The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Naturally I don't mean THE WORST but if you made a list of all the Gamecube titles in order of greatness I think it is easy to agree Adventures goes below that list.
And Wind Waker to me had the exact same appeal to play again as Ocarina of Time... as in I would if I didn't have a million other games to play.
In fact for me Wind Waker had more incentive because all the hylurian was in English second time round and the little Nintendo Gallery game...
But neither Starfox or Zelda compel me to play again... because they are adventure games.
Lets be honest here it is games like Timesplitters 2, Soul Calibur 2 and Smash Brother that you return to again and again because they are multiplayer classics that are just brilliant to pick up and play.
And Wind Waker to me had the exact same appeal to play again as Ocarina of Time... as in I would if I didn't have a million other games to play.
In fact for me Wind Waker had more incentive because all the hylurian was in English second time round and the little Nintendo Gallery game...
But neither Starfox or Zelda compel me to play again... because they are adventure games.
Lets be honest here it is games like Timesplitters 2, Soul Calibur 2 and Smash Brother that you return to again and again because they are multiplayer classics that are just brilliant to pick up and play.
Dringo wrote:
> Wind Waker is the best game on the Gamecube and Starfox is one of the
> worst... nothing and i mean nothing will change that.
According to you yes. But you are entitled to your opinion. I think your opinion is wrong.....and nothing and I mean nothing will change that!!
> Wind Waker is the best game on the Gamecube and Starfox is one of the
> worst... nothing and i mean nothing will change that.
According to you yes. But you are entitled to your opinion. I think your opinion is wrong.....and nothing and I mean nothing will change that!!
Okay, I seem to be phrasing this wrong. It's not that StarFox is better to play through as such, or in fact that it's in any way as good as Zelda, although it does appeal more.
I don't know why, but Zelda: WW just doesn't give you any reason to play through again, where as other Zelda titles did.
I don't know why, but Zelda: WW just doesn't give you any reason to play through again, where as other Zelda titles did.
Well i can say... very easily in fact... that I strongly disagree.
As games, Wind Waker is in a completely different league to StarFox, but what I'm trying to say is that I feel a whole lot more incentive replaying StarFox than Wind Waker.
It may be the most advanced in the series, but why don't I feel the need to re-live the adventure? Liek I've already said, I've completed ALttP over 4 times, and Ocarina of Time at least 3, yet with Wind Waker gives me no reason to play through again. Even with the Nintendo Gallery to complete (one of my all-time favourite mini-games) I'd prefer to play through StarFox.
It's not about length, neither is it about how the game plays, simply as an adventure, you could even say story, StarFox feels... 'better'.
It may be the most advanced in the series, but why don't I feel the need to re-live the adventure? Liek I've already said, I've completed ALttP over 4 times, and Ocarina of Time at least 3, yet with Wind Waker gives me no reason to play through again. Even with the Nintendo Gallery to complete (one of my all-time favourite mini-games) I'd prefer to play through StarFox.
It's not about length, neither is it about how the game plays, simply as an adventure, you could even say story, StarFox feels... 'better'.
Starfox did not feel right at all. It felt like a load of small linear gameplay sections thrown together with more glitches than windows 2007.
I enjoyed it to a degree but it does not, not even in one instance, match Wind Waker at all.
The fact I wouldn't dream of playing Starfox again but if i had the time I would play Wind waker again goes to show it is all a matter of opinion but that still doesn't make Wind Waker a bad title.
In fact the Colectors edition disc went to prove further my suspicion that WW is the most advanced Zelda game in the series...
It is fantastic and for me it had a brilliant epic feel.
Wind Waker is the best game on the Gamecube and Starfox is one of the worst... nothing and i mean nothing will change that.
I enjoyed it to a degree but it does not, not even in one instance, match Wind Waker at all.
The fact I wouldn't dream of playing Starfox again but if i had the time I would play Wind waker again goes to show it is all a matter of opinion but that still doesn't make Wind Waker a bad title.
In fact the Colectors edition disc went to prove further my suspicion that WW is the most advanced Zelda game in the series...
It is fantastic and for me it had a brilliant epic feel.
Wind Waker is the best game on the Gamecube and Starfox is one of the worst... nothing and i mean nothing will change that.
StarFox Adventures was by no means as good as one of the greatest `Zelda´ games, but I, too, still managed to enjoy it, for the adventure.
Not only were the graphics absolutely superb, but within the game itself, there were a lot of good ideas that could be "taken-further" in in-space/RPG-adventures of the future (or, in other words, "stolen").
The trouble is, each was too short and too little to have any real significance. When you got the chance to go in the Arwing, you instantly wanted more; since it was over within only 2-minutes. Similarly, that giant-dinosaur-boss-thing was a good addittion. But why did we only have to do it once? Why couldn't they have added a similar style of thing later on in the game, also?
It was too easy. It was pretty simple. And it wasn't as exciting (story-wise) as `Ocarina of Time´ or `The Wind Waker´. But it does have "potential", if only the "right-minds" were to produce a sequel (ie. not Rare - someone with better RPG-experience...).
...But they HAVE to kill-off Andross - for good - sooner-or-later...! He can't just keep on coming-back like this - it's annoying to have to fight the same-old boss, again-and-again! I HOPE he's not in "StarFox2"... :P
Shop-around, and you can get it real-cheap in the sales, right now. It's definitley worth whatever you can find it for, if you haven't already played it.
Not only were the graphics absolutely superb, but within the game itself, there were a lot of good ideas that could be "taken-further" in in-space/RPG-adventures of the future (or, in other words, "stolen").
The trouble is, each was too short and too little to have any real significance. When you got the chance to go in the Arwing, you instantly wanted more; since it was over within only 2-minutes. Similarly, that giant-dinosaur-boss-thing was a good addittion. But why did we only have to do it once? Why couldn't they have added a similar style of thing later on in the game, also?
It was too easy. It was pretty simple. And it wasn't as exciting (story-wise) as `Ocarina of Time´ or `The Wind Waker´. But it does have "potential", if only the "right-minds" were to produce a sequel (ie. not Rare - someone with better RPG-experience...).
...But they HAVE to kill-off Andross - for good - sooner-or-later...! He can't just keep on coming-back like this - it's annoying to have to fight the same-old boss, again-and-again! I HOPE he's not in "StarFox2"... :P
Shop-around, and you can get it real-cheap in the sales, right now. It's definitley worth whatever you can find it for, if you haven't already played it.
Why does everyone run down Starfox so badly? It wasn't crap at all!
I'm not one for gloating about graphics because that is not what a 'game' is all about but it has some of the most beautiful graphics and scenery in any game! You HAVE to admit it!
There are hundreds of memorable moments in Starfox. The main area on Dinosaur Planet is one of them! And the soundtrack is up there with some of the best Rare have ever produced! You can hardly say that of WW! Dont get me wrong I love Zelda too but actually prefer Starfox. Sorry!
I'm not one for gloating about graphics because that is not what a 'game' is all about but it has some of the most beautiful graphics and scenery in any game! You HAVE to admit it!
There are hundreds of memorable moments in Starfox. The main area on Dinosaur Planet is one of them! And the soundtrack is up there with some of the best Rare have ever produced! You can hardly say that of WW! Dont get me wrong I love Zelda too but actually prefer Starfox. Sorry!
Cyclone wrote:
> And yet that is totally poor as well. And the grass? WTF is with the
> grass?!!!!!!!! There are odd shoots popping up here and there, and a
> simply texture map of grass covering the area. Why is that amazing?!
I know. It seems every Xbox fan has an obsession with Halo's grass.
"Yeah, nice graphics, though Splinter Cell beats it really"
"But the GRASS! THE GRASS! And the ICE!" *ejaculates*
Urgh. Just a typical conversation really.
> And yet that is totally poor as well. And the grass? WTF is with the
> grass?!!!!!!!! There are odd shoots popping up here and there, and a
> simply texture map of grass covering the area. Why is that amazing?!
I know. It seems every Xbox fan has an obsession with Halo's grass.
"Yeah, nice graphics, though Splinter Cell beats it really"
"But the GRASS! THE GRASS! And the ICE!" *ejaculates*
Urgh. Just a typical conversation really.
The boating killed it for me
Page: