The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
This thread has been linked to the game 'Lylat Wars'.
I know, I know, it's rubbish and all, but I want to play it, however shallow it may be. Going through the game just felt right, perhaps not as a game, but more like a collection of memorable environments (and Walled City). Playing through each section is 'fun'.
Yet Zelda: Wind Waker, sits on my games shelf, untouched and somewhat unloved. I feel no incentive to play Zelda, yet StarFox compels me to plough through it. This is Zelda's problem. It's a superb game, playing the demo on Zelda: Collector's Edition reminded me how brilliant the game is, yet it still lies there, having not been played for months. I just realised that Zelda getting criticism is due to this lack of incentive.
StarFox is epic. The environments are memorable, and however dull they may be, stick in your mind. Zelda's... don't. The only memorable moment I can think of in Zelda is the frozen Hyrule, imagining playing through an entire game based on that same kind of area makes me drool with anticipation, just thinking that Link's next adventure could be based in Hyrule makes me want it ten times more than I previously would have.
It's strange, until I played through that demo of Zelda on the Collector's Edition, I hated it. Yes, I knew it was good game, but didn't know how good. Looking back, it seems mediocre, boring and no different to other games on the market. StarFox appeals though. Playing through games like XIII and Metal Arms, both great games themselves, I couldn't help but want to give StarFox a quick go, if not simply to see some of the stunning areas.
It's not as if graphical flair is the problem, Zelda remains to be the best looking title out today (in my opinion), and while StarFox has a stupid amount of aesthetic beauty, bettering Halo and other high-calibre XBox titles, Zelda is better looking.
Furthermore, Wind Waker plays better than most other Zelda games. It almost equals Majora's Mask, and is better than Ocarina of Time, yet looking back through my rose-tinted memory; almost every Zelda game seems better.
In some way, this is in reply to Dringo's topic, this is what I believe Nintendo have lost. It's imagination, it's flair and it's ability to create memorable games. Retro did it with Metroid Prime, to brilliant effect, but Nintendo can't. Even with the new franchises (or possible franchises) created, there isn't the same magic seen in earlier titles, despite the fresh feel, innovative gameplay and “I’m playing a classic” feel they convey. Even things like bosses seem to have lost their... brilliance.
In games I always look forward to bosses because they look amazing, they're tough to beat and you know you'll remember them.
It just seems like Nintendo can't find the same shock effect that makes you want to play through games again; I must have completed A Link to the Past four or five times now because it's such an epic title, and want to buy it for GBA (or more specifically, GB Player) so I can play through it again. That was what Nintendo was about.
So, what have Nintendo lost? The same epic feel, the memorable moments. I might even go as far to say... the "Nintendo Difference".
Yet Zelda: Wind Waker, sits on my games shelf, untouched and somewhat unloved. I feel no incentive to play Zelda, yet StarFox compels me to plough through it. This is Zelda's problem. It's a superb game, playing the demo on Zelda: Collector's Edition reminded me how brilliant the game is, yet it still lies there, having not been played for months. I just realised that Zelda getting criticism is due to this lack of incentive.
StarFox is epic. The environments are memorable, and however dull they may be, stick in your mind. Zelda's... don't. The only memorable moment I can think of in Zelda is the frozen Hyrule, imagining playing through an entire game based on that same kind of area makes me drool with anticipation, just thinking that Link's next adventure could be based in Hyrule makes me want it ten times more than I previously would have.
It's strange, until I played through that demo of Zelda on the Collector's Edition, I hated it. Yes, I knew it was good game, but didn't know how good. Looking back, it seems mediocre, boring and no different to other games on the market. StarFox appeals though. Playing through games like XIII and Metal Arms, both great games themselves, I couldn't help but want to give StarFox a quick go, if not simply to see some of the stunning areas.
It's not as if graphical flair is the problem, Zelda remains to be the best looking title out today (in my opinion), and while StarFox has a stupid amount of aesthetic beauty, bettering Halo and other high-calibre XBox titles, Zelda is better looking.
Furthermore, Wind Waker plays better than most other Zelda games. It almost equals Majora's Mask, and is better than Ocarina of Time, yet looking back through my rose-tinted memory; almost every Zelda game seems better.
In some way, this is in reply to Dringo's topic, this is what I believe Nintendo have lost. It's imagination, it's flair and it's ability to create memorable games. Retro did it with Metroid Prime, to brilliant effect, but Nintendo can't. Even with the new franchises (or possible franchises) created, there isn't the same magic seen in earlier titles, despite the fresh feel, innovative gameplay and “I’m playing a classic” feel they convey. Even things like bosses seem to have lost their... brilliance.
In games I always look forward to bosses because they look amazing, they're tough to beat and you know you'll remember them.
It just seems like Nintendo can't find the same shock effect that makes you want to play through games again; I must have completed A Link to the Past four or five times now because it's such an epic title, and want to buy it for GBA (or more specifically, GB Player) so I can play through it again. That was what Nintendo was about.
So, what have Nintendo lost? The same epic feel, the memorable moments. I might even go as far to say... the "Nintendo Difference".
Page:
I know, I know, it's rubbish and all, but I want to play it, however shallow it may be. Going through the game just felt right, perhaps not as a game, but more like a collection of memorable environments (and Walled City). Playing through each section is 'fun'.
Yet Zelda: Wind Waker, sits on my games shelf, untouched and somewhat unloved. I feel no incentive to play Zelda, yet StarFox compels me to plough through it. This is Zelda's problem. It's a superb game, playing the demo on Zelda: Collector's Edition reminded me how brilliant the game is, yet it still lies there, having not been played for months. I just realised that Zelda getting criticism is due to this lack of incentive.
StarFox is epic. The environments are memorable, and however dull they may be, stick in your mind. Zelda's... don't. The only memorable moment I can think of in Zelda is the frozen Hyrule, imagining playing through an entire game based on that same kind of area makes me drool with anticipation, just thinking that Link's next adventure could be based in Hyrule makes me want it ten times more than I previously would have.
It's strange, until I played through that demo of Zelda on the Collector's Edition, I hated it. Yes, I knew it was good game, but didn't know how good. Looking back, it seems mediocre, boring and no different to other games on the market. StarFox appeals though. Playing through games like XIII and Metal Arms, both great games themselves, I couldn't help but want to give StarFox a quick go, if not simply to see some of the stunning areas.
It's not as if graphical flair is the problem, Zelda remains to be the best looking title out today (in my opinion), and while StarFox has a stupid amount of aesthetic beauty, bettering Halo and other high-calibre XBox titles, Zelda is better looking.
Furthermore, Wind Waker plays better than most other Zelda games. It almost equals Majora's Mask, and is better than Ocarina of Time, yet looking back through my rose-tinted memory; almost every Zelda game seems better.
In some way, this is in reply to Dringo's topic, this is what I believe Nintendo have lost. It's imagination, it's flair and it's ability to create memorable games. Retro did it with Metroid Prime, to brilliant effect, but Nintendo can't. Even with the new franchises (or possible franchises) created, there isn't the same magic seen in earlier titles, despite the fresh feel, innovative gameplay and “I’m playing a classic” feel they convey. Even things like bosses seem to have lost their... brilliance.
In games I always look forward to bosses because they look amazing, they're tough to beat and you know you'll remember them.
It just seems like Nintendo can't find the same shock effect that makes you want to play through games again; I must have completed A Link to the Past four or five times now because it's such an epic title, and want to buy it for GBA (or more specifically, GB Player) so I can play through it again. That was what Nintendo was about.
So, what have Nintendo lost? The same epic feel, the memorable moments. I might even go as far to say... the "Nintendo Difference".
Yet Zelda: Wind Waker, sits on my games shelf, untouched and somewhat unloved. I feel no incentive to play Zelda, yet StarFox compels me to plough through it. This is Zelda's problem. It's a superb game, playing the demo on Zelda: Collector's Edition reminded me how brilliant the game is, yet it still lies there, having not been played for months. I just realised that Zelda getting criticism is due to this lack of incentive.
StarFox is epic. The environments are memorable, and however dull they may be, stick in your mind. Zelda's... don't. The only memorable moment I can think of in Zelda is the frozen Hyrule, imagining playing through an entire game based on that same kind of area makes me drool with anticipation, just thinking that Link's next adventure could be based in Hyrule makes me want it ten times more than I previously would have.
It's strange, until I played through that demo of Zelda on the Collector's Edition, I hated it. Yes, I knew it was good game, but didn't know how good. Looking back, it seems mediocre, boring and no different to other games on the market. StarFox appeals though. Playing through games like XIII and Metal Arms, both great games themselves, I couldn't help but want to give StarFox a quick go, if not simply to see some of the stunning areas.
It's not as if graphical flair is the problem, Zelda remains to be the best looking title out today (in my opinion), and while StarFox has a stupid amount of aesthetic beauty, bettering Halo and other high-calibre XBox titles, Zelda is better looking.
Furthermore, Wind Waker plays better than most other Zelda games. It almost equals Majora's Mask, and is better than Ocarina of Time, yet looking back through my rose-tinted memory; almost every Zelda game seems better.
In some way, this is in reply to Dringo's topic, this is what I believe Nintendo have lost. It's imagination, it's flair and it's ability to create memorable games. Retro did it with Metroid Prime, to brilliant effect, but Nintendo can't. Even with the new franchises (or possible franchises) created, there isn't the same magic seen in earlier titles, despite the fresh feel, innovative gameplay and “I’m playing a classic” feel they convey. Even things like bosses seem to have lost their... brilliance.
In games I always look forward to bosses because they look amazing, they're tough to beat and you know you'll remember them.
It just seems like Nintendo can't find the same shock effect that makes you want to play through games again; I must have completed A Link to the Past four or five times now because it's such an epic title, and want to buy it for GBA (or more specifically, GB Player) so I can play through it again. That was what Nintendo was about.
So, what have Nintendo lost? The same epic feel, the memorable moments. I might even go as far to say... the "Nintendo Difference".
