The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
If the fighting system was as good as wind wakers then i would agree 100% with what Rickoss is saying.
Well yeah.
But if it had a fighting system as good as Windwaker, it would've been a near classic.
And that Shopkeeper IS funny! :-D
But if it had a fighting system as good as Windwaker, it would've been a near classic.
And that Shopkeeper IS funny! :-D
And starfox was bowls, no matter how pretty it was.
The shopkeeper made you laugh?
He made me want to hurt people. Hurt them HARD.
He made me want to hurt people. Hurt them HARD.
Starfox had the nicest graphics I've seen on the Gamecube yet.
Although the environments all hinted at a cliché, they were so nicely laid out that you wouldn't notice unless you actually stopped to think about it.
The graphics easily beat Halo, even Halo's nice grass and water wasn't as lush as what Rare treated us to in Starfox.
What's more, so much was moving and the places were almost brought to life.
The characters (mostly Dinosaurs) were generally a lifeless let down compared to Conker's vibrant cast (although the camp shopkeeper made me laugh! :-D) but otherwise it seemed to be teeming with life.
The gameplay was fine until you go into a fight.
At first it was just annoying, but by the end it became so tedious that it eclipsed everything you should love about the game.
Tap A until the annoying sodd stop blocking.
Repeat. Repeat. Repeat.
If it had had a fight system as good as Orcarina, let alone Wind Waker, then it might possibly have been a classic.
Other than that it was fairly simple, the characters were cheesy and you were directed on what to do, but that's always been the case of Zelda games and you wouldn't have minded all that on it's own.
It's just the fight system.
Awful.
So when you replay it, if you want to keep enjoying the game, STAY OUT OF TROUBLE, because the first encounter with ANY enemy will remind you exactly why you put it away in the first place.
Damn... I should've made this a review! :-D
Although the environments all hinted at a cliché, they were so nicely laid out that you wouldn't notice unless you actually stopped to think about it.
The graphics easily beat Halo, even Halo's nice grass and water wasn't as lush as what Rare treated us to in Starfox.
What's more, so much was moving and the places were almost brought to life.
The characters (mostly Dinosaurs) were generally a lifeless let down compared to Conker's vibrant cast (although the camp shopkeeper made me laugh! :-D) but otherwise it seemed to be teeming with life.
The gameplay was fine until you go into a fight.
At first it was just annoying, but by the end it became so tedious that it eclipsed everything you should love about the game.
Tap A until the annoying sodd stop blocking.
Repeat. Repeat. Repeat.
If it had had a fight system as good as Orcarina, let alone Wind Waker, then it might possibly have been a classic.
Other than that it was fairly simple, the characters were cheesy and you were directed on what to do, but that's always been the case of Zelda games and you wouldn't have minded all that on it's own.
It's just the fight system.
Awful.
So when you replay it, if you want to keep enjoying the game, STAY OUT OF TROUBLE, because the first encounter with ANY enemy will remind you exactly why you put it away in the first place.
Damn... I should've made this a review! :-D
Rickoss wrote:
> N64 4 EVA wrote:
> Do you even know what linear means?
Yes I do actually, do you?
All i'm saying is that Starfox is no more linear than any other game! ;)
> N64 4 EVA wrote:
> Do you even know what linear means?
Yes I do actually, do you?
All i'm saying is that Starfox is no more linear than any other game! ;)
N64 4 EVA wrote:
> Starfox has beautiful graphics, superb music and it plays well.
> People say Starfox is linear, yes it is, along with every other
> adventure/racer/action game out there including WW.
Do you even know what linear means? Wind Waker is in no way linear, the ability to travel through a huge world, taking part in numerous mini-games, going in search of certain items, or simply sailing to collect rupees, extra health etc. is not linear. It's probably one of the most free-roaming games ever created, because there's such a vast land to explore. StarFox, though, is a bit rubbish. Sure, if you enjoy stupidly shallow gameplay and puzzles for toddlers, then you may find it good. But I doubt that very much.
Even though I know that Wind Waker is a lot better, what I'm trying to say is, Nintendo HAVE lost something that stops me from playing Zelda: WW over and over, like I have with all previous Zelda titles. Perhaps the 'Nintendo Incentive' (even though I've just made that up) or something else.
> Starfox has beautiful graphics, superb music and it plays well.
> People say Starfox is linear, yes it is, along with every other
> adventure/racer/action game out there including WW.
Do you even know what linear means? Wind Waker is in no way linear, the ability to travel through a huge world, taking part in numerous mini-games, going in search of certain items, or simply sailing to collect rupees, extra health etc. is not linear. It's probably one of the most free-roaming games ever created, because there's such a vast land to explore. StarFox, though, is a bit rubbish. Sure, if you enjoy stupidly shallow gameplay and puzzles for toddlers, then you may find it good. But I doubt that very much.
Even though I know that Wind Waker is a lot better, what I'm trying to say is, Nintendo HAVE lost something that stops me from playing Zelda: WW over and over, like I have with all previous Zelda titles. Perhaps the 'Nintendo Incentive' (even though I've just made that up) or something else.
Maybe it's just the kind of games I enjoy playing through again, then. Soul Calibur 2, TimeSplitters 2, SSBM... when I was finished with them, that was it. They're very addictive games at the time (bar maybe Soul Calibur 2 that I didn't quite enjoy as much as I'd have hoped), but once I'm done with them, I go back to the classics, to relive some of the superb moments that make them some of the best titles on their system.
For some reason, looking back on Zelda, it seemed a bit crap. When playing it I knew it was good, and with the demo I was surprised as to how great it really was, but looking back StarFox seems to appeal more. It's just the way it is.
For some reason, looking back on Zelda, it seemed a bit crap. When playing it I knew it was good, and with the demo I was surprised as to how great it really was, but looking back StarFox seems to appeal more. It's just the way it is.
No I do agree with some of your comments but I still think that Starfox is a great game and deserves some credit so i'm sticking up for it right here!
Yes WW is an amazing game, but ANY game compared with WW is gonna be 'worse' isn't it? Thats the point about Nintendo games, they are superior, thats why we play them.
Starfox has beautiful graphics, superb music and it plays well. People say Starfox is linear, yes it is, along with every other adventure/racer/action game out there including WW. You have to follow a path in every adventure game or you dont succeed! You cant unlock areas, you cant open doors, you cant escape prison cells!!
If we only had games that played like Zelda it would get very boring! :)
Yes WW is an amazing game, but ANY game compared with WW is gonna be 'worse' isn't it? Thats the point about Nintendo games, they are superior, thats why we play them.
Starfox has beautiful graphics, superb music and it plays well. People say Starfox is linear, yes it is, along with every other adventure/racer/action game out there including WW. You have to follow a path in every adventure game or you dont succeed! You cant unlock areas, you cant open doors, you cant escape prison cells!!
If we only had games that played like Zelda it would get very boring! :)
*below the second half of that list.
Page: