The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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 'The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess'.
[URL]http://cube.ign.com/articles/573/573633p1.html[/URL]
That's an IGN article detailing what they'd like to see in the Revolution incarnation of Zelda. Maybe it's just me, but their ideas are absolute rubbish. Read this little snippet:
"Moreover, the single-player quest is continually extended as Nintendo continues to build Hyrule. Each month, a new dungeon/temple is added to Nintendo's server. Only players who have amassed enough rupees to buy the dungeon, however, will be able to download it, at which point it is automatically integrated into the land and fully playable.
Many of these new, downloadable dungeons/temples are designed around the online component and the ability to play with other gamers. When Link enters the new dungeons/temples, Revolution contacts Nintendo's server, at which point players can choose to team up with up to three of their friends. If they have none, three other gamers are chosen at random."
So IGN want Zeldeverquest, then. How on earth can you maintain a constant, engrossing storyline in an MMORPG? You can't, I'm afraid, and Zelda becoming an MMORPG sounds absolutely terrible. For starters, everyone would play the same character, and would all be exactly the same. The addition of "new dungeons" would just cheapen the whole experience and you would get bored so quickly playing through repetetive puzzles and environments. The Zelda games have all been carefully structured quests, with the whole point of dungeons being that you acquire a new item which furthers you in the game world. So, if IGN get their way, every month there'll be a new weapon for you to use.
It just makes me groan when people imagine the future of gaming to be nothing but endless MMORPGS. "Imagine Mario as an MMORPG, where you go online and download new worlds every month, wouldn't that be great?!" No, no no no no no is the answer. THe games that are the most enjoyable are those which are structured yet freeform - games where there is an objective. MMORPGS have no objectives save "level up".
Equally disturbing is their idea for Pikmin to become a Total War style RTS, with thousands upon thousands of pikmin at your control. Now maybe it's just me, but isn't Pikmin a puzzle game at heart? INcreasing the number of Pikmin to 1,000 would just be needlessly upping the confusion of such a simple and enjoyable game. Their other ideas - setting the game somewhere other than gardens - city streets, houses etc, does seem like a step forward, as does the idea of o gravity environments, but increasing the number of Pikmin on screen at once would not make it better.
Once again, we see people's short sighted "bigger always = better" fantasy clouding their real judgement. A Mario Kart race with 100 other people would not be "fun", it would be boring and overcrowded, as would a Hyrule filled with dribbling retards stealing your Rupees.
That's an IGN article detailing what they'd like to see in the Revolution incarnation of Zelda. Maybe it's just me, but their ideas are absolute rubbish. Read this little snippet:
"Moreover, the single-player quest is continually extended as Nintendo continues to build Hyrule. Each month, a new dungeon/temple is added to Nintendo's server. Only players who have amassed enough rupees to buy the dungeon, however, will be able to download it, at which point it is automatically integrated into the land and fully playable.
Many of these new, downloadable dungeons/temples are designed around the online component and the ability to play with other gamers. When Link enters the new dungeons/temples, Revolution contacts Nintendo's server, at which point players can choose to team up with up to three of their friends. If they have none, three other gamers are chosen at random."
So IGN want Zeldeverquest, then. How on earth can you maintain a constant, engrossing storyline in an MMORPG? You can't, I'm afraid, and Zelda becoming an MMORPG sounds absolutely terrible. For starters, everyone would play the same character, and would all be exactly the same. The addition of "new dungeons" would just cheapen the whole experience and you would get bored so quickly playing through repetetive puzzles and environments. The Zelda games have all been carefully structured quests, with the whole point of dungeons being that you acquire a new item which furthers you in the game world. So, if IGN get their way, every month there'll be a new weapon for you to use.
It just makes me groan when people imagine the future of gaming to be nothing but endless MMORPGS. "Imagine Mario as an MMORPG, where you go online and download new worlds every month, wouldn't that be great?!" No, no no no no no is the answer. THe games that are the most enjoyable are those which are structured yet freeform - games where there is an objective. MMORPGS have no objectives save "level up".
Equally disturbing is their idea for Pikmin to become a Total War style RTS, with thousands upon thousands of pikmin at your control. Now maybe it's just me, but isn't Pikmin a puzzle game at heart? INcreasing the number of Pikmin to 1,000 would just be needlessly upping the confusion of such a simple and enjoyable game. Their other ideas - setting the game somewhere other than gardens - city streets, houses etc, does seem like a step forward, as does the idea of o gravity environments, but increasing the number of Pikmin on screen at once would not make it better.
Once again, we see people's short sighted "bigger always = better" fantasy clouding their real judgement. A Mario Kart race with 100 other people would not be "fun", it would be boring and overcrowded, as would a Hyrule filled with dribbling retards stealing your Rupees.
Page:
MMORPGs don't work for developers unless you have charges like those of PSO.
Otherwise, what's the point in developing new content for a game when they could be developing and selling other games to make more money.
Zelda wouldn't work as a MMORPG anyway - for reasons already mentioned.
Otherwise, what's the point in developing new content for a game when they could be developing and selling other games to make more money.
Zelda wouldn't work as a MMORPG anyway - for reasons already mentioned.
What the hell?
Purchasing dungeons would be just ridicoulous.
Zelda is a single player game, not some overly featured MMORPG.
If this was to come true (which I very much doubt that it will), the whole "collecting rupees" thing would be just bull, Nintendo would request some money for rupees in exchange, it'd become one of those crap economic game worlds.
Purchasing dungeons would be just ridicoulous.
Zelda is a single player game, not some overly featured MMORPG.
If this was to come true (which I very much doubt that it will), the whole "collecting rupees" thing would be just bull, Nintendo would request some money for rupees in exchange, it'd become one of those crap economic game worlds.
Aye the storyline is a decent idea, although I don't know about actually killing Zelda. Maybe kidnapping her...
Seriously though, downloadable conent for adventure games is stupid and rubbish.
Seriously though, downloadable conent for adventure games is stupid and rubbish.
I thought you, Dringo of all people, would realise what a terrible idea it is.
Ah well ... 'tis only IGN. Ninty would never do anything like that.
Ah well ... 'tis only IGN. Ninty would never do anything like that.
The "vengeful" storyline sounds good as does the downloadable items...
But the fact is IGN know nothing about the Revolution and more to the point updated dungeons? Sure they don't have to be main parts of the quest but Nintendo would spend so much man-power with "updated" dungeons that there would be no time for anything bloody new!
But the fact is IGN know nothing about the Revolution and more to the point updated dungeons? Sure they don't have to be main parts of the quest but Nintendo would spend so much man-power with "updated" dungeons that there would be no time for anything bloody new!
"Revolution contacts Nintendo's server, at which point players can choose to team up with up to three of their friends. If they have none, three other gamers are chosen at random."
Ahaha.
"You need some friends to play this dungeon. Please go away."
Ahaha.
"You need some friends to play this dungeon. Please go away."
Ugh, rubbish.
The whole point of Zelda is to eventually finish the game, after beating minor evil and collecting everything there is to - with this, you can never actually finish the game. Ganondorf wins.
nonononono
The whole point of Zelda is to eventually finish the game, after beating minor evil and collecting everything there is to - with this, you can never actually finish the game. Ganondorf wins.
nonononono
Although, if used right, it could be OK.
If it's optional, you know, by completing certain puzzles, you can find new dungeons, which are not necessary to completing the game, but unlock new weapons/stories of old/transport link into another link's shoes and you get to play an old Zelda game.
This can be the "Hero of Heroes" and he saves all the worlds. Somehow.
If it's optional, you know, by completing certain puzzles, you can find new dungeons, which are not necessary to completing the game, but unlock new weapons/stories of old/transport link into another link's shoes and you get to play an old Zelda game.
This can be the "Hero of Heroes" and he saves all the worlds. Somehow.
Here's one reason why that idea is beyond terrible.
You'd never kill Ganon/dorf / save Zelda.
There'd be no end = no fun
You'd never kill Ganon/dorf / save Zelda.
There'd be no end = no fun
Well better graphics and a more engrossing storyline are no-brainers. I just think that it's a completely ridiculous article, based on a false understanding of what makes a good game, for a console about which we know nothing.
I would be shocked if Nintendo gave Link a voice in any of the Zelda's - whatever voice they choose it will be wrong. Link has always been about not saying anything - you identify with him better that way. It works with Samus. A voice just detracts from your involvement with the character. OOT would have been much less effective if Link had said anything, and that will always be true.
I would be shocked if Nintendo gave Link a voice in any of the Zelda's - whatever voice they choose it will be wrong. Link has always been about not saying anything - you identify with him better that way. It works with Samus. A voice just detracts from your involvement with the character. OOT would have been much less effective if Link had said anything, and that will always be true.
Page: