' is a little too restrictive. Among other things, it means until one is nauseated. I'M SAYING THAT THE SKY MUSIC MADE ME WANT TO VOMIT It's not terribly ivory tower, lol ('ad-ad nauseum' wasn't intended to be grammatically correct, for instance.) The sense that I'm using the phrase in is that repetition can make you like anything, especially a track, much less. With how much the sky and Girahim's theme were played they started to actually hurt my ears. I can still hear the sound swelling as I take flight and the damnable sharp noises in Girahim's fight, while my migraine builds.
Skyward Sword does have some beautiful music, though. Unfortunately, like Xenoblade, it is most-often found on the soundtrack, not in-game.
Finally, let me get this straight: This whole time, we've been arguing not over a best or second best, but literally over what we both think constitutes 4th and 5th in the 3D Zelda compendium? Because funny enough, Twilight Princess is my favorite Zelda, but I believe Majora's Mask to be a better game, and Wind Waker is no slouch by any means.
Yes, we've been arguing over last place, lol. Wind Waker is great, if tedious in part. I don't really make the separation between 'favorite' and 'best' in subjective matters, though. Or at least I've decided not to lately.
I feel that Twilight Princess and Majora's Mask are just too different games to be really compared head-to-head. I think they kinda tie for first because one is trying to be this epic linear adventure while the other recognizes the N64's limitations and goes for a more abstract, subtler story with many side stories, while still having freakin' lunar impact. I guess I do have more of an attachment to Twilight Princess, though. I just dig that game's vibe. Especially the level design + art style and the music.
How many threads are going to be turned into dudes who don't own Wii U's complaining about how forumlaic software they haven't played? Of course you think it's formulaic, YOU HAVEN'T PLAYED IT! You're judging it based on what you think it's like. Which not surprisingly is precisely the same as other games in the series....
Hey guys, guess what. That new Avengers movie? I haven't watched it. But it's an Avengers movie so I bet it's precisely like the first one. Because it's still an Avengers movie. That new Star Wars? I know it's going to be just another Star Wars movie. I watched Episode 1, I know what Star Wars is like. It's going to be pretty average.
Again, a false equivalency. You need to watch a movie to judge most of its elements, unless you have access to a full script of the movie you can't really understand the plot beyond basic summaries, characterization, spectacle, pretty much anything. But that's not the case with games because many of the elements that go into video games can be observed through other means. Gameplay can be observed by watching what kinds of actions the character performs on screen and through descriptions of said actions. Level design is largely visual, so that can simply be watched. Pretty much the only thing that can't is the controls, which is completely irrelevant to my point. Experience doesn't matter as much in the context of this argument as you think it does, any argument you could possibly make in regards to gameplay formula can easily be picked up on through research and observation.
@Bolt_Strikehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_Wii_video_g... This list implies you think the Wii is also a creative failure. Not seeing a lot of new ideas, here. Wii Sports and Wii Sports Resort came with the system, so that's an unfair comparison. The other Wii [blank] titles were all mostly following along that idea, and lord knows Wii Fit isn't the first fitness game out there. And what's left? Mario Kart. New Super Mario Bros. Mario Galaxy. Smash. Mario Galaxy. Donkey Kong. Twilight Princess. A sequel to a Rhythm game (those almost never do any real innovation.) Heck, the first actually innovative title on the list that did well without having to be packaged with the system was Link's Crossbow Training. Which is essentially a light gun game. Duck Hunt with a much more impressive facade.
If you consider Mario Galaxy to be a creative failure you're looking at the game too broadly. It's not just another Mario game, it has completely unique gameplay elements and actual new moves (such as the Spin move and antigravity) which helps distinguish its gameplay from other Mario games. 2 was pretty much a level pack sequel though. Also, you forgot to mention Prime 3 which utilized the Wii Remote well and brought completely new abilities to the table. In terms of creativity though, it's best to divide 7th gen into two parts, one lasting from 2006-2009 and one from 2009-2012, because 2009/2010 is around the time the creativity declined and they started relying more on 2D nostalgia fests like NSMB Wii and DKCR.
But yet again, you've overstepped your boundaries because yet again, you're criticizing games you haven't played on things you wouldn't actually know because you haven't played those games, so I'm not going to pick that apart again. You get the idea, by now. Either you're blind to it or willfully ignorant.
I haven't overstepped my boundaries at all. Like I said to skywake, you're putting far too much stock in the experience when it doesn't matter at all in the context of this argument (and I have all of the experience I need from past games anyway). All of these formulaic elements are highly visible in gameplay, and if experience truly mattered I wouldn't even be able to compile that list in the first place.
For that matter, if I needed to play the game to understand these things, how would I even know whether or not these games are worth buying in the first place? Because by your logic, reviews or gameplay videos would be useless, since I couldn't truly understand the game enough to assess its value. The only way you could decide whether or not something is worth buying is to actually go out and buy it, and at that point it becomes a crapshoot. So this idea that you're not allowed to have an opinion on something without buying it is utterly nonsensical and it comes off more as trying to shut down discussion of the issues more than anything else.
Also, lay off with the Platformer hate. We get it. Not your genre.
I don't inherently hate the genre, in fact I love platformers (I like the collectathons more, but I still enjoy 2D platformers). What I hate is the stubborn refusal of any of these classic platformers to make any kind of significant change in gameplay.
You can't fathom how the game can be entirely different without changing the theming one bit, and yet, as someone who has played all four NSMB games, I can attest that only NSMB2 ever felt like "more of the same." None of the others did, and that's what sets you apart from me as gamers.
Wrongo. I've played NSMB from start to finish and then got bored with NSMB Wii at about World 3 and couldn't bother finishing. Likewise with Returns.
Also, I've made several suggestions earlier for things that don't necessarily need a new theme. New characters, new items, new moves, none of these things necessarily fall into the category of a specific theme (although theming does help a game stand out more).
You do realise that the powerups are the different movesets? Mario and Super Mario are not supposed to be able to do anything other than run and jump. Should Nintendo just give Mario a hammer, Luigi some boxing gloves, and the Toads a gun that they can use at any time? Or maybe only parts of a level can be accessed by one particular character? What happens when several people are playing? Are they forced to wait because Mario can't go through the poison area while Luigi can?
Bubbling always works. Or they could not have co-op in every single game, co-op doesn't work well with platforming anyway
Really? "Hey everybody, sit the rest of the level out while I do this." Or maybe: "Damn I brought the wrong character, I have to start all over again."
How many threads are going to be turned into dudes who don't own Wii U's complaining about how forumlaic software they haven't played? Of course you think it's formulaic, YOU HAVEN'T PLAYED IT! You're judging it based on what you think it's like. Which not surprisingly is precisely the same as other games in the series....
Hey guys, guess what. That new Avengers movie? I haven't watched it. But it's an Avengers movie so I bet it's precisely like the first one. Because it's still an Avengers movie. That new Star Wars? I know it's going to be just another Star Wars movie. I watched Episode 1, I know what Star Wars is like. It's going to be pretty average.
Again, a false equivalency. You need to watch a movie to judge most of its elements, unless you have access to a full script of the movie you can't really understand the plot beyond basic summaries, characterization, spectacle, pretty much anything. But that's not the case with games because many of the elements that go into video games can be observed through other means. Gameplay can be observed by watching what kinds of actions the character performs on screen and through descriptions of said actions. Level design is largely visual, so that can simply be watched. Pretty much the only thing that can't is the controls, which is completely irrelevant to my point. Experience doesn't matter as much in the context of this argument as you think it does, any argument you could possibly make in regards to gameplay formula can easily be picked up on through research and observation
Needless to say I think this is a pile of Equine Ejecta
Some playlists: Top All Time Songs, Top Last Year
An opinion is only respectable if it can be defended. Respect people, not opinions
You do remember how the new thing with NSMBWii (phonetic) was harassing your teammates and jumping off of their heads, pushing them down into pits, etc. That's what 3D World is from the gameplay I've seen of it, if less obnoxious because there is more space to maneuver on a 3D plane.
You do remember how the new thing with NSMBWii (phonetic) was harassing your teammates and jumping off of their heads, pushing them down into pits, etc. That's what 3D World is from the gameplay I've seen of it, if less obnoxious because there is more space to maneuver on a 3D plane.
It's not like that but then again how would you know? You haven't played it.
Some playlists: Top All Time Songs, Top Last Year
An opinion is only respectable if it can be defended. Respect people, not opinions
You do remember how the new thing with NSMBWii (phonetic) was harassing your teammates and jumping off of their heads, pushing them down into pits, etc. That's what 3D World is from the gameplay I've seen of it, if less obnoxious because there is more space to maneuver on a 3D plane.
Yeah and I remember myself and friends beating each other up in streets of rage for stealing each other's power up. So what? People are d#$ks to each other.
Forums
Topic: Is the Wii U a failure?
Posts 261 to 280 of 459
This topic has been archived, no further posts can be added.