The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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 Im 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 Im 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:
No I hadn't even turned it on... I didn't have the time or effort to play it.
It turned out to be one of my greatest games I owned (favourite Zelda title) but simply it doesn't have the same arcade effect No Mercy has... and an Arcade game is what I wanted to play.
Starfox was a chore to play.
It turned out to be one of my greatest games I owned (favourite Zelda title) but simply it doesn't have the same arcade effect No Mercy has... and an Arcade game is what I wanted to play.
Starfox was a chore to play.
Dringo wrote:
> I couldn't be bothered to play MM
If you can't be bothered to play a game, it obviously isn't very enjoyable. This is what I've been saying for ages. If playing a game is a chore, it's crap. I don't care if it's epic, with stunning landscapes and huge areas to explore, with amazing graphics and AI - all that, but with no incentive to play for fun means:
that game = total balls
> I couldn't be bothered to play MM
If you can't be bothered to play a game, it obviously isn't very enjoyable. This is what I've been saying for ages. If playing a game is a chore, it's crap. I don't care if it's epic, with stunning landscapes and huge areas to explore, with amazing graphics and AI - all that, but with no incentive to play for fun means:
that game = total balls
I think Rickoss has finally come to understand the difference between adventure games and arcade games.
Starfox was very Arcadey in feel... it had a pick up and play factor despite being technically an adventure game. 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.
The reason? Turok is more pick up and play, have a blast, do a bit. go to pub. Very simple. An arcade idea harnessed beautifully by the Dreamcast. When Majora's Mask came out I mainly played No Mercy... because I couldn't be bothered to play MM yet.
Now if someone said play Product Number: 03 or Wind Waker... it is P.N:03 that gets picked up... because of what it is not because it is better.
As for memorable moments well you must have been playing a different game... Starfox was dull... there is nothing i remember of it at all other than falling asleep moving the sodding mammoth. I remember many a moment from Wind Waker... from said hyrule moment, to beating the crap out of the dark nuts, visiting the forest haven, talking to the ruto's.
Starfox has nothing on that game at all other than it is easier to pick up and play.
Starfox was very Arcadey in feel... it had a pick up and play factor despite being technically an adventure game. 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.
The reason? Turok is more pick up and play, have a blast, do a bit. go to pub. Very simple. An arcade idea harnessed beautifully by the Dreamcast. When Majora's Mask came out I mainly played No Mercy... because I couldn't be bothered to play MM yet.
Now if someone said play Product Number: 03 or Wind Waker... it is P.N:03 that gets picked up... because of what it is not because it is better.
As for memorable moments well you must have been playing a different game... Starfox was dull... there is nothing i remember of it at all other than falling asleep moving the sodding mammoth. I remember many a moment from Wind Waker... from said hyrule moment, to beating the crap out of the dark nuts, visiting the forest haven, talking to the ruto's.
Starfox has nothing on that game at all other than it is easier to pick up and play.
But there's nothing you really look back at and remember as a gaming great, bar the frozen Hyrule. There's a lot to see and do, yes, and some of the dungeons and islands look stunning, but it just doesn't stick in your mind as the brilliant game it actually is.
StarFox on the other hand, even though it's rubbish, and yes I know it is, I can't help but feel, as an adventure itself, it's better than Wind Waker. I enjoyed exploring the environments because you knew they'd stick in your mind for years to come, and regardless of how the game plays, I loved every minute. The sdnowy wastelands, the alien planets and the 'epic' feel all gave StarFox merits, merits that Zelda was missing out on.
Playing it, you know Zelda is superb, but looking back at it, somethign seems a bit too stale, dull and mundane. It's not groundbreaking, nor is it epic in retrospect (note I say retrospect) but somehow StarFox is. Don't ask me how, but Rare took the Nintendo magic, used it on StarFox and seemingly forgot to refine gameplay.
While you may expect the stealth level on Zelda would stay in your head as a great 'sneak about' moment, but in my eyes, because StarFox's presentation, dressing up as a foe is much better.
StarFox on the other hand, even though it's rubbish, and yes I know it is, I can't help but feel, as an adventure itself, it's better than Wind Waker. I enjoyed exploring the environments because you knew they'd stick in your mind for years to come, and regardless of how the game plays, I loved every minute. The sdnowy wastelands, the alien planets and the 'epic' feel all gave StarFox merits, merits that Zelda was missing out on.
Playing it, you know Zelda is superb, but looking back at it, somethign seems a bit too stale, dull and mundane. It's not groundbreaking, nor is it epic in retrospect (note I say retrospect) but somehow StarFox is. Don't ask me how, but Rare took the Nintendo magic, used it on StarFox and seemingly forgot to refine gameplay.
While you may expect the stealth level on Zelda would stay in your head as a great 'sneak about' moment, but in my eyes, because StarFox's presentation, dressing up as a foe is much better.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
Page: