The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
I thought OOT and MM where great but now they make WW everying is different
answer this why go from good to bad???
answer this why go from good to bad???
Page:
maddmun wrote:
> The problem was, had it been more land, there would have been bigger
> towns. Bigger towns means more people, and therefore more
> sidequests.
You wanted more side quests?
There was hundereds of the little bug*ers. Many more than i've ever had to do in any other Zelda game. I spent literally days just playing through the side quests.
> The problem was, had it been more land, there would have been bigger
> towns. Bigger towns means more people, and therefore more
> sidequests.
You wanted more side quests?
There was hundereds of the little bug*ers. Many more than i've ever had to do in any other Zelda game. I spent literally days just playing through the side quests.
Well sometime the bigger the town the more you become lost in them and forget certain places.
Full moon, but be sure not to get any clouds in the way, and yes I would have also enjoyed bigger towns. Maybe if after a while some of the islands joined together...
And you're constantly having to change the wind direction.
Which eventually annoyed me.
The problem was, had it been more land, there would have been bigger towns. Bigger towns means more people, and therefore more sidequests.
Which reminds me, the guy on windfall island, he wants something pale and round, neither the full moon or sun have pleased him, so, what is it?
Which eventually annoyed me.
The problem was, had it been more land, there would have been bigger towns. Bigger towns means more people, and therefore more sidequests.
Which reminds me, the guy on windfall island, he wants something pale and round, neither the full moon or sun have pleased him, so, what is it?
dang wrote:
> I thought OOT and MM where great but now they make WW everying is
> different
>
> answer this why go from good to bad???
If you judge games by graphics then you ought to be locked up in a forgotten cell where no one will ever find you, have hungry aligators chucked in there with you, and whilst your legs are being torn apart, have a solution of vinegar and citrus juices rain upon you.
OOT and MM 'were' great. Not sure where they were great, as you put it, but they were great.
WW is also great. It plays in almost the same way but instead of walking over Hyrule/Termina fields, you sail from place to place.
That's the only major difference to how it plays.
> I thought OOT and MM where great but now they make WW everying is
> different
>
> answer this why go from good to bad???
If you judge games by graphics then you ought to be locked up in a forgotten cell where no one will ever find you, have hungry aligators chucked in there with you, and whilst your legs are being torn apart, have a solution of vinegar and citrus juices rain upon you.
OOT and MM 'were' great. Not sure where they were great, as you put it, but they were great.
WW is also great. It plays in almost the same way but instead of walking over Hyrule/Termina fields, you sail from place to place.
That's the only major difference to how it plays.
All games start out as new. Then begome the originals or classics, sequals must change to be better than its predesecors because a game cant be better than the one before if its just the same as it. Infact its likely to be less popular because the prior game was inovative whereas the new one is tried and tested.
This is based on games in general, not any particular game.
This is based on games in general, not any particular game.
Alter Ego wrote:
> Games have to change to stay on top or else even die hard fans get
> bored of them. A sequal shouldnt be just the original with some added
> features, it should be inovative, Take Tomb Raider for example. Back
> in the days where Tomb Raider was one of a kind and 90% of the gaming
> world owned it, it was a cut above the rest, Eidos adopted the 'why
> change' strategy turning out 4 sequals, each which played exactly the
> same with the only difference being a few added moves and better gfx.
> Most fans can bare about 3 'replica's' (tomb Raider 1-3) but once 4
> hit the shelves and played the exact same peolple got bored, when the
> 5th hit the shelves it sold its lowest to date, now, years on they are
> forced to totally re-do Tomb Raider to get there fans and sales back.
> Which is harder than it sounds, us being the unforgiving public that
> we are.
so what is better the old or the new?
> Games have to change to stay on top or else even die hard fans get
> bored of them. A sequal shouldnt be just the original with some added
> features, it should be inovative, Take Tomb Raider for example. Back
> in the days where Tomb Raider was one of a kind and 90% of the gaming
> world owned it, it was a cut above the rest, Eidos adopted the 'why
> change' strategy turning out 4 sequals, each which played exactly the
> same with the only difference being a few added moves and better gfx.
> Most fans can bare about 3 'replica's' (tomb Raider 1-3) but once 4
> hit the shelves and played the exact same peolple got bored, when the
> 5th hit the shelves it sold its lowest to date, now, years on they are
> forced to totally re-do Tomb Raider to get there fans and sales back.
> Which is harder than it sounds, us being the unforgiving public that
> we are.
so what is better the old or the new?
Games have to change to stay on top or else even die hard fans get bored of them. A sequal shouldnt be just the original with some added features, it should be inovative, Take Tomb Raider for example. Back in the days where Tomb Raider was one of a kind and 90% of the gaming world owned it, it was a cut above the rest, Eidos adopted the 'why change' strategy turning out 4 sequals, each which played exactly the same with the only difference being a few added moves and better gfx. Most fans can bare about 3 'replica's' (tomb Raider 1-3) but once 4 hit the shelves and played the exact same peolple got bored, when the 5th hit the shelves it sold its lowest to date, now, years on they are forced to totally re-do Tomb Raider to get there fans and sales back. Which is harder than it sounds, us being the unforgiving public that we are.
Unbeliever wrote:
> To answer the original question...in what way is The Wind Waker bad?
> Just because it's different doesn't mean it's bad. Personally, the
> sheer amount of things Link can do is nothing short of startling. And
> it's a great game.
>
> I just don't understand people's negative attitudes to Nintendo...they
> should sit down with Metroid Prime or Zelda then they'd know what
> great games are all about.
well then whitch do you like best the ones on nintendo64 or on gamecube?
> To answer the original question...in what way is The Wind Waker bad?
> Just because it's different doesn't mean it's bad. Personally, the
> sheer amount of things Link can do is nothing short of startling. And
> it's a great game.
>
> I just don't understand people's negative attitudes to Nintendo...they
> should sit down with Metroid Prime or Zelda then they'd know what
> great games are all about.
well then whitch do you like best the ones on nintendo64 or on gamecube?
You really should get a new keyboard.
Page: