Legend of Zelda Offical The Legend of Zelda Thread

[Spidey-Bat]

I have played the original Zelda but I honestly don't care much for it. It's a good game, but the franchise took a major step forward with LttP and they haven't looked back for good reason.

I've not played Shadow of the Colossus, but I've heard mixed reviews. Seems like a game you either love or hate so I don't know if it's appropriate to use as a blueprint of how to tell a story.

The back-and-forth in Zelda can be a bit tedious and it was a bit more so in Twilight Princess because of the lack of shortcuts and warping like in OoT, MM, and TWW. All they need to do is bring that back and it becomes less of a problem.

 

[crazy monkey]

And yet, you would welcome a direct sequel/remake of Adventure of Link? Frankly, I'd rather donate my thumbs to some thumbless kid who cant play video games than relive that sloppy mess.

And to say that Nintendo has 'never looked back' to the original Zelda is a bit of an overstatement. LttP was in fact a direct descendant of that games' sensibilities, a result of the backlash from fans in response to the previous sequel. In fact, LttP retained a bit of that sense of discovery that I miss from more recent installments. The game gave you some space to just explore, and the overworld had points of interest that blended seamlessly with the open spaces.

From OoT on, the games restricted anything of relevance to either pre-scripted encounters or confined, mapped areas (villages, islands, etc.). I'd like to see Hyrule opened up more, less outlined for me. I'd like crossing its depth and breadth to feel like a feat in itself again, to create tension and excitement instead of just rushing across flat, green terrain to get to my next spoon-fed goal. To feel like the game is a way of uncovering the story, instead of the other way around.

 

[crazy monkey]

Oh, and a bit off-topic, but according to GameRankings Shadow of the Colossus holds at 91.53% based on 95 reviews. Not exactly what I'd call 'mixed.' Doesn't mean its everyone's cup of tea, but it is well respected by-and-large and deservedly so. Worth a play-through for certain.

 

[Spidey-Bat]

And yet, you would welcome a direct sequel/remake of Adventure of Link? Frankly, I'd rather donate my thumbs to some thumbless kid who cant play video games than relive that sloppy mess.

I never said I wanted a remake of Zelda II. Just that if you're going to remake any Zelda game, do that one.

And to say that Nintendo has 'never looked back' to the original Zelda is a bit of an overstatement. LttP was in fact a direct descendant of that games' sensibilities, a result of the backlash from fans in response to the previous sequel. In fact, LttP retained a bit of that sense of discovery that I miss from more recent installments. The game gave you some space to just explore, and the overworld had points of interest that blended seamlessly with the open spaces.

LttP was nothing like LoZ in terms of being thrown into an open world with no direction as to where to go, what to do, or what anything did. So yeah, both had an open world to explore but the narrative and guidance LttP introduced have since been present.

From OoT on, the games restricted anything of relevance to either pre-scripted encounters or confined, mapped areas (villages, islands, etc.). I'd like to see Hyrule opened up more, less outlined for me. I'd like crossing its depth and breadth to feel like a feat in itself again, to create tension and excitement instead of just rushing across flat, green terrain to get to my next spoon-fed goal. To feel like the game is a way of uncovering the story, instead of the other way around.

I don't really get what you're looking for. I felt OoT, WW, and TP had plenty to explore. And if you don't want to just be going from objective to objective, then go wander around. When I want to explore in a game, I do it. I'd rather it that way than wandering around aimlessly hoping I find what I have to in order to progress through the story.

Oh, and a bit off-topic, but according to GameRankings Shadow of the Colossus holds at 91.53% based on 95 reviews. Not exactly what I'd call 'mixed.' Doesn't mean its everyone's cup of tea, but it is well respected by-and-large and deservedly so. Worth a play-through for certain.

I wasn't referring to official reviews of it but what I've heard from other people. Take Arkham Asylum for example. Got a lot of great reviews but I and a few others here weren't as impressed and ended up trading it (the lack or replay value and incentive to play again did it for me if you were wondering). Another example is LittleBigPlanet. Also got great reviews but on GameTrailers' review of it (I go by their reviews the most), they make it clear it's not for everyone.

 

[crazy monkey]

Guess you just want different things from solving your game tapes than I do.

You obviously would like the next Zelda to be very similar to recent installments. I, however, would prefer a game that is more of a rough, raw adventure through an untamed wilderness, with a greater focus on gameplay and sheer survival, infused with a feeling of real achievement through non-linear exploration - something more than a semi-interactive storybook with puzzles and combat.

Hope that clears up 'what I'm looking for.'

 

[GoblinWhirlwind]

I trust in whatever they're doing with this game.

The one thing I'll say is I hope the Master Sword appears as a sword at least once... the iconic 'pointing the Master Sword skyward' is always my favorite moment.

 

[Image]

My favorite Zelda games are Ocarina of Time, The Windwaker and The Minish Cap. I'm playing Spirit Tracks right now, and actually enjoy it more than Phantom Hourglass. I didn't think I would like it, with the train and all, but I was proved wrong. It's actually seeming to be very easy though at the moment. Most of the time I got stuck in the Zelda games and need a guide, but havent used one so far for this one hehe... The thing with Zelda games, although they borrow certain things from others games, or elsewise, they are unique. I love to know what each new Zelda game is about.

I have yet to beat Twilight Princess. Just didn't capture me so I have focused on it, but I am close to beating it. I plan to beat before the new Zelda for the Wii comes out. It's about time we had a Legend of Zelda movie!

 

[GoblinWhirlwind]

TP's final battle is even better than WW's

 

[Image]

I did see a bit of the fight, but I guess I'll start playing it again tomorrow to reach it.

 

[Spidey-Bat]

TP's final battle is even better than WW's

I disagree. TP's was good but WW's was more challenging. Plus, Link impaled the Master Sword into Ganondorf's skull. The only thing that can ever top that is Link decapitating him.

 

[GoblinWhirlwind]

I disagree. TP's was good but WW's was more challenging. Plus, Link impaled the Master Sword into Ganondorf's skull. The only thing that can ever top that is Link decapitating him.

WW's was annoying until Link actually fought Ganon himself. In Ganon's Tower you had to fight all 4 bosses again, and then multiple versions of Ganon's puppets. When you actually fight Ganon, it's awesome.

TP's battle overall was more fun to me. I liked the one on one in Hyrule field.

 

[:eek:]

With Twilight Princess as a starting point, Aonuma promises "sheer grand scale" for the next Zelda title.

In an interview with Edge Magazine, Zelda director Eiji Aonuma details his experiences working with the franchise and explains what we can expect in future Zelda titles. When asked about Twilight Princess and its reception, the director explains that their intentions were to create a realistic game of a grand scale, but feels that the team didn't accomplish this. The next Zelda title will focus on a grand scale using the previous game as a starting point

"For Twilight Princess we used the adult Link and one of the interesting things about that was how we considered the precise proportions of Link and the world. The scale is because we aimed for a more realistic quality in the size of the environments of Hyrule and what that Link faced," Aonuma said. "But the question is whether or not we were able to incorporate any and all of the interesting game ideas that were able to take advantage of that kind of sheer grand scale within the Zelda universe. I am afraid that definitely no, we were not able to do all the things that perhaps with hindsight we had the capabilities to do."
His biggest regret when creating Twilight Princess, however, is the discrepancy between imagination and representation, and uses the recently released Spirit Tracks as an example:
"In the case of Spirit Tracks it was relatively easier, because regardless of the actual proportions between the player character and the other objects, we can simply concentrate upon the many game ideas we want to realize. But in the case of trying to depict a relatively photorealistic three-dimensional world, we have to be very careful to adapt the ideas so that they seem to perfectly fit with that world."

 

[Grommers]

Has anyone watched the hero of time?

I just found out about it, it sucks nintendo pulled it because its really well done for a fan film.

 

[Timstuff]

I think that Nintendo's reaction to this fan film signifies the end of the era of hardcore Nintendo fans. The problem is ultimately that Nintendo does not want fans, they want CUSTOMERS, and they feel like their business model cannot cater to both. They are killing off their fanbase with stupid overprotectiveness like this, and they have for a long time been ignoring the desires of their fans.

Nintendo is out of touch with their fanbase and are doing their best to ignore it, which is part of why I switched from Gamecube to PS2 about half way through the last generation. Nintendo does not want a fan community, because from a business perspective they can be more of a nuisance than an asset. No, what Nintendo wants are drooling masses who will line up to buy their latest POS peripheral made of white plastic. Being loyal to the people who made their earlier systems a success does not even blip on Nintendo's radar.

 

[Spidey-Bat]

I think that Nintendo's reaction to this fan film signifies the end of the era of hardcore Nintendo fans. The problem is ultimately that Nintendo does not want fans, they want CUSTOMERS, and they feel like their business model cannot cater to both.

That's an exaggeration. I'm a big Nintendo fan and have been since I got my N64. I love their franchises, neither Sony nor MS will ever come close to what Nintendo has produced on their own. I couldn't care less about them ordering a C&D on a fanfilm. I'm not going to like them any less because of it. I saw a trailer, it looked like a good effort for a fanfilm but something not even SciFi would want to air.

And if you think Sony or MS care any more about the fans than Nintendo, share some of what you're smoking.

 

[Timstuff]

Sony and MS are mega corporations though, so fandom was never really a part of their equation. As far as the "for fans" model goes, Nintendo used to be in a league of their own, but now that they are in the "big business league," they are actually worse than Sony or Microsoft. Sony and Microsoft may treat the end users like customers rather than fans, but they've been at their game for long enough that their end goal is to make all customers happy, not just the largest demographic. With Nitnendo, the casual player is the largest demographic, and therefore they become a much higher priority than the hardcore player, and unfortunately that's who almost all of Nintendo's dedicated fans are.

 

[StrainedEyes]

I watched part of it on youtube. It was awful.

 

[Spidey-Bat]

Sony and MS are mega corporations though, so fandom was never really a part of their equation. As far as the "for fans" model goes, Nintendo used to be in a league of their own, but now that they are in the "big business league," they are actually worse than Sony or Microsoft.

Don't tell me you actually bought into that. All companies are out to make money. This "for the fans" nonsense is just a facade and you have to be naive to think otherwise. Nintendo has made a fortune over their history and they are a bigger corporation than Sony and MS when you only go by their gaming departments.

Sony and Microsoft may treat the end users like customers rather than fans, but they've been at their game for long enough that their end goal is to make all customers happy, not just the largest demographic. With Nitnendo, the casual player is the largest demographic, and therefore they become a much higher priority than the hardcore player, and unfortunately that's who almost all of Nintendo's dedicated fans are.

How does Nintendo only cater to the casual player? Don't pin it on lack of third party support How is it Nintendo's fault that no "hardcore" games" do well on the Wii? Or that there's a lot of shovelware on the Wii? Maybe if MadWorld wasn't as shallow and repetitive or EA bothered to run an advertising campaign for Dead Space Extraction, they'd do well.


You're making a mountain out of a molehill with this C&D on a crappy fanfilm. It really isn't any different from any other company ordering a C&D on a fan project like Square Enix did with the Chrono Trigger sequel.

 

[GoblinWhirlwind]

I watched part of it on youtube. It was awful.

The IGN April Fools trailer from a year or two back, however long ago it was, actually looked pretty awesome. Alot better than that new slop.

 

[Timstuff]

I watched part of it on youtube. It was awful.

Awful or not, I still respect the people's right to make it since they weren't making money off of it. If Uwe Boll was making his terrible movies for free maybe I wouldn't hate him so much!

 

[Timstuff]

How does Nintendo only cater to the casual player? Don't pin it on lack of third party support How is it Nintendo's fault that no "hardcore" games" do well on the Wii? Or that there's a lot of shovelware on the Wii? Maybe if MadWorld wasn't as shallow and repetitive or EA bothered to run an advertising campaign for Dead Space Extraction, they'd do well.

The lack of third party support is a symptom, not the disease. Nintendo has always been averse to progress, and that's always been a source of frustration for fans. On the N64, they refused to use CDs. On the Gamecube, they refused to use DVDs and released a modem as a cruel joke that turned into abandonware, and offered lame "connectivity" with the gameboy as an alternative to online multiplayer. With Wii, they refused to use HD graphics and have a pretty limited online service, and are focusing more on accessibility in their game design than ambition.

When third party developers look to develop on Wii, they look at what Nintendo is doing: make low budget games that anyone can play, and even if only a small number of people buy it it will still probably make money (or the cost will be offset by the sales of another low budget game that's more successful). That's how Nintendo is making most of their money, so that's how the third parties are doing it too.

 

[Spidey-Bat]

The lack of third party support is a symptom, not the disease. Nintendo has always been averse to progress, and that's always been a source of frustration for fans. On the N64, they refused to use CDs. On the Gamecube, they refused to use DVDs and released a modem as a cruel joke that turned into abandonware, and offered lame "connectivity" with the gameboy as an alternative to online multiplayer. With Wii, they refused to use HD graphics and have a pretty limited online service, and are focusing more on accessibility in their game design than ambition.

When third party developers look to develop on Wii, they look at what Nintendo is doing: make low budget games that anyone can play, and even if only a small number of people buy it it will still probably make money (or the cost will be offset by the sales of another low budget game that's more successful). That's how Nintendo is making most of their money, so that's how the third parties are doing it too.

Yeah, Mario, Zelda, and Metroid are really low budget

As I said, Nintendo is not to blame for the shovelware on the Wii (btw, PS2 had a TON of shovelware, too). The problem is developers say "Only Mario, Zelda, and Metroid sell on the Wii so why bother spending a lot of time making a good game and let's just make a piece of crap party game." None of that is Nintendo's fault. The problem is those games have either not been good or not been advertised enough.

None of this has anything to do with the C&D on this fan film. You're just using it as an excuse to rant about Nintendo.

 

[Timstuff]

It's Nintendo's system. If third parties don't want to make AAA games for it, it's because Nintendo is doing something wrong, just like if third parties were to abandon the PS3 or Xbox 360 it would be Sony or Microsoft's fault, respectively. Maybe if Nintendo would actually invest in new franchises that have nothing to do with any of their old ones and wasn't casualware, third parties would be less reluctant.

Nintendo seems to think that if a game's expensive to make, it has to have a character who's connected to a franchise that's at least 20 years old to make money. If it's a new IP, it has to be cheap enough to make that they won't lose money if it's unsuccessful. Nintendo almost NEVER invests the kind of money into an untested idea that the do into characters like Mario. A first party game like Uncharted Halo would never happen on a Nintendo system, because Nintendo doesn't believe in launching new IPs. The days of IP creation for Nintendo pretty much ended in the 80's, and since Nintendo has no faith in launching new AAA IPs on the Wii, neither do third parties.

 

[Spidey-Bat]

It's Nintendo's system. If third parties don't want to make AAA games for it, it's because Nintendo is doing something wrong, just like if third parties were to abandon the PS3 or Xbox 360 it would be Sony or Microsoft's fault, respectively. Maybe if Nintendo would actually invest in new franchises that have nothing to do with any of their old ones and wasn't casualware, third parties would be less reluctant.

I disagree. How do you blame Nintendo for MadWorld being mediocre? Or Dead Space Extraction getting no advertising? EA has the money to do it.

Nintendo seems to think that if a game's expensive to make, it has to have a character who's connected to a franchise that's at least 20 years old to make money. If it's a new IP, it has to be cheap enough to make that they won't lose money if it's unsuccessful. Nintendo almost NEVER invests the kind of money into an untested idea that the do into characters like Mario. A first party game like Uncharted Halo would never happen on a Nintendo system, because Nintendo doesn't believe in launching new IPs. The days of IP creation for Nintendo pretty much ended in the 80's, and since Nintendo has no faith in launching new AAA IPs on the Wii, neither do third parties.

I do agree they should have some more first party titles. But at the same time, why bother? They have a gold mine of 1st party franchises to go to. Star Fox, DK, Kirby, Pokemon, Pikmin. Then you take into account franchises like Earthbound and Kid Icarus that can be revived. The problem is they're just focusing on Mario, Zelda, and Metroid but I think that's a separate issue.

I blame 3rd party developers for the lack of good third party games. It's not as if they've tried to make a hit that's worth it. Can you think of any good 3rd party Wii game that they tried to build up and had a strong marketing campaign to go with it? I can't. Third part developers don't try and you can't blame Nintendo for not making new IPs for that.

 

[StrainedEyes]

I think Nintendo should be doing a little more crowd control when it comes to the amount of horrible shovel-ware released for the Wii. Sony and Microsoft are always conscious of their portfolio of games and try not to release too many bad games into their library each month/year. Nintendo on the otherhand seems to not give a **** about what random crap is released and put on store shelves to represent their console.