The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Yus.
See.
PEOPLE AGREE!
*nods and points vigourously*
Yes, precious.
See.
PEOPLE AGREE!
*nods and points vigourously*
Yes, precious.
The character models in Halo are complete crap. Making the game look rather poor. Almost as poor as it plays.
Dringo wrote:
> Look if someone had said to me during the N64 era "Play Turok or Ocarina of Time"
> after finishing both I would opt for Turok... despite Ocarina of Time
> being the obvious better title.
Well I, myself, would choose Ocarina of Time. I'm trying to say that Wind Waker doesn't push you play through it again liek previous Zelda titles, neither do a lot of Nintendo's GameCube outings. It's not that I've 'figured out the difference between arcade and adventure games', it's because the Wind Waker severely lacks something that Ocarina of Time, Majora's Mask and A Link to the Past has.
I believe that it's the epic feel you experience when going through Nintendo games. No matter how small. StarFox, on the other hand felt right. People enjoyed StarFox because of this, not because it's a good game. Half the people on this very forum said they loved StarFox when it first arrived, but after a while it dawns on you that Starfox is a rubbish game. The opposite of Zelda, in fact.
I don't know exactly why Wind Waker isn't the same as previous titles, but it just isn't. The bosses, the dungeons, the environments... they lack the same brilliance that previous titles had.
> Look if someone had said to me during the N64 era "Play Turok or Ocarina of Time"
> after finishing both I would opt for Turok... despite Ocarina of Time
> being the obvious better title.
Well I, myself, would choose Ocarina of Time. I'm trying to say that Wind Waker doesn't push you play through it again liek previous Zelda titles, neither do a lot of Nintendo's GameCube outings. It's not that I've 'figured out the difference between arcade and adventure games', it's because the Wind Waker severely lacks something that Ocarina of Time, Majora's Mask and A Link to the Past has.
I believe that it's the epic feel you experience when going through Nintendo games. No matter how small. StarFox, on the other hand felt right. People enjoyed StarFox because of this, not because it's a good game. Half the people on this very forum said they loved StarFox when it first arrived, but after a while it dawns on you that Starfox is a rubbish game. The opposite of Zelda, in fact.
I don't know exactly why Wind Waker isn't the same as previous titles, but it just isn't. The bosses, the dungeons, the environments... they lack the same brilliance that previous titles had.
Halo 1 player is average
Co-Op owns
And that grass texture makes me wet...
It's what i thought games should be like when i started to play my SNES...
Co-Op owns
And that grass texture makes me wet...
It's what i thought games should be like when i started to play my SNES...
Mattribute wrote:
> Starfox was poor.
>
> That is all.
>
> And HALO has awesome graphics. I almost wet myself when I first saw
> the grass... oh... the grass
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?!
RAR!
> Starfox was poor.
>
> That is all.
>
> And HALO has awesome graphics. I almost wet myself when I first saw
> the grass... oh... the grass
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?!
RAR!
That makes no sense.
well done, my boy.
well done, my boy.
GTA Double pack for Xbox, i find packs a bit of a punch also.
Starfox was poor.
That is all.
And HALO has awesome graphics. I almost wet myself when I first saw the grass... oh... the grass
That is all.
And HALO has awesome graphics. I almost wet myself when I first saw the grass... oh... the grass
I think that Zelda games are the greatest series of Adventure Games. But i feel the storyline and playing in 'WindWaker' didnt live up to the greatness of the best Zelda game so far, 'Ocarina of Time', sure the cell-shaded graphics were a nice change from the blocky-ness of the N-64. But, the storyline was a bit short and had nothing to good as 'Ocarina of Time'. And i think that 'Starfox Adventures' is still the best Adventure Game, and mabye the best actual game, to get onto the Gamecube. The graphics are still great and the storyline and gameplay is great, as you get to go on foot and explore different worlds and challenges. And it was one of the first games to come out for the Gamecube, and seeing as it still packs a punch for gamers it's a great game. I hope the new Zelda Game coming out for the Gamecube ,manages to clear up the problems, and minor kinks, that 'Windwaker' had.
Oh right.
Well, my point still stands becuase it was a handy example.
How you feel about StarFox = how I feel about all Zelda games. And Metroid Prime.
Well, my point still stands becuase it was a handy example.
How you feel about StarFox = how I feel about all Zelda games. And Metroid Prime.
Page: