114 replies to this topic

[Masamune]

Aonuma started with OoT, but his first game was Majora's Mask. Which was bloody brilliant.

[Veteran]

To be honest, the one thing I agreed with him the most on though, was the thing about yelling at the top of your lungs. I play my hand helds when I'm in bed, or my parents are driving when we're going somewhere, and if I yell then, I either get yelled at back, or I wake everyone up and get yelled at. So, I have stopped playing the game when you need to get the crane because I can't yell loud enough to get it.

The sailing is also annoying, especially when you try to jump, and the goddamn jump button on the screen takes like a minute to respond, so you've already hit what you needed to jump... and also, I hate the drawing of your path, because when you're chasing a moving object, like Beedle or 'Adventurer's ship' you have to change your path a hundred times... and that irritated me.

You don't need to shout, just click your fingers. The mic can't distinguish between volume and pitch. The crane-maker's assistant laughs at you after shouting at his boss.

And you can plot a course directly to Beedle so you don't miss him while he's moving. Chasing the fishes is more cause for complaint.

[Xkeeper]

I've said it before, but for the sake of copypasting my thoughts here, let's go:

Ricky. Once you admitted to liking Minish Cap and Oracles, everything made sense. Ever. Even stuff irrelevant to his conversation.

Strange, I liked the Oracle series too (and the rest of the GBC games -- Minish Cap wasn't exactly good by any means)... but yeah.

I kind of miss the old days when you actually had to figure things out for yourself and it wasn't pointed out exactly where you should go or who you should talk. It made things a lot more aggrivating (for me), which overall just made the game feel like it was holding my hand the whole way though the end of the game. Sigh.

This actually makes me want to compare the Oracle games and Link's Awakening in terms of "map visable after each level". Somehow, I think it would be interesting to see how far the game restricts you in the later games.

[CID Farwin]

Well, Zelda could be like Final Fantasy... ewwww

Or maybe they could make it like Mario, but with references to other games.

...Oh, wait.

I kind of miss the old days when you actually had to figure things out for yourself and it wasn't pointed out exactly where you should go or who you should talk. It made things a lot more aggrivating (for me), which overall just made the game feel like it was holding my hand the whole way though the end of the game. Sigh.

Yes, let's make the games impossible for anyone under fourteen.

Seriously, I feel like I'm going to be called an idiot for actually liking every single Zelda game I've ever played. (which is all except for FS, PH, and The CD-i games. And I'm positive that I'll like those too when they come out.) And instead of whining about every little thing that bothers me, I actually get over it and accept that as part of the game.

I hated many things about TWW and TP, but you don't see me nitpicking.

[Xkeeper]

I kind of miss the old days when you actually had to figure things out for yourself and it wasn't pointed out exactly where you should go or who you should talk. It made things a lot more aggrivating (for me), which overall just made the game feel like it was holding my hand the whole way though the end of the game. Sigh.

Yes, let's make the games impossible for anyone under fourteen.

This is what is wrong with society. Instead of allowing and challenging people to figure things out, we hand them all the answers.

I could beat Link's Awakening when I was 9. I beat the original Zelda around 10. I don't think that removing the handhold element would make it impossible for anybody except the most brain dead, and that is why there are FAQs or "Ask for help" forums.

I wasn't aware using a brain was something only 15 year olds and higher were allowed to do.

[SOAP]

I don't have time for debates like this anymore so I just point out one thing:

@ all the folks that complained about it being too easy: Let's be realistic here. They were trying to make a game that relied completely on the touch screen. I don't play many DS games but I think for the most part, PH is a first. They couldn't make it too hard because the new innovative gameplay was a major adjustment in itself. I can't tell you how much I I kept using the buttons, only to find they had no effect. That and the game was still challenging. You had to really think about using regular items in totally different ways most of the time.

Edited by SOAP, 09 November 2007 - 08:14 PM.

[spunky-monkey]

Ricky. Once you admitted to liking Minish Cap and Oracles, everything made sense. Ever. Even stuff irrelevant to his conversation.
I think it was correctly assessed when it was said you were playing the wrong series.

What do you mean by everything made sense? Stop the drama; there's nothing wrong with those games as they play exactly like previous handheld Zelda titles (LA and DX version), the only big difference being they're developed and produced by Capcom's Flagship Studios for Nintendo. Oracles in particular had an excellent level of difficulty to its dungeons; although this was a double-edged sword as the various challenges were often went from tough to incredibly frustrating. You need to realise many people enjoyed those games, besides where'd you think my avatar came from?

Well, Zelda could be like Final Fantasy... ewwww

Don't even joke about that, the only worthwhile thing I recall that franchise having was the FF7 victory theme music. I personally would like Mario cameos and goofball humor like breaking the fourth wall, so long as the adventure had a darker atmosphere/setting to balance it all out.

Aonuma started with OoT, but his first game was Majora's Mask. Which was bloody brilliant.

Aonuma's first proper game was Wind Waker, other titles he worked as a graphics designer. Eiji had about as much influence on Majora's Mask as he did with Ocarina of Time. Shigeru Miyamoto directed those games.

Yes, let's make the games impossible for anyone under fourteen.

That's what an official strategy guide's there for.

[Masamune]

Ricky. Once you admitted to liking Minish Cap and Oracles, everything made sense. Ever. Even stuff irrelevant to his conversation.
I think it was correctly assessed when it was said you were playing the wrong series.

What do you mean by everything made sense? Stop the drama; there's nothing wrong with those games as they play exactly like previous handheld Zelda titles (LA and DX version), the only big difference being they're developed and produced by Capcom's Flagship Studios for Nintendo. Oracles in particular had an excellent level of difficulty to its dungeons; although this was a double-edged sword as the various challenges were often went from tough to incredibly frustrating. You need to realise many people enjoyed those games, besides where'd you think my avatar came from?

No no, I'm pretty sure I can reserve the right to think those games are awful. After all, many people enjoy Phantom Hourglass, The Wind Waker, and Twilight Princess... or so they have been led to believe!

Both Oracle games were painfully unmemorable and were the epitome of what it is to be stale. Recycled game engine from eight years ago and a completely derivative cast from Ocarina of Time? I've long held that Flagship should have made one good Oracle game rather than two mediocre ones (at least we can be grateful that three titles didn't pan out). And The Minish Cap... a 2D game has no excuse for being as short as that game was. I got halfway through the game when I saw the credits. How come Flagship could make 16 dungeons at once for Oracles, but only four for Minish Cap? If it was because they focused on making four extremely good dungeons, then I definitely didn't notice. Yet ironically, I thought Four Swords (both versions) were brilliant games. Even though Flagship made one of them. Perhaps this makes me... crazy?

In any case, I was always was a Moosh kinda guy anyways. A big flerking bear with wings? Hellz yeah. Though Ricky and Dimitri were more useful in the long run.

[Kairu Hakubi]

TP.. rushed?? Are you kidding? They put it off for a LONG time, remember? They got crap for that, too. Nintendo really can't win
TP ruled though. they took the time to make it polished, and it really was. Every aspect of... of the early bits of the game.. was totally memorable. The bridge fire especially. It tapered off towards the end and that's the ONLY criticism you can really make.

[spunky-monkey]

No no, I'm pretty sure I can reserve the right to think those games are awful.

Well yes, you're perfectly within your rights to say those games are awful but not quite that bold accusation I should reframe from playing Zelda series altogether all because of my discretion and taste. They're graphically outdated but I still find them charming and witty; Ricky hating to be anywhere near Tingle for instance can only be sumed up as hilarious.

Recycled game engine from eight years ago

Oh now that's hardly fair criticism on the mini-series considering the performance and system limitations of the GameBoy Color. What else could they possibly use for 8-bit graphics? These titles were released back in 2001, a month before GameBoy Advance was available in Japan.

I got halfway through the game when I saw the credits.

That is technically impossible; unless your statement's actually an oxymoron.

How come Flagship could make 16 dungeons at once for Oracles, but only four for Minish Cap? If it was because they focused on making four extremely good dungeons, then I definitely didn't notice. Yet ironically, I thought Four Swords (both versions) were brilliant games. Even though Flagship made one of them. Perhaps this makes me... crazy?

I guess they were inspired by Wind Waker, since they already modelled the same celshaded style after it, they probably thought why not have as many dungeons too? A lack of levels was a problem prevalent in handheld platformers and RPGs but yes I agree, this flaw is inexcusable. Remember though, I liked Minish Cap for its characters (Elzo), interesting prologue, plot twists and finale; something TWW was sorely lacking in.

In any case, I was always was a Moosh kinda guy anyways. A big flerking bear with wings? Hellz yeah.

Except for looks Moosh is slow and useless against monsters. My kangaroo character was always much more dynamic, versatile and flexible in a fight. Go me. =3

Edited by Ricky, 10 November 2007 - 01:40 PM.

[Masamune]

No no, I'm pretty sure I can reserve the right to think those games are awful.

Well yes, you're perfectly within your rights to say those games are awful but not quite that bold accusation I should reframe from playing Zelda series altogether all because of my discretion and taste. They're graphically outdated but I still find them charming and witty; Ricky hating to be anywhere near Tingle for instance can only be sumed up as hilarious.

Ah, it wasn't so much because of those games. My meaning was more... Oracles and Minish Cap are more outliers of what Zelda generally is (at least nowadays?). Considering Flagship has folded, I don't think that's going to change.

Recycled game engine from eight years ago

Oh now that's hardly fair criticism on the mini-series considering the performance and system limitations of the GameBoy Color. What else could they possibly use for 8-bit graphics? These titles were released back in 2001, a month before GameBoy Advance was available in Japan.

Reusing the engine perhaps was not so bad, but it was so obvious. And there really wasn't enough new stuff added in to improve the dynamics. It felt like I was playing the next installment of an NES Megaman. Just a simple rehash. Even on the NES, it was always possible to push the envelope for what a sequel could do. The Oracles games failed in that regard. A similar case on the DS could be pinned on Yoshi's Island DS versus the SNES original.

I got halfway through the game when I saw the credits.

That is technically impossible; unless your statement's actually an oxymoron.

I meant the game was too short. After the fourth dungeon, I was expecting more. I was mistaken.

How come Flagship could make 16 dungeons at once for Oracles, but only four for Minish Cap? If it was because they focused on making four extremely good dungeons, then I definitely didn't notice. Yet ironically, I thought Four Swords (both versions) were brilliant games. Even though Flagship made one of them. Perhaps this makes me... crazy?

I guess they were inspired by Wind Waker, since they already modelled the same celshaded style after it, they probably thought why not have as many dungeons too? A lack of levels was a problem prevalent in handheld platformers and RPGs but yes I agree, this flaw is inexcusable. Remember though, I liked Minish Cap for its characters (Elzo), interesting prologue, plot twists and finale; something TWW was sorely lacking in.

3D games are generally more difficult to make than 2D games... and there certainly had been the intention in TWW to have more dungeons than it actually did. The Minish Cap not having a full set of dungeons just seemed sloppy. Granted though, Phantom Hourglass is more or less in the same situation. I'm not sure the 3D excuse applies, considering the forced perspective was in play. In any case, I felt that TWW had all those elements you presented. A difference of tastes, though.

In any case, I was always was a Moosh kinda guy anyways. A big flerking bear with wings? Hellz yeah.

Except for looks Moosh is slow and useless against monsters. My kangaroo character was always much more dynamic, versatile and flexible in a fight. Go me. =3

Well Ricky was mainly useful for jumping up cliffs, like Dimitri was useful for going up waterfalls (and eating enemies!). Though once you get to a certain point in each game, the animal partners cease to be useful...

[D~N]

Remember though, I liked Minish Cap for its characters (Elzo), interesting prologue, plot twists and finale; something TWW was sorely lacking in.

I'd argue that. TWW was fairly good, if not great, in the plot category. Interesting prologue is definately in TWW, though you'd be right in saying it wasn't original. But obviously you cannot criticise a game like TWW for being a sequel; that's just silly. Clearly we knew it was a sequel, so the OoT background info was required in the prologue. But I'd argue that they made something we already knew about fairly interesting and entertaining.

Plot twists, for the most part, are absent from both TMC and TWW, so perhaps you could provide an example? In know TWW has that one part where Greatfish Isle is destroyed, so that sorta counts. Also, Master Sword being "broken" was, maybe in some obscure way, a plot twist.

EDIT: Characters, too, were fantastic in TWW. Not every individual townsperson, no, but the King of Red Lions, Daphnes Nohansen Hyrule, Tot, Zunari, Beedle, Medli, Makar, the battleship guy (Bernard? It's something with a "B"), the Pirates, and tons more. TWW really has a great cast, though I can see why the lack of a side-kick such as Elzo may dissapoint you. Perhaps they listend from the screaming fans "oh, I hate Navi, I can do it on my own!" *shrug*

You know what?! New rule: All Zelda games should have 6 or more dungeons PLUS the Final dungeon. I'm tired of feeling ripped off. LoZ through OoT all had tons of dungeons. But MM, and many after, just fail. From now on I don't want short Zelda games. It's a rip off; any game after PH that has, like, FOUR dungeons doesn't get a break from me. Remember your roots, Nintendo: 8 dungeons and a HUGE Boss dungeon. Let's go back to those days. TP is definately in the right direction.

Edited by D~N, 10 November 2007 - 02:49 PM.

[Masamune]

You know what?! New rule: All Zelda games should have 6 or more dungeons PLUS the Final dungeon. I'm tired of feeling ripped off. LoZ through OoT all had tons of dungeons. But MM, and many after, just fail. From now on I don't want short Zelda games. It's a rip off; any game after PH that has, like, FOUR dungeons doesn't get a break from me. Remember your roots, Nintendo: 8 dungeons and a HUGE Boss dungeon. Let's go back to those days. TP is definately in the right direction.

I can totally get behind that.

[spunky-monkey]

But obviously you cannot criticise a game like TWW for being a sequel; that's just silly.

I found it very hard to be entertained when so many confusing plotholes were occuring within the storyline, none of which would have happened if Eiji didn't try to force Wind Waker to follow directly after Ocarina's adult ending, thereby making an assocation in the first place. TWW's ending made no sense whatsoever.

Plot twists, for the most part, are absent from both TMC and TWW, so perhaps you could provide an example?

1. The unseen Minish race lives throughout Hyrule.
2. Elzo your companion was not a sentient hat but actually a Minish sage under a curse.
3. Vaati the sorcerer was really an evil Minish who acquired his power after stealing Elzo's hundred-year gift made for the humans, the Mage's Cap.
4. Vaati was originally Elzo's apprentice.
5. The Light Force turned out to be housed in Princess Zelda.
6. Minish were apparently responsible for Armos statues, various mechanical inventions and Hylians finding rupees in the grass.
7. The Picori Blade fused with the elements becomes the Four Sword.

The only plot twists in TWW were KoRL turning out to be the King of Hyrule, and Tetra was inexpiably Princess Zelda (I still can't figure out this last one).

In know TWW has that one part where Greatfish Isle is destroyed, so that sorta counts. Also, Master Sword being "broken" was, maybe in some obscure way, a plot twist.

Nope, that was their sadistically cheap arse method of taking out the unfinished third dungeon and a "weak" MS preventing Link from fighting Ganondorf too early; woefully the best these guys could manage afterwards was two pitifully short temples, Tingle's Triforce charts from hell, then lastly Ganon's Tower being essentially a repeat of old boss battles but in B&W. None of these count as development towards the story, but rather a crude attempt to cover over a lack of plot. Much like how Twilight Princess tried to avoid the absence of life in Kakariko Village by claiming they got killed by the Twili monsters; its not legitimate or clever, just pathetic.

You know what?! New rule: All Zelda games should have 6 or more dungeons PLUS the Final dungeon. I'm tired of feeling ripped off. LoZ through OoT all had tons of dungeons. But MM, and many after, just fail. From now on I don't want short Zelda games. It's a rip off; any game after PH that has, like, FOUR dungeons doesn't get a break from me. Remember your roots, Nintendo: 8 dungeons and a HUGE Boss dungeon. Let's go back to those days. TP is definately in the right direction.

I believe in quality over quantity D~N. Either way if you're argument is about greater lifespan then I agree with you wholeheartedly. For future games its never too late to implement several massive dungeons in Link's adventure instead of a dozen tiny ones. It simply requires creativity. When such layouts are this vast and complex they can be essentially broken down into two levels (much like Stone Tower in Majora's Mask). With regards to MM, I don't believe it fails, besides the Pirates Fortress, Ancient Castle of Ikana and Well are mini-dungeons not to mention the 3-day event system makes everything much more challenging, anyone suming it all up as "just four dungeons" doesn't reflect how on time-consuming and difficult each of those maybe (Forge your Razor Sword into a Gilded Sword after beating Goht for example).

[Duke Serkol]

Reusing the engine perhaps was not so bad, but it was so obvious. And there really wasn't enough new stuff added in to improve the dynamics. It felt like I was playing the next installment of an NES Megaman. Just a simple rehash. Even on the NES, it was always possible to push the envelope for what a sequel could do. The Oracles games failed in that regard.

That's my main beef with the Oracle games too. But I think it can be mostly blamed on re-used music more than graphic. I can accept that Link on GB looks a certain way, but I don't see why each game's overworld should have the same music. Imagine if MM had used the very same music as OoT for the main field. They didn't even bother to come up with a new title screen music. Because of things like that and the fact that the games could disappear from the timeline without making any difference since the whole plot was about ganon's resurrection and Link immediately kills him, the Oracle games ended up feeling like they were very well made fangames.

Remember though, I liked Minish Cap for its characters (Elzo), interesting prologue, plot twists and finale

You mean it? I always thought TMC's finale was rather disappointing. Partly because it falied to tie in with the rest of the Four Sword saga, and also because the Light Force's nature was not explained (nor are we given any clue where the portion which Vaati stole from Zelda ended up).
To me, it almost seemed like a banner had appeared on screen with written "You beat the last boss, the game's over, turn the damn thing off."

You know what?! New rule: All Zelda games should have 6 or more dungeons PLUS the Final dungeon. I'm tired of feeling ripped off. LoZ through OoT all had tons of dungeons. But MM, and many after, just fail. From now on I don't want short Zelda games. It's a rip off; any game after PH that has, like, FOUR dungeons doesn't get a break from me. Remember your roots, Nintendo: 8 dungeons and a HUGE Boss dungeon. Let's go back to those days. TP is definately in the right direction.

I concur, and I always have felt this way. Unfortunately, Nintendo said they can't afford to make games as big as TP and yet it doesn't have as many dungeons as OoT or the record holding ALttP. So I'm afraid PH is going to be the norm from now on (and this, if we are lucky).

a "weak" MS preventing Link from fighting Ganondorf too early; woefully the best these guys could manage afterwards was two pitifully short temples, Tingle's Triforce charts from hell, then lastly Ganon's Tower being essentially a repeat of old boss battles but in B&W. None of these count as development towards the story, but rather a crude attempt to cover over a lack of plot.

I'd go as far as saying there's the blatant lack of a game, not just plot. But we can always cherish what plot we did get, like when, after the MS failed to work and Link got pummeled, we went through two dungeons to power it up, recoved the Triforce of Courage just to be on the safe side and then... got pummeled again by bare handed Ganondorf. Joy.

Much like how Twilight Princess tried to avoid the absence of life in Kakariko Village by claiming they got killed by the Twili monsters; its not legitimate or clever, just pathetic.

It could have been acceptable if the game made up for it elsewhere like say, in the very crowded Castle Town. Which it didn't, as we all know.
But failing that there's always the Sheikah village... uh, no wait, the City in the Sky. No that doesn't work either... the Twilight Realm? Nope, no catching dialogues there either, no sir.
(It also doesn't help that the Gorons which could well be considered partially responsible for those deaths were welcomed in Kakariko with open arms afterwards)

Edited by Duke Serkol, 10 November 2007 - 07:20 PM.

[D~N]

Boooo. I had a reply and lost it. Thanks, IE.

Well, I'll just respond to your post as a whole, Ricky: in regards to the plotholes, I find that the plotholes, while obvious, are minor gripes in comparison to the consitancy that the game has. The good outweighs the bad, you might say. Plus, only a super-hardcore timelinist notices these flaws. Not to say they don't exist, because they do. But it doesn't make the game less fun; it only makes it slightly awkward, is all.

Before I argue, I just have to point out -- if game X has less plot twists than game Y, are your really going to like game X less? I mean, yeah, it makes the story better, but there are more elements to a good story than plot twists. Memorable characters, dramatic cut-scenes, etc. And then, there's more to a game than just a good story. So really, plot twists don't play as large a role as you're making them out to be...or maybe as I'm making them out to be. O.o

The examples you've given are good, and, yes, it was the laziness of not finishing the third dungeon and whatnot. But for some reason, maybe it's the epic feel of TWW, I don't know; I feel like TWW has a better plot than TMC. I think that in itself proves that plot twists really don't, or shouldn't, affect a review of a game.

I know... that 6/7 dungeon thing is only a dream. But I only hope that Nintendo will remember the days of LoZ and realize that many dungeons are way better than 4 "good" ones. Quality over quantity, yes yes, I know. Still, I'm sure there's a way to do it.


[The original post was way better]

[CID Farwin]

Instead of allowing and challenging people to figure things out, we hand them all the answers.

Oh, that, I thought that you were referring to the fact that you are told where to go next instead of dropped in an overworld with a "have fun." Or maybe you are, and I'm just dense in that regard.

I completely agree; there should be at least some sort of difficulty setting, or some way to turn off the hint system. Having someone tell you constantly where to go next after you've already been told does get annoying. The games being way too easy has been a flaw since OoT.

I know... that 6/7 dungeon thing is only a dream. But I only hope that Nintendo will remember the days of LoZ and realize that many dungeons are way better than 4 "good" ones. Quality over quantity, yes yes, I know. Still, I'm sure there's a way to do it.

I think that the main problems with dungeons is that the puzzles aren't challenging or complex, just time consuming. This only gets worse as time goes on and as many dungeons you've been through before, it only makes the next one easier. Metroid Prime 3 has given me the hope that with the Wii there will be more innovations as far as dungeons are concerned.

And I know that this is an insane stretch of a dream, but how about 6/7 good dungeons? that would be mind-blowing. And a good plot/amazing overworld to boot! Yay for 10-year production time!

Boooo. I had a reply and lost it. Thanks, IE.

That's what Firefox is for.

[spunky-monkey]

They didn't even bother to come up with a new title screen music.

I think this nitpicking as the intro theme being the classic LoZ tune can't exactly be synthesized to sound any other way given that handheld's system specification.

To me, it almost seemed like a banner had appeared on screen with written "You beat the last boss, the game's over, turn the damn thing off."

There are items still to be found afterwards; replay-ability has always been one of the franchise's weaknesses - some will joyfully pick it up again, while others will have grown bored.

Unfortunately, Nintendo said they can't afford to make games as big as TP and yet it doesn't have as many dungeons as OoT or the record holding ALttP. So I'm afraid PH is going to be the norm from now on (and this, if we are lucky).

Uh-oh. Where and when did they spout this nonsense?

But failing that there's always the Sheikah village... uh, no wait, the City in the Sky. No that doesn't work either... the Twilight Realm? Nope, no catching dialogues there either, no sir.

I remember l-o-s' review on the subject, one of the major letdowns with Twilight Princess and evidence it was clearly rushed in time for GameCube/Wii release.

I find that the plotholes, while obvious, are minor gripes in comparison to the consitancy that the game has. The good outweighs the bad, you might say. Plus, only a super-hardcore timelinist notices these flaws. Not to say they don't exist, because they do. But it doesn't make the game less fun; it only makes it slightly awkward, is all.

That's the thing, I'm not someone who is absolutely dedicated to solving incoherent timelines or finding a chronology but one who merely follows a story, and when Nintendo's storywriters make such stupid and deliberate mistakes then it distresses me. My thoughts and feelings after sitting through the ending were confusion. I do agree with everything else you say though, expecting your original post its bloody annoying IE.exe often crashes when you least expect it, taking down every hidden copy of your reply with it. ¬.¬

And I know that this is an insane stretch of a dream, but how about 6/7 good dungeons? that would be mind-blowing. And a good plot/amazing overworld to boot! Yay for 10-year production time!

Guys, where's this absurd fact coming from? Ask anyone here because this is NINTENDO we've talking about, they've only got enough money and resources and previous game engines to pull this off within a decent 3-year timescale regardless of development costs and the bullcrap marketing department would have us believe; but what we've witnessed post-MM is a sheer reluctance on Ninty's part to actually produce a superior game to thrash previous installments.


...I'm at the point where I don't even care if they announced an upcoming Wii title they're using the same graphics engine as OoT/MM or TP so long as their development team can purely focus on gameplay, music and storyline aspects then that's all that truly matters. Sure we'll hear endless criticism from self-proclaimed reviewers and distributors, but those of us with any brains will know they've finally responded to our complaints.

[Duke Serkol]

Metroid Prime 3 has given me the hope that with the Wii there will be more innovations as far as dungeons are concerned.

Ohh... now that's what I like to hear.

And I know that this is an insane stretch of a dream, but how about 6/7 good dungeons? that would be mind-blowing. And a good plot/amazing overworld to boot! Yay for 10-year production time!

I think we had it right back in the days of ALttP through MM, when we had one big game which took a lot for them to develop then a smaller one they could release -while- developing the next big one and that could serve to break the pace of epic games (because, like they say, what's a sunny day without rainy ones?)

I think this nitpicking as the intro theme being the classic LoZ tune can't exactly be synthesized to sound any other way given that handheld's system specification.

It's not like there's some rule about always having the same title music. There's plenty of Zelda games with different ones. But regardless, LA's title music had a very different feel and tempo from the other remixes of the same track, being much quicker and more cheerful.

There are items still to be found afterwards; replay-ability has always been one of the franchise's weaknesses - some will joyfully pick it up again, while others will have grown bored.

Oh I thought you meant the ending, plot-wise. My mistake.

Unfortunately, Nintendo said they can't afford to make games as big as TP and yet it doesn't have as many dungeons as OoT or the record holding ALttP. So I'm afraid PH is going to be the norm from now on (and this, if we are lucky).

Uh-oh. Where and when did they spout this nonsense?

I don't remember when and where, but I think it was Iwata that sometime after TP's release said it is not profitable for them to spend so much time working on a single game as large and elaborate as TP and that therefore there would not be anoher like it for a long while. If he did mean that (and given TP's Japanese sales I'm inclined to think so) the next Zelda on Wii will likely be quite a bit shorter if not as much as MM was.

...I'm at the point where I don't even care if they announced an upcoming Wii title they're using the same graphics engine as OoT/MM or TP so long as their development team can purely focus on gameplay, music and storyline aspects then that's all that truly matters. Sure we'll hear endless criticism from self-proclaimed reviewers and distributors, but those of us with any brains will know they've finally responded to our complaints.

Aye, I concur once again.

[D~N]

Yeah, I wouldn't mind a Majora's Mask to Twilight Princess's OoT.
^I think that made sense O.o

Like, every console should have one big game (TP) and one shorter "half-game" (MM). But the shorter game needs to have something, it can't just be the same old same old. Like, MM's 3 day system, masks, and developed side-characters. TP's MM needs something of the sorts. Then I wouldn't mind.

Addendum to the new rule: Consoles need an 8dungeon/4dungeon cycle. The first game has 8, the second has 4 and uses the same engine to hold us over. Only then will I be a happy darknut.

Handheld games still don't have any reason to be short. =/

[Masamune]

Especially since delaying handhelds doesn't hurt anything. It's not like there's such a thing as a "DS Drought".

[Duke Serkol]

Like, every console should have one big game (TP) and one shorter "half-game" (MM).

We also need to factor in handheld games. Nintendo always has one handheld console, so that would mean 4 Zelda games per "generation". It may be a bit too much. After OoT the total number of Zelda games doubled in about half the time span it took for them to reach the fifth (OoT). That did not please me (mostly because the doubling happened through games like Oracles and TWW, but also because epic games need to be spaced up I think).
Then again handhelds typically are born and die at different times than home systems so maybe it could still be 3 per generation even with 2 per console. Of course that kinda messes up with the rule for which each Link wil have two adventures, no more no less (with the exception of MC Link, of course).

Addendum to the new rule: Consoles need an 8dungeon/4dungeon cycle. The first game has 8, the second has 4 and uses the same engine to hold us over. Only then will I be a happy darknut.

Make it 9/7 (or 8/6 not counting the final dungeon) and I'll be a happy Serkol as well (because really, 4 dungeons is far too little, only MM and MC had so few, and MM had quasi-dungeons besides those)

And while on it, I absolutely can't take anymore the "Ganon is fought and beaten once every two games" rule. Fighting him has become about as epic as making Bowser plummet into lava.

Edited by Duke Serkol, 11 November 2007 - 03:08 PM.

[Jumbie]

4 dungeons is far too little, only MM and MC had so few, and MM had quasi-dungeons besides those

I'll say it over and over again, but TMC actually had *six* dungeons. And among those were no semi-dungeons (like for example Forsaken Fortress) but rather six fully-fledged dungeons. And their length was very appropriate, too.

[Duke Serkol]

Yes that much is true. I just pile them together as the shortest games

[spunky-monkey]

And while on it, I absolutely can't take anymore the "Ganon is fought and beaten once every two games" rule. Fighting him has become about as epic as making Bowser plummet into lava.

I'm not entirely sure those two are comparable; I've played Mario games before and in everyone there's something about the portly plumber fighting Bowser that's timeless, straight out of a Japanese manga losing none of its appeal.

Being a different genre Zelda's not the same story. Having Ganon as the final boss is repetitive, unlike in ALttP and OoT there's no buildup or dramatic tension prior to his arrival because recently Ninty have opted for a 'stereotypical archenemy' and shows how uninspired the game has become when they often force the ending to include him. I think no one will disagree Twilight Princess displayed how well he can possibly work for future games; but the franchise -needs- new villains in new lands to overcome quite frankly. Heck, I can think up several baddies off the top of my head...

It seems that whenever Nintendo adopt a new style or theme for the series they just have to put Ganon into it; I blame this on Eiji for being so obsessed with beating Ocarina... and do you know something? That's his problem - he should be trying to design original games that don't constantly focus on innovation but classic adventures that break away from tradition, like Link's Awakening or Majora's Mask.

Edited by Ricky, 12 November 2007 - 04:29 AM.

[Duke Serkol]

Oh, I should have made myself more clear: I do like fighting Bowser again and again. But that's because it is not meant to be epic. Mario is comedy, and Bowser (a recurring to the point of ridicule villain) is perfect for it!

I think no one will disagree Twilight Princess displayed how well he can possibly work for future games

Uh? How so? Besides the execution scene, anything I've seen in TP of Ganondorf I've disliked.
But other than that, I agree with the rest of your post.

the franchise -needs- new villains in new lands to overcome quite frankly. Heck, I can think up several baddies off the top of my head...

Oh, do tell!

[Chaltab]

I sort of thought TWW was trying to close the book on Ganon/dorf for a while, but then he showed up the very next year in FSA and then again in Twilight Princess. I'm really glad that he wasn't the big bad of Phantom Hourglass.

[Koroks Rock]

But then the big bad in PH was the worst in the series to date. One of the worst in any series, to be honest- Bellum had about as much depth as a puddle.

Personally, I loved the TMC Vaati. He was bad, he was cool, and his swooshyness was a delight after Ganon's raw power, and it made Ganon more fun the next time he appeared, What we need is a cycle of not Ganon other Ganon Ganon other Ganon other, but perhaps Ganon Vaati other Ganon Vaati other. Three distinct baddies that have slightly different goals, methods, and radically different personalities, so that when we cycle back to the beginning we find Ganon refreshing and nostalgic.

[FDL]

TP.. rushed?? Are you kidding? They put it off for a LONG time, remember? They got crap for that, too. Nintendo really can't win
TP ruled though. they took the time to make it polished, and it really was. Every aspect of... of the early bits of the game.. was totally memorable. The bridge fire especially. It tapered off towards the end and that's the ONLY criticism you can really make.

It wasn't rushed in the traditional sense, it was rushed in that they had to spend time on making sure it was out for the launch of the Wii and the game suffered for it.


As for the rest of this thread, I'd have to say I don't believe Zelda has gone stale. People always say "Another Fire dungeon?! This game's just like Ocarina of Time!", but personally I find that logic to be a load of crap. What matters is how fun a certain level is. For instance, Twilight Princess had a fire dungeon that was better than all previous fire dungeons, one that had originality and an interesting design. Should it still be criticized for being a "fire" dungeon? God no. As long as a dungeon is fun, the "theme" of the dungeon doesn't really matter. In fact, I enjoy seeing different twists on an idea.

When it comes to things like characters and concepts, I feel similarly. I like seeing things that are done in homage to past Zelda's, and I don't think it should be considered "stale" for having returning characters, music, or concepts. Majora's Mask, The Wind Waker, and Twilight Princess all had things like that, but any flaws they had weren't really because of that, as far as I'm concerned.

[Fyxe]

But then the big bad in PH was the worst in the series to date. One of the worst in any series, to be honest- Bellum had about as much depth as a puddle.

I haven't finished PH yet, so please keep information about Bellum in spoiler tags and stuff, but you have to remember that both Ganon and Vaati had a similar amount of depth in both of the first two games they each appeared in. Majora didn't either, really. Oddly, Death Eye probably has the most depth in a single appearance.