I agree on the basis that the enthrallment of previous Nintendo titles has disintegrated over time. Wether it be because of the expansion of the likes of Sony and Xbox or just because the series has outgrown itself and fans.
Having played the Wind Waker demo various times, I have come to a conclusion. However good the graphical improvements the gameplay has to immerse players like they always used to. And with a prestigious gaming history like Zelda, such feats will not be easy. It is rather risky resurrecting older greats along with the newer titles. Its easy for players to point out the lack of good gameplay.
I would much rather play a Link To The Past than the Wind Waker; going on the demo experience anyway. It may seem slightly sad and stupid that I would go for such an old game so inferior graphically to that of todays title. And very very dissapointed that it wasan't on the bonus disc. It is possibly the most enthralling game ever and a game I could play all the time.
Come on Nintendo. Back to basics, Link To The Past 2: War of Hyrule.........hehe oh well :¬D
Having played the Wind Waker demo various times, I have come to a conclusion. However good the graphical improvements the gameplay has to immerse players like they always used to. And with a prestigious gaming history like Zelda, such feats will not be easy. It is rather risky resurrecting older greats along with the newer titles. Its easy for players to point out the lack of good gameplay.
I would much rather play a Link To The Past than the Wind Waker; going on the demo experience anyway. It may seem slightly sad and stupid that I would go for such an old game so inferior graphically to that of todays title. And very very dissapointed that it wasan't on the bonus disc. It is possibly the most enthralling game ever and a game I could play all the time.
Come on Nintendo. Back to basics, Link To The Past 2: War of Hyrule.........hehe oh well :¬D
There always seems to be two games in the Zelda sub-series; the two NES games (I think), Majora's Mask and Ocarina of Time, Oracle of Ages and Seasons, Wand of Gamelon and Zelda's Adventure and soon the Wind Waker saga. There's no reason Nintendo won't give A Link to the Past a sequel (unless Link's Awakening was it's successor). Metroid seems to be getting new GBA games, and Nintendo are running short of ports, so here's to hoping!
This is how I see all Zelda games, and to be honest, a game that doesn't make you want to play it is pretty much crap. Metroid is the same - it just seems like a 'job' to play through it, like you're forcing yourself to.
I even decided to go through the game for a second time a few weeks back, but got 3/4's of the way through it when i bought Final Fantasy tactics, and i've been hooked on that since. May go back and finish the rest off once the game season slows down during January til mid febuary (for me anyway).
Rickoss wrote:
Wand of Gamelon and Zelda's Adventure
Wasn't there a third for the Phillips CDi or whatever system it was?
and soon the
> Wind Waker saga. There's no reason Nintendo won't give A Link to the
> Past a sequel (unless Link's Awakening was it's successor).
Link's Awakening continues directly after A Link to the Past, or as is my uderstanding anyway.
Wand of Gamelon and Zelda's Adventure
Wasn't there a third for the Phillips CDi or whatever system it was?
and soon the
> Wind Waker saga. There's no reason Nintendo won't give A Link to the
> Past a sequel (unless Link's Awakening was it's successor).
Link's Awakening continues directly after A Link to the Past, or as is my uderstanding anyway.
Edgy wrote:
> Rickoss wrote:
> and soon the Wind Waker saga. There's no reason Nintendo won't give A > Link to the Past a sequel (unless Link's Awakening was it's successor).
>
> Link's Awakening continues directly after A Link to the Past, or as
> is my uderstanding anyway.
Exactly correct, Link to the past was the 3rd game, Link's Awakening was the 4th. Then came Ocarina of Time.
> Rickoss wrote:
> and soon the Wind Waker saga. There's no reason Nintendo won't give A > Link to the Past a sequel (unless Link's Awakening was it's successor).
>
> Link's Awakening continues directly after A Link to the Past, or as
> is my uderstanding anyway.
Exactly correct, Link to the past was the 3rd game, Link's Awakening was the 4th. Then came Ocarina of Time.
I'm not sure about the CDi games - I've only seen 2 myself, so I've either never seen the third or simply forgotten about them. I'm sure someone on the forums has that system, along with the Zelda games.
Memorandum! wrote:
> Metroid is the same - it just seems like a 'job' to play through it, like you're forcing yourself to.
Buh.
> Metroid is the same - it just seems like a 'job' to play through it, like you're forcing yourself to.
Buh.
Hang on, you say Starfox is epic. Fine. But it is also totally rubbish.
Wind Waker, in my opinion, is about as epic as one game can be, apart from the actual game length. And it is also one of the best games you will have played last year. People seem to take it for granted that these games are so good and absorbing that one assumes it to be there, and then complain about other aspects, which might be missing, but WW was never going to beat OOT was it? There was no 3D shock etc.
Wind Waker, in my opinion, is about as epic as one game can be, apart from the actual game length. And it is also one of the best games you will have played last year. People seem to take it for granted that these games are so good and absorbing that one assumes it to be there, and then complain about other aspects, which might be missing, but WW was never going to beat OOT was it? There was no 3D shock etc.
Page: