The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Reading the recent retro freaks magazine Games TM the fear that Nintendo have lost it dawned on me. Here was a magazine that criticised everything the Gamecube had to offer, showing SNES games claiming “This is what Nintendo used to be about”. They weren’t anti-Nintendo although definitely pro-X-box they were disappointed as yet another Mario Kart game fails to beat it’s predecessors.
There appears to be two schools of criticisms, one that Nintendo have changed their lead franchises too much (mainly the die-hard fan base) and two that Nintendo are no longer fresh and new (mainly the opposition fans). Both totally contradictory in terms and so one is wrong, well no actually they are both wrong.
In a society obsessed with comparison it is no surprise Nintendo may appear to falter in its new generation. How can you say Super Mario Sunshine doesn’t surpass Super Mario 64? “Easy” I’m told “the game does nothing new, it is shorter and lacks variation”. Eh? Are you trying to tell me that Mario Sunshine does nothing over Mario 64???? Mario 64 was a revolution, a stunning title that started this interactive 3D world and no one can begin to describe the effect this game had on the industry. BUT it wasn’t nearly as good as you remember it, you always look back through rose tinted glasses, games get better as time goes on. Sunshine was easily as fun as Mario 64 was, it may have had no ice level but we had an underwater section, a ghost house section. A lava segment and even a roller coaster level! Despite it being set on an island, which is another sign of Mario progressing from his traditional worlds, the game did consist of far more variety than first discussed. Then there is FLUDD, who is fantastic SIMPLY because of the depth it added to Mario’s own genre. Mario in platforming had a set height and length he could jump, the main challenge was defeating enemies. In Sunshine, Miyamoto invented a device that incorporated a host of new platforming moves and Mario’s weapon as well. It was a VERY good idea; set up with a perfect control system and once again he set up millions of puzzles to work with these new moves. It really was a revolution and a superior title to Mario 64!
But enough about how sunshine surpasses Mario 64 as a stand-alone game. I want to move onto my prime example of The Legend of Zelda. Zelda suffers from something I call give and take syndrome. In order to take the game needs to give. Lets take Ocarina of Time, a game everyone claims to be the best 3D Zelda game. Rubbish the best 3D Zelda game is Wind Waker and that is a fact. Ocarina of Time has the same magic as Wind Waker did, trust me IT DID it felt just as wonderful to play and I know it looks more magical now but compare playing the Wind Waker to playing Ocarina of time and you’ll remember they felt both just as good. But Wind Waker had problems, this is unusual, the sea journeys at times got tiresome, the interaction was very poor and the storyline wasn’t held together too well. But doesn’t a combat system to die for (so beautiful and amazing to control), the worlds best use of cel-shading graphics ever (so amazing) and a level of absolute hilarity make up for it? Doesn’t the ability to fly, the various use of the wind, the new cel-shaded look and the new idea of the sea make this a great example of how sequels should be done? Lets look at Majora’s Mask, doesn’t come close to Ocarina of time they said, and why? Well because of the smaller and less epic filled landscape, the easier dungeons, the crappy saving system and reduced length. But doesn’t the BEST EVER INTERACTION IN A ZELDA GAME make up for that (the 3 day loop is the most ingenious idea to date), doesn’t the gameplay improving and effective mask collecting out match Gold Skultula’s completely? Isn’t the atmosphere the darkest and most daunting in any Zelda game ever? Yes that is right, doing something-new, innovative and amazing means that something has to give in the game. A level of interaction like none other meant the developer was working solidly on that and so the story was reduced. So the interaction could work so well (character doing something different all the time) meant a set number of days were needed and to stop the game becoming too easy the “save anywhere” approach had to be removed…
So lets look at Ocarina of Time, yes it may have be the longest game, the most amazing storyline BUT the enemies were actually rather poor, Hyrule field is big barren and dull, we had to sit through that storyline regarding the 3 Gods TWICE and it was dull the first time and the game at times really felt like a dodgy puzzle game (the water temple)…
Nintendo have not lost it at all. Mario Kart: Double Dash!! is FAR better than Mario Kart 64 and Super Mario Kart. Nintendo have yet to create a masterpiece like they did on the N64 (and oh boy did they create some masterpieces) but they have managed to improve their old masterpieces with new and fresh ideas and take their series’ in other directions. Other than perhaps Metroid Prime Nintendo haven’t created a new game defining moment. This is true, despite their best attempts with Pikmin (give it time). But play the games… and stick with them and the magic is still there… in full force. Just remember the movement from 2D into 3D was always going to be more revolutionary than 3D into 3D… and after all for such a small jump Nintendo have managed to alter their best franchises in the most ingenious of ways.
Dringo.
There appears to be two schools of criticisms, one that Nintendo have changed their lead franchises too much (mainly the die-hard fan base) and two that Nintendo are no longer fresh and new (mainly the opposition fans). Both totally contradictory in terms and so one is wrong, well no actually they are both wrong.
In a society obsessed with comparison it is no surprise Nintendo may appear to falter in its new generation. How can you say Super Mario Sunshine doesn’t surpass Super Mario 64? “Easy” I’m told “the game does nothing new, it is shorter and lacks variation”. Eh? Are you trying to tell me that Mario Sunshine does nothing over Mario 64???? Mario 64 was a revolution, a stunning title that started this interactive 3D world and no one can begin to describe the effect this game had on the industry. BUT it wasn’t nearly as good as you remember it, you always look back through rose tinted glasses, games get better as time goes on. Sunshine was easily as fun as Mario 64 was, it may have had no ice level but we had an underwater section, a ghost house section. A lava segment and even a roller coaster level! Despite it being set on an island, which is another sign of Mario progressing from his traditional worlds, the game did consist of far more variety than first discussed. Then there is FLUDD, who is fantastic SIMPLY because of the depth it added to Mario’s own genre. Mario in platforming had a set height and length he could jump, the main challenge was defeating enemies. In Sunshine, Miyamoto invented a device that incorporated a host of new platforming moves and Mario’s weapon as well. It was a VERY good idea; set up with a perfect control system and once again he set up millions of puzzles to work with these new moves. It really was a revolution and a superior title to Mario 64!
But enough about how sunshine surpasses Mario 64 as a stand-alone game. I want to move onto my prime example of The Legend of Zelda. Zelda suffers from something I call give and take syndrome. In order to take the game needs to give. Lets take Ocarina of Time, a game everyone claims to be the best 3D Zelda game. Rubbish the best 3D Zelda game is Wind Waker and that is a fact. Ocarina of Time has the same magic as Wind Waker did, trust me IT DID it felt just as wonderful to play and I know it looks more magical now but compare playing the Wind Waker to playing Ocarina of time and you’ll remember they felt both just as good. But Wind Waker had problems, this is unusual, the sea journeys at times got tiresome, the interaction was very poor and the storyline wasn’t held together too well. But doesn’t a combat system to die for (so beautiful and amazing to control), the worlds best use of cel-shading graphics ever (so amazing) and a level of absolute hilarity make up for it? Doesn’t the ability to fly, the various use of the wind, the new cel-shaded look and the new idea of the sea make this a great example of how sequels should be done? Lets look at Majora’s Mask, doesn’t come close to Ocarina of time they said, and why? Well because of the smaller and less epic filled landscape, the easier dungeons, the crappy saving system and reduced length. But doesn’t the BEST EVER INTERACTION IN A ZELDA GAME make up for that (the 3 day loop is the most ingenious idea to date), doesn’t the gameplay improving and effective mask collecting out match Gold Skultula’s completely? Isn’t the atmosphere the darkest and most daunting in any Zelda game ever? Yes that is right, doing something-new, innovative and amazing means that something has to give in the game. A level of interaction like none other meant the developer was working solidly on that and so the story was reduced. So the interaction could work so well (character doing something different all the time) meant a set number of days were needed and to stop the game becoming too easy the “save anywhere” approach had to be removed…
So lets look at Ocarina of Time, yes it may have be the longest game, the most amazing storyline BUT the enemies were actually rather poor, Hyrule field is big barren and dull, we had to sit through that storyline regarding the 3 Gods TWICE and it was dull the first time and the game at times really felt like a dodgy puzzle game (the water temple)…
Nintendo have not lost it at all. Mario Kart: Double Dash!! is FAR better than Mario Kart 64 and Super Mario Kart. Nintendo have yet to create a masterpiece like they did on the N64 (and oh boy did they create some masterpieces) but they have managed to improve their old masterpieces with new and fresh ideas and take their series’ in other directions. Other than perhaps Metroid Prime Nintendo haven’t created a new game defining moment. This is true, despite their best attempts with Pikmin (give it time). But play the games… and stick with them and the magic is still there… in full force. Just remember the movement from 2D into 3D was always going to be more revolutionary than 3D into 3D… and after all for such a small jump Nintendo have managed to alter their best franchises in the most ingenious of ways.
Dringo.
Page:
Reading the recent retro freaks magazine Games TM the fear that Nintendo have lost it dawned on me. Here was a magazine that criticised everything the Gamecube had to offer, showing SNES games claiming “This is what Nintendo used to be about”. They weren’t anti-Nintendo although definitely pro-X-box they were disappointed as yet another Mario Kart game fails to beat it’s predecessors.
There appears to be two schools of criticisms, one that Nintendo have changed their lead franchises too much (mainly the die-hard fan base) and two that Nintendo are no longer fresh and new (mainly the opposition fans). Both totally contradictory in terms and so one is wrong, well no actually they are both wrong.
In a society obsessed with comparison it is no surprise Nintendo may appear to falter in its new generation. How can you say Super Mario Sunshine doesn’t surpass Super Mario 64? “Easy” I’m told “the game does nothing new, it is shorter and lacks variation”. Eh? Are you trying to tell me that Mario Sunshine does nothing over Mario 64???? Mario 64 was a revolution, a stunning title that started this interactive 3D world and no one can begin to describe the effect this game had on the industry. BUT it wasn’t nearly as good as you remember it, you always look back through rose tinted glasses, games get better as time goes on. Sunshine was easily as fun as Mario 64 was, it may have had no ice level but we had an underwater section, a ghost house section. A lava segment and even a roller coaster level! Despite it being set on an island, which is another sign of Mario progressing from his traditional worlds, the game did consist of far more variety than first discussed. Then there is FLUDD, who is fantastic SIMPLY because of the depth it added to Mario’s own genre. Mario in platforming had a set height and length he could jump, the main challenge was defeating enemies. In Sunshine, Miyamoto invented a device that incorporated a host of new platforming moves and Mario’s weapon as well. It was a VERY good idea; set up with a perfect control system and once again he set up millions of puzzles to work with these new moves. It really was a revolution and a superior title to Mario 64!
But enough about how sunshine surpasses Mario 64 as a stand-alone game. I want to move onto my prime example of The Legend of Zelda. Zelda suffers from something I call give and take syndrome. In order to take the game needs to give. Lets take Ocarina of Time, a game everyone claims to be the best 3D Zelda game. Rubbish the best 3D Zelda game is Wind Waker and that is a fact. Ocarina of Time has the same magic as Wind Waker did, trust me IT DID it felt just as wonderful to play and I know it looks more magical now but compare playing the Wind Waker to playing Ocarina of time and you’ll remember they felt both just as good. But Wind Waker had problems, this is unusual, the sea journeys at times got tiresome, the interaction was very poor and the storyline wasn’t held together too well. But doesn’t a combat system to die for (so beautiful and amazing to control), the worlds best use of cel-shading graphics ever (so amazing) and a level of absolute hilarity make up for it? Doesn’t the ability to fly, the various use of the wind, the new cel-shaded look and the new idea of the sea make this a great example of how sequels should be done? Lets look at Majora’s Mask, doesn’t come close to Ocarina of time they said, and why? Well because of the smaller and less epic filled landscape, the easier dungeons, the crappy saving system and reduced length. But doesn’t the BEST EVER INTERACTION IN A ZELDA GAME make up for that (the 3 day loop is the most ingenious idea to date), doesn’t the gameplay improving and effective mask collecting out match Gold Skultula’s completely? Isn’t the atmosphere the darkest and most daunting in any Zelda game ever? Yes that is right, doing something-new, innovative and amazing means that something has to give in the game. A level of interaction like none other meant the developer was working solidly on that and so the story was reduced. So the interaction could work so well (character doing something different all the time) meant a set number of days were needed and to stop the game becoming too easy the “save anywhere” approach had to be removed…
So lets look at Ocarina of Time, yes it may have be the longest game, the most amazing storyline BUT the enemies were actually rather poor, Hyrule field is big barren and dull, we had to sit through that storyline regarding the 3 Gods TWICE and it was dull the first time and the game at times really felt like a dodgy puzzle game (the water temple)…
Nintendo have not lost it at all. Mario Kart: Double Dash!! is FAR better than Mario Kart 64 and Super Mario Kart. Nintendo have yet to create a masterpiece like they did on the N64 (and oh boy did they create some masterpieces) but they have managed to improve their old masterpieces with new and fresh ideas and take their series’ in other directions. Other than perhaps Metroid Prime Nintendo haven’t created a new game defining moment. This is true, despite their best attempts with Pikmin (give it time). But play the games… and stick with them and the magic is still there… in full force. Just remember the movement from 2D into 3D was always going to be more revolutionary than 3D into 3D… and after all for such a small jump Nintendo have managed to alter their best franchises in the most ingenious of ways.
Dringo.
There appears to be two schools of criticisms, one that Nintendo have changed their lead franchises too much (mainly the die-hard fan base) and two that Nintendo are no longer fresh and new (mainly the opposition fans). Both totally contradictory in terms and so one is wrong, well no actually they are both wrong.
In a society obsessed with comparison it is no surprise Nintendo may appear to falter in its new generation. How can you say Super Mario Sunshine doesn’t surpass Super Mario 64? “Easy” I’m told “the game does nothing new, it is shorter and lacks variation”. Eh? Are you trying to tell me that Mario Sunshine does nothing over Mario 64???? Mario 64 was a revolution, a stunning title that started this interactive 3D world and no one can begin to describe the effect this game had on the industry. BUT it wasn’t nearly as good as you remember it, you always look back through rose tinted glasses, games get better as time goes on. Sunshine was easily as fun as Mario 64 was, it may have had no ice level but we had an underwater section, a ghost house section. A lava segment and even a roller coaster level! Despite it being set on an island, which is another sign of Mario progressing from his traditional worlds, the game did consist of far more variety than first discussed. Then there is FLUDD, who is fantastic SIMPLY because of the depth it added to Mario’s own genre. Mario in platforming had a set height and length he could jump, the main challenge was defeating enemies. In Sunshine, Miyamoto invented a device that incorporated a host of new platforming moves and Mario’s weapon as well. It was a VERY good idea; set up with a perfect control system and once again he set up millions of puzzles to work with these new moves. It really was a revolution and a superior title to Mario 64!
But enough about how sunshine surpasses Mario 64 as a stand-alone game. I want to move onto my prime example of The Legend of Zelda. Zelda suffers from something I call give and take syndrome. In order to take the game needs to give. Lets take Ocarina of Time, a game everyone claims to be the best 3D Zelda game. Rubbish the best 3D Zelda game is Wind Waker and that is a fact. Ocarina of Time has the same magic as Wind Waker did, trust me IT DID it felt just as wonderful to play and I know it looks more magical now but compare playing the Wind Waker to playing Ocarina of time and you’ll remember they felt both just as good. But Wind Waker had problems, this is unusual, the sea journeys at times got tiresome, the interaction was very poor and the storyline wasn’t held together too well. But doesn’t a combat system to die for (so beautiful and amazing to control), the worlds best use of cel-shading graphics ever (so amazing) and a level of absolute hilarity make up for it? Doesn’t the ability to fly, the various use of the wind, the new cel-shaded look and the new idea of the sea make this a great example of how sequels should be done? Lets look at Majora’s Mask, doesn’t come close to Ocarina of time they said, and why? Well because of the smaller and less epic filled landscape, the easier dungeons, the crappy saving system and reduced length. But doesn’t the BEST EVER INTERACTION IN A ZELDA GAME make up for that (the 3 day loop is the most ingenious idea to date), doesn’t the gameplay improving and effective mask collecting out match Gold Skultula’s completely? Isn’t the atmosphere the darkest and most daunting in any Zelda game ever? Yes that is right, doing something-new, innovative and amazing means that something has to give in the game. A level of interaction like none other meant the developer was working solidly on that and so the story was reduced. So the interaction could work so well (character doing something different all the time) meant a set number of days were needed and to stop the game becoming too easy the “save anywhere” approach had to be removed…
So lets look at Ocarina of Time, yes it may have be the longest game, the most amazing storyline BUT the enemies were actually rather poor, Hyrule field is big barren and dull, we had to sit through that storyline regarding the 3 Gods TWICE and it was dull the first time and the game at times really felt like a dodgy puzzle game (the water temple)…
Nintendo have not lost it at all. Mario Kart: Double Dash!! is FAR better than Mario Kart 64 and Super Mario Kart. Nintendo have yet to create a masterpiece like they did on the N64 (and oh boy did they create some masterpieces) but they have managed to improve their old masterpieces with new and fresh ideas and take their series’ in other directions. Other than perhaps Metroid Prime Nintendo haven’t created a new game defining moment. This is true, despite their best attempts with Pikmin (give it time). But play the games… and stick with them and the magic is still there… in full force. Just remember the movement from 2D into 3D was always going to be more revolutionary than 3D into 3D… and after all for such a small jump Nintendo have managed to alter their best franchises in the most ingenious of ways.
Dringo.
Read a bit of it but i enjoyed sailing... especially with the music.
Games TM talk s**t; in fact, all the publisher'smags are tripe.
Ah, but it's true.
For me Nintendo havn't lost it. **Notice the me = my personal view**
But they have dropped a lot from what I used to expect from Nintendo. Super mario kart to me is better than double dash, sure double dash has the better graphics and some unique little touches but the original had addictive multiplayer battles and could easily last hours and still can today.
I bought a gamecube last May and since have only seen and bought a handful of games that to me are must have games that offer a good gaming experience.
But they have dropped a lot from what I used to expect from Nintendo. Super mario kart to me is better than double dash, sure double dash has the better graphics and some unique little touches but the original had addictive multiplayer battles and could easily last hours and still can today.
I bought a gamecube last May and since have only seen and bought a handful of games that to me are must have games that offer a good gaming experience.
'That Man' are you saying that if Mario Kart GC was made to similar standards as Super Mario Kart, with cel-shaded graphics, incredibly short courses, digital controls and sound effects you would be happier?
It's not a case of originality or pimping the franchises to death, it's quite simply that the games they make aren't as good as they used to be. If you seriously think Double Dash is better than the original Mario Kart there is something wrong with how you're playing games. Mario 64 is leagues ahead of Mario Sunshine, Mario Golf is an absolute joke when held up against its predecessors, Wind Walker isn't a patch on Ocarina or Link to the Past etc etc.
For the first time ever, my Gamecube is getting less play than other same gen consoles. Didn’t happen with the NES, didn’t happen with the SNES, didn’t happen with the N64 or any handhelds (though the NeoGeo Pocket pushed it close before its life was cut short).
For the first time ever, my Gamecube is getting less play than other same gen consoles. Didn’t happen with the NES, didn’t happen with the SNES, didn’t happen with the N64 or any handhelds (though the NeoGeo Pocket pushed it close before its life was cut short).
Those games aren't better than the newer versions - you were just under a different mentality then. In a sense, you've grown out of them.
Dr Gonzo wrote:
> It's not a case of originality or pimping the franchises to death,
> it's quite simply that the games they make aren't as good as they
> used to be. If you seriously think Double Dash is better than the
> original Mario Kart there is something wrong with how you're playing
> games. Mario 64 is leagues ahead of Mario Sunshine, Mario Golf is an
> absolute joke when held up against its predecessors, Wind Walker
> isn't a patch on Ocarina or Link to the Past etc etc.
>
> For the first time ever, my Gamecube is getting less play than other
> same gen consoles. Didn’t happen with the NES, didn’t happen with
> the SNES, didn’t happen with the N64 or any handhelds (though the
> NeoGeo Pocket pushed it close before its life was cut short).
Although I still play plenty of games, I think part of this issue is a bit broader (on a personal level for me anyway); are games losing it?
Perhaps I'm not a kid any more who gets over-excited like days gone by, but games nowadays, whatever format, just don't make me as excited as they used to.
When the SNES era was in full flow, and even the N64, whenever I got a new game, it was always an event. There was plenty of excitement and it felt special. The day after buying it, I'd be awake really early in the morning and play on it as soon as I could, but I don't do this anymore. No longer do I master games either, and play them until they melt my console. Super Mario Kart, Mario 64, GoldenEye, Gran Turismo, San Francisco Rush, these and a few others are games that I really played to death, completed 100% and spent years playing and re-playing. No game recently has sucked me in the way older games did. I still complete some newer games, but not with the level of dedication and enjoyment I used to.
There's been so many games recently that I've played when I first got them, then just didn't bother with after a small amount of play because they lacked something. I'm not sure what that something is, but whatever it is, newer games don't seem to have it, or at least not as much as older games.
Metroid Prime is an example. Technically amazing and a damn fine game in it's own right that would deserve 10/10, but over time I realised that I just didn't enjoy playing it...It wasn't fun. It's not the sort of game I'd finish and then almost straight away want to play again.
I still enjoy games, but, for whatever reason, I don't enjoy them as much as I used to. Sure they have better visuals, better sound, better potential for cinematic and storydriven gameplay etc, but they don't have the charm of yesteryear anymore.
It could just be growing up and remembering "the good old days" like most game playing clichés tend to do with the games industry, or it could be that games aren't as good as they used to be.
> It's not a case of originality or pimping the franchises to death,
> it's quite simply that the games they make aren't as good as they
> used to be. If you seriously think Double Dash is better than the
> original Mario Kart there is something wrong with how you're playing
> games. Mario 64 is leagues ahead of Mario Sunshine, Mario Golf is an
> absolute joke when held up against its predecessors, Wind Walker
> isn't a patch on Ocarina or Link to the Past etc etc.
>
> For the first time ever, my Gamecube is getting less play than other
> same gen consoles. Didn’t happen with the NES, didn’t happen with
> the SNES, didn’t happen with the N64 or any handhelds (though the
> NeoGeo Pocket pushed it close before its life was cut short).
Although I still play plenty of games, I think part of this issue is a bit broader (on a personal level for me anyway); are games losing it?
Perhaps I'm not a kid any more who gets over-excited like days gone by, but games nowadays, whatever format, just don't make me as excited as they used to.
When the SNES era was in full flow, and even the N64, whenever I got a new game, it was always an event. There was plenty of excitement and it felt special. The day after buying it, I'd be awake really early in the morning and play on it as soon as I could, but I don't do this anymore. No longer do I master games either, and play them until they melt my console. Super Mario Kart, Mario 64, GoldenEye, Gran Turismo, San Francisco Rush, these and a few others are games that I really played to death, completed 100% and spent years playing and re-playing. No game recently has sucked me in the way older games did. I still complete some newer games, but not with the level of dedication and enjoyment I used to.
There's been so many games recently that I've played when I first got them, then just didn't bother with after a small amount of play because they lacked something. I'm not sure what that something is, but whatever it is, newer games don't seem to have it, or at least not as much as older games.
Metroid Prime is an example. Technically amazing and a damn fine game in it's own right that would deserve 10/10, but over time I realised that I just didn't enjoy playing it...It wasn't fun. It's not the sort of game I'd finish and then almost straight away want to play again.
I still enjoy games, but, for whatever reason, I don't enjoy them as much as I used to. Sure they have better visuals, better sound, better potential for cinematic and storydriven gameplay etc, but they don't have the charm of yesteryear anymore.
It could just be growing up and remembering "the good old days" like most game playing clichés tend to do with the games industry, or it could be that games aren't as good as they used to be.
Dringo wrote:
> There appears to be two schools of criticisms, one that Nintendo have
> changed their lead franchises too much (mainly the die-hard fan base)
> and two that Nintendo are no longer fresh and new (mainly the
> opposition fans). Both totally contradictory in terms and so one is
> wrong, well no actually they are both wrong.
Yes. Your opinion is right and everyone elses' opinions are wrong.
Have a rosette.
> Lets take Ocarina of Time, a game
> everyone claims to be the best 3D Zelda game. Rubbish the best 3D
> Zelda game is Wind Waker and that is a fact. Ocarina of Time has the
> same magic as Wind Waker did, trust me IT DID
Yes. Your opinion is...
Otherwise, a very good post. But despite trying to present personal opinion as fact, however much you explain your opinion, it's still just an opinion.
> There appears to be two schools of criticisms, one that Nintendo have
> changed their lead franchises too much (mainly the die-hard fan base)
> and two that Nintendo are no longer fresh and new (mainly the
> opposition fans). Both totally contradictory in terms and so one is
> wrong, well no actually they are both wrong.
Yes. Your opinion is right and everyone elses' opinions are wrong.
Have a rosette.
> Lets take Ocarina of Time, a game
> everyone claims to be the best 3D Zelda game. Rubbish the best 3D
> Zelda game is Wind Waker and that is a fact. Ocarina of Time has the
> same magic as Wind Waker did, trust me IT DID
Yes. Your opinion is...
Otherwise, a very good post. But despite trying to present personal opinion as fact, however much you explain your opinion, it's still just an opinion.
Page: