227 replies to this topic

[Average Gamer]

Courtesy of ZU:

[Duke Serkol]

Toan, on Mar 26 2009, 08:59 PM, said:

Link using this technology? And this appears to be no different Hyrule... just one with a random train and train tracks. Because of that and the previous definitions of Hyrule that have been presented to us in previous games... the presence of a train DOES seem obtrusive. I also regard it as a Western element, in both the sense of "Eastern Civilization and Western Civilization" as well as the Western film genre... which clashes with my definition of the fantasy genre. *shrug* Might be just me.

Also, I see the presence of the train as the replacement of Epona.

No, it's definitely not just you. I mean, what's next, a wooden magical motorcycle?

[SnowsilverKat]

But Zelda's already kind of full of anachronisms...I mean they have bombs and fireworks, working clocks, the neon lighted bombchu bowling alley in OOT had a jukebox (I think that's what that thing was supposed to be), there's telephones in Link's Awakening, all of which technically clash with the European medieval setting.

I

[Raien]

Ugh, it's fucking typical that now is the worst possible time to get involved in a large discussion of this nature. To help me through this, I just want to cover a few points that I feel are important.


Selena, I would like to make a change in my argument. So far, I've said that history favours the innovators, but I now would like to change that word to "influence". If a video game manages to influence the industry, then that game is going to attain long-term recognition for its influence. Within this context, innovation is the conduit for creating influence; rarely does a video game change the direction of the industry by base copying its predecessors (and no, I will not accept that OoT or FFVII are "copies" of their respective predecessors just because some people don't appreciate the immersive impact of the third dimension).

With that said, I also stand by my argument that Metroid Prime and Bioshock were both instrumental in popularising immersion within the FPS genre. Immersion is now something we take for granted in the genre, but it's a far cry from the corny level-orientated designs of Doom, Quake, Goldeneye and Perfect Dark. I also believe that immersion is what really distinguishes the 3D environment from the 2D environment. It was this point that developers really began focusing on the cinematic and literary qualities of video games, leaving more innovative gameplay concepts in the 2D platform.


Darkjuno, a gimmick is not something that can be applied to all gameplay. A gimmick is style over substance. It is the spectacle that is featured prominently in advertising yet fails to deliver much of the actual experience. I'd argue that how much a "gameplay device" contributes to the experience depends upon the individual gameplay, as the sailing for example has been much more influential than Wolf Link has. But the point here is that Nintendo has become reliant on such devices to drive their campaign, which is why the device is now constantly featured in the subtitles. What would be much better for the series is if Nintendo focused on a grass-roots development of the main structure and formula.

Edited by Raien, 26 March 2009 - 09:34 PM.

[Duke Serkol]

SnowsilverKat, on Mar 27 2009, 03:20 AM, said:

But Zelda's already kind of full of anachronisms...I mean they have bombs and fireworks, working clocks, the neon lighted bombchu bowling alley in OOT had a jukebox (I think that's what that thing was supposed to be), there's telephones in Link's Awakening, all of which technically clash with the European medieval setting.

The fact that they keep doing it, doesn't mean I will begin to like it... and what's worse is, they keep expanding this.
The anachronisms in LA I didn't mind because it was the Wind Fish dream and he apparently dreams of other realities (think Goombas...)
The Bombchu bowling was just a minigame, easy to take in. With Majora it started to get worse, featuring strobes lights, ceiling fans and freaking aliens. I thought TWW had the worst of it with a boss fight against a robot over techno music in a room with electrified circuit plates. That was bad, but at least it was only one boss. Just as the western village and cloud city of Bespin in TP were locations one didn't really need to revisit much.
Now this train on the other hand is going to be around for the whole game v_v

Edited by Duke Serkol, 26 March 2009 - 09:42 PM.

[TheAvengerLever]

I think the Zelda fan community greatly misunderstands the workings of technology. Obviously, Hyrule is doing much the same that Earth has done over a thousand years. Just as we've found new technology and new ways to do things, so must Hyrule.

I mean, honestly. Did you expect them to be medieval forever?

Btw, I can't wait for Zelda: Cure for Cancer.

[Duke Serkol]

TheAvengerButton, on Mar 27 2009, 03:52 AM, said:

I think the Zelda fan community greatly misunderstands the workings of technology. Obviously, Hyrule is doing much the same that Earth has done over a thousand years. Just as we've found new technology and new ways to do things, so must Hyrule.

I mean, honestly. Did you expect them to be medieval forever?

I don't know about the rest of the Zelda community, but that's certainly not the way I feel.
If they were to go steampunk... I mean to REALLY go that way, I would be the first to rejoice. The problem is, Spirit Tracks doesn't look one tiny bit steampunk. From what we see, it seems evident that it'll be just another medieval fantasy game with a train randomly thrown in to serve as the latest gimmick.

[Green Goblin]

TheAvengerButton, on Mar 26 2009, 10:52 PM, said:

I think the Zelda fan community greatly misunderstands the workings of technology. Obviously, Hyrule is doing much the same that Earth has done over a thousand years. Just as we've found new technology and new ways to do things, so must Hyrule.

I mean, honestly. Did you expect them to be medieval forever?

Btw, I can't wait for Zelda: Cure for Cancer.

*DUH-NUH-NUH-NAAAAAAAAAH*

"You found the stem cell research"

[TheAvengerLever]

^I love you. That is going to be QFT.

[SnowsilverKat]

They don't need a cure for cancer in Hyrule. You just keep a fairy in a bottle around in case.

[DarkJuno]

Raien, on Mar 26 2009, 09:32 PM, said:

Darkjuno, a gimmick is not something that can be applied to all gameplay. A gimmick is style over substance. It is the spectacle that is featured prominently in advertising yet fails to deliver much of the actual experience. I'd argue that how much a "gameplay device" contributes to the experience depends upon the individual gameplay, as the sailing for example has been much more influential than Wolf Link has. But the point here is that Nintendo has become reliant on such devices to drive their campaign, which is why the device is now constantly featured in the subtitles. What would be much better for the series is if Nintendo focused on a grass-roots development of the main structure and formula.

All right, I think we're using two different definitions of the same word then. You mean:

Quote

–verb (used with object) 5. to equip or embellish with unnecessary features, esp. in order to increase salability, acceptance, etc. (often fol. by up): to gimmick up a sports car with chrome and racing stripes.

But I meant:

Quote

–noun 1. an ingenious or novel device, scheme, or stratagem, esp. one designed to attract attention or increase appeal.

I suppose you could apply either definition to what Nintendo is doing, but that's pretty much a matter of opinion. I tend to use this more for Transformers boards then anything else, but gimmick in itself is not a negative thing, I still argue that anything you do in any game is a gimmick, some things just became so well accepted and ingrained into the series - or games in general (Jumping? In a game!? Ababa-BWAH!?) - that it doesn't seem like it, but in the end, it still is at its absest definition. Gameplay is a gimmick, because it's different from sitting there and watching TV - you control it instead of just letting it do its thing. Just like I always say at TF boards till my face is blue to people who want figures with no gimmicks - the very fact that they are Transformers is a gimmick in and of itself.

Now, unlike those knuckleheads I do realize that you mean you'd opt they stick to the usual Zelkda formula without bothering with anything else - fair enough. I have to ask why though, as far as I'm concerned they've got the Zelda "formula" down perfectly, even if they were to just stick to that the game will at least be decent - hell, it's why almost any Zelda game will be decent, because even if the new thing doesn't turn out all that well, the core game is still solid enough that it's playable and more then mediocre. But therein lies the problem; sure, it's pretty muich perfected and all they can really do now is make it pretty - and to be honest I'm still waiting for a Zelda game with an atmosphere that'll wow me like OoT did when I first walked onto Hyrule Field - in the end it's still just....there. It can't really be anything more then good because they really can't do much more to it to make it better, other then tweaks here and there. Oh, it'll look awesome with the full power of the Wii (I don't care what anyone says, TP was a pretty game, last gen or not), and they can add more details and such in terms of presentation and story, but at the end of the day, it's just Super Ocarina of Time Director's Cut Dual Shock Hyper Fighting HD Turbo Remix - great, but nothing new. More then anything, that will cause the game to go stagnant, just the same old shit over and over again.

In the end though, the new gimmick is only as good as it's integrated into the game - Epona was well recieved and fit in well, so there it stayed. Wolf Link didn't, so eh, good try, back to the drawing board. In the end it's up to them, at the end of the day the game will be decent unless they go completely insane.

[Chikara Nadir]

Selena, on Mar 26 2009, 02:08 PM, said:

Cloud Strife uses the Compensation Buster Sword and Sephiroth uses the Bigger Compensation Katana in FF7 even though other bad guys are running around with laser guns. Same for FF8 and Squall's gunblade.

Speaking of which...this is generally what I feel about the effect that this whole train shenanigans is going to have on the success of the game. If you've played FFVIII, you'll know what I mean.


Eh. There are some levels of technology in the Zelda universe that fit in, but I'm going to stay a skeptic until it comes out and I see how fun (or strange) it turns out.

[Steel Samurai]

Metroid Prime really . . . wasn't all that innovative. Adventure games like Myst had been doing the same thing for years, only without guns. The only real innovative thing about Prime was the attempted fusion of the adventure genre with the fps genre. And it succeeded far better as an adventure title than an fps. And come on, the visor system was about as gimmicky as you can get.

Similarly, I think that the real groundbreaking 3D work was done not on OoT, but Super Mario 64. Ocarnia just took what the devs had learned from mario and combined it with aLttP, adding a cool targeting system while they were at it. The sense of wonder and the idea of this huge world waiting to explore was the same at the beginning of Mario, heading towards the castle or in the first stage for the first time as it was in OoT, waking up and running around Kokiri village. Don't get me wrong, I still absolutely adore OoT, and it will remain the quintessential Zelda and arguably the greatest game ever made for me for a very long time, but it was the culmination of work done on Mario and aLttP, not some magical thing that sprang forth fully grown from a 2D series.

[Raien]

DarkJuno, on Mar 27 2009, 03:54 AM, said:

Now, unlike those knuckleheads I do realize that you mean you'd opt they stick to the usual Zelkda formula without bothering with anything else - fair enough.

I don't want them to stick to the usual Zelda formula. I want them to revamp the entire Zelda formula, not just force in "gameplay devices" that have little-to-no effect on the majority of the experience. What Nintendo are doing now with Zelda is the equivalent to RE Zero's "partner-zapping" system. What I want Nintendo to do is something equivalent to the change present in Resident Evil 4. And considering how the public and press reacted to RE Zero and RE4 respectively, I am pretty confident that this is where Nintendo is going wrong. What Aonuma really wants is for a Zelda game to have the same impact as OoT and RE4 did, and the only way he can do that is by full-scale improvement of the formula.

Quote

But therein lies the problem; sure, it's pretty muich perfected and all they can really do now is make it pretty...

Rubbish. Video games continue to change and develop with time, and there's no reason whatsoever why a Zelda game cannot learn from what other developers are achieving.

Steel Samurai said

Metroid Prime really . . . wasn't all that innovative. Adventure games like Myst had been doing the same thing for years, only without guns. The only real innovative thing about Prime was the attempted fusion of the adventure genre with the fps genre. And it succeeded far better as an adventure title than an fps. And come on, the visor system was about as gimmicky as you can get.

Similarly, I think that the real groundbreaking 3D work was done not on OoT, but Super Mario 64. Ocarnia just took what the devs had learned from mario and combined it with aLttP, adding a cool targeting system while they were at it. The sense of wonder and the idea of this huge world waiting to explore was the same at the beginning of Mario, heading towards the castle or in the first stage for the first time as it was in OoT, waking up and running around Kokiri village. Don't get me wrong, I still absolutely adore OoT, and it will remain the quintessential Zelda and arguably the greatest game ever made for me for a very long time, but it was the culmination of work done on Mario and aLttP, not some magical thing that sprang forth fully grown from a 2D series.

*facedesk* I struggle to put my frustration at this hypocrisy into words.

You write off every achievement made in OoT and Metroid Prime as if it were unimportant, illusory or a gimmick without reason or explanation. You fail to consider how these changes can have a dramatic impact on a game, regardless of whether such features have featured somewhere before in a different way. And yet when similar achievements were made in Super Mario 64, then all of a sudden they matter. I can apply your arguments to Super Mario 64; "Super Mario 64 was just Super Mario Bros. in 3D. You still jump on platforms and enemies, but you do it in 3D. Stars are a gimmick". I have only one response to your "Metroid Prime is Myst but with guns" argument. What the fuck...


EDIT: Okay, new point to Steel Samurai and Selena. If you strip every single video game into it's most basic parts and functions, you can see how every detail has appeared in or relates to a single previous game before it. It is thus a ridiculous argument that innovation can somehow only be found in the individual functions; innovation is in the way that these details come together to create a completely new experience. A hybrid genre is innovative if no one has developed this hybridity before. On that basis, Super Mario 64, Ocarina of Time, Metroid Prime, etc, succeed due to their innovations as an entire video game experience. Not just because they happened to be 3D or have guns or have a targeting systen.

Edited by Raien, 27 March 2009 - 09:41 AM.

[Veteran]

[NM87]

Quote

The stagnation of the Zelda series has been well-documented since TWW, coming to a head with TP. This isn't a case of "I'm right and you're wrong". This is a case of "Most people hate this and you're in an extreme minority if you don't see the problem".

That's why you seem to be the only person arguing for that "well documented" """""FACT""""

Why does Cloud use a sword when he has teh lazers?

WHEN DID OUR VIDEO GAMES HAVE TO MAKE SENSE? Who cares if a train in Zelda doesn't make sense or if they are alternatively advanced?

"ST is a rehash of PH and I don't like where the series is going because of gimmicks!"



and

Edited by NM87, 27 March 2009 - 10:19 AM.

[Selena]

Quote

Btw, I can't wait for Zelda: Cure for Cancer.

Dr. Link sets up shop next to Dr. Mario.

The ultimate showdown of medical destiny begins!

Raien said

With that said, I also stand by my argument that Metroid Prime and Bioshock were both instrumental in popularising immersion within the FPS genre.

I will have to strongly disagree with this and then respectfully ask just how many FPS games you've actually played. FPS games, and games in general, had been immersive for quite some time before Metroid Prime saw the light of day. Prime was revolutionary for the Metroid franchise, not shooters or adventure games in general.

Likewise, as I've already mentioned, 90% of BioShock is entirely unoriginal. The only original elements in that gamer were the Little Sisters and the underwater setting. Nearly every enemy, weapon, ability, power, and plot twist came from System Shock 2. Even individual missions (the most noticeable being 'The Lazarus Vector') were borrowed. And again, BioShock was still missing some of the things from System Shock 2, so it was also dumbed down. The major improvements made were the graphics and voice acting. BioShock was no more immersive than its predecessor. If BioShock 'popularized' immersion within the FPS genre, it's only because it moved far more copies.

Which brings us back to this erroneous statement...

Quote

Selena, I would like to make a change in my argument. So far, I've said that history favours the innovators, but I now would like to change that word to "influence". If a video game manages to influence the industry, then that game is going to attain long-term recognition for its influence.

This is completely false. There are many games that never attain popularity or recognition. Games are no different from movies or books in this respect. For example, some people consider The Magnificent Seven one of the best movies ever made, but it's essentially a remake of The Seven Samurai, which is much less well known to the western public. Along with countless other little 'cult' movies that are only known to a handful of people. These sort of cult classics tend to be popular amongst filmmakers more than they are with people in general, meaning that their influence will discreetly leak into the industry without ever obtaining widespread recognition.

The same is true for games. There have been many highly influential titles that slip under the radar and essentially get ignored by the vast majority of people. History favors innovation with good marketing and release dates, not innovation in general.

It's unfair to credit a more popular game with 'innovation' and 'influence' if most of its innovations came from an earlier game.

Quote

If you strip every single video game into it's most basic parts and functions, you can see how every detail has appeared in or relates to a single previous game before it. It is thus a ridiculous argument that innovation can somehow only be found in the individual functions; innovation is in the way that these details come together to create a completely new experience. A hybrid genre is innovative if no one has developed this hybridity before. On that basis, Super Mario 64, Ocarina of Time, Metroid Prime, etc, succeed due to their innovations as an entire video game experience. Not just because they happened to be 3D or have guns or have a targeting systen.

Yes. Every single game can be traced back to DOS or Atari titles on the video game family tree, if not to games made before that. Of course, my argument was never that innovation is found in individual functions. I seem to be making a lot of convenient invisible arguments lately.

Innovation and revolution depends on the game and genre. I think you told me to focus on context earlier. I suggest you do the same. Super Mario 64's major change was 3D, but it also had fundamental changes on top of that - such as being able to casually explore environments and how to go about playing a Mario game in general. It was most definitely NOT Mario Bros. in 3D.

Ocarina's biggest change was also 3D, but unlike Mario, it did not have many fundamental changes to the Zelda formula. You went through most of the same ordeals you did in ALttP.

Metroid Prime was only revolutionary to Metroid. As shooters in general, the Prime games are all fairly run of the mill. I've found other shooters, even older ones, to be more immersive than the Prime games. I would not say they were terribly innovative, unless you're limiting your field of vision to just the franchise. In which case, yes, they were 'new.'


The best change that could be made to Zelda is getting away from collecting useless trinkets throughout Hyrule. Link's an adventurer and hero. I'd like to see him adventure into another new land, like with Oracles or Majora, and save it from a villain that isn't Ganon. Both Metroid and Zelda rely on their biggest villains to the point where its detrimental. Or have a game that's literally a journey - constantly moving forward into new territory rather than going back and forth between familiar terrain. Have him hunt down a big bad constantly on the move and enslaving towns/temples along the way, with Link having to liberate them before moving ahead, until things culminate into their final showdown. Or embracing non-linear gameplay, where Link has multiple problems to solve that ultimately end up tying into a greater, overarching plot regardless of which order you solve them in. Or something of that sort.

For everything else - the combat and equipment and controls - I think that's a case of 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it.' Those have always been Zelda's strongest suits. I don't think you need something quite as radical as the change in gameplay as seen in RE4.

[spunky-monkey]

D~N, on Mar 25 2009, 11:36 PM, said:

^My initial reaction. Just let how AWESOME a freaking Train is soak in. Give trains a chance; they're cool, you know it! You just don't want it in a Zelda game, I think. And neither did I at first. But when I realized the potential of this, I saw it would be no worse than a horse or a boat. Remember how random a talking boat sounded at first. Well this is just as random, but at least the train doesn't talk.

Dude - you're looking at a train fanatic, "Thomas the Tank Engine & Friends" narrated by Ringo Star was an integral part of my early childhood, but the mere prospect of mixing it with a fantasy-orientated series such as Zelda is nothing sort of blasphemous.

WHY couldn't this mode of transport have been something like a bird or dragon straight out of Final Fantasy or Secret of Mana? At least those concepts would be more compatible with the setting.

I'm really starting to question the so-called fans at this moment in time; did they ever truly love the Zelda games? The perfect blend between Eastern and Western Mythologies? Or are they all a mindless bunch of Nintendo loyalists? A strange lot who'd latch onto any concept simply because it's *popular* and would still manage to enjoy something as ridiculous as a skateboarding Link, spraying graffiti across the streets of New Hyrule without ever questioning their standards (or lack of).

By the way, the two "it'll still be fun" and "stagnation" arguments can f**k right off quite frankly, anyone whose brain isn't located up his own arse would know originally Zelda games when they stayed traditional to gameplay, were fun, these boat n' train cheesy gimmicks aren't.

Thanks to the old classics I've forced myself to endure some bullshit over the recent years in the now apparently vain-hope it was just a casual-experimental-phase Ninty were going through, Celda while disturbing didn't put me off altogether, but this whole train driver content takes the biscuit entire confectionary.

CID Farwin, on Mar 26 2009, 03:03 AM, said:

I mean, come on. You control a Dark Nut.

And drive a freakin' train!

That aspect alone is hardly a 'saving grace' CID. It's utterly futile to rant on about how lovely a car's window looks if said car's engine and suspension are well and truly knackered.

TheAvengerButton, on Mar 26 2009, 12:23 PM, said:

They aren't really gimmicks. They're gameplay devices, and they happen to be the very thing that's keeping the series alive

Hate to correct you but when a car, train, or plane, or boat becomes the predominant feature of any game, THEY ARE LITERALLY GIMMICKS, and nothing more.

Steel Samurai, on Mar 26 2009, 01:07 PM, said:

I think it's way way to early to even be thinking about calling this game. People said 'Celda' would suck, and the game turned out to be awesome.

I always thought it was a sore malformed disappointment in comparison to OoT/MM, is that perhaps because I'm not "people"? Is anyone who thinks contrary to this just a minority?

Steel Samurai, on Mar 26 2009, 01:43 PM, said:

So, the numbers aren't as high as they were back in N64 days, but they're hardly stagnating. Critically, all the Zelda games receive somewhere between 90-100% from most reviewers, with Wind Waker and OoT both receiving perfect scores from most reviewers (OoT pulled out ahead slightly)

You should know by now that opinions can never be represented or summed up numerically. Not to mention anyone who awards any game 10/10 or 100% is retarded and needs urgent help. There's no such thing as the perfect game and that applies to Zelda as well.

Toan, on Mar 26 2009, 07:33 PM, said:

I think the major problem is because Nintendo has muddied the line between what we associate with Zelda and what we associate with the real world. With the addition of a train to the Zeldaverse... it removes some of the fantastical element. Now, instead of a medieval feel, a fantasy feel, swords and magic and mystery... Now we're giving a steam engine and almost an Industrial Revolution feel. The math doesn't add up - Link might as well be using a handgun by now, if a combustion engine has been perfected and tracks have been laid throughout (a presumed) Hyrule.

^Quoted for truth.

Edited by spunky-monkey, 27 March 2009 - 03:58 PM.

[Raien]

Selena, on Mar 27 2009, 08:45 PM, said:

I will have to strongly disagree with this and then respectfully ask just how many FPS games you've actually played. FPS games, and games in general, had been immersive for quite some time before Metroid Prime saw the light of day. Prime was revolutionary for the Metroid franchise, not shooters or adventure games in general.

You need to read posts more carefully. I said Metroid Prime was instrumental in popularising the genre, not revolutionising the genre. You know, like FFVII popularised the JRPG genre. Prime is one game in a general trend; namely the development of an obscure genre into something much more mainstream. Despite that such trends began with the likes of System Shock 2, the fact is that a lack of true innovation does not make it any less significant as a video game. The same goes for BioShock; it's not the first, but it has certainly played a role in demonstrating the effectiveness of the genre, and the movement of the genre towards the mainstream.

Quote

This is completely false. There are many games that never attain popularity or recognition. Games are no different from movies or books in this respect. For example, some people consider The Magnificent Seven one of the best movies ever made, but it's essentially a remake of The Seven Samurai, which is much less well known to the western public. Along with countless other little 'cult' movies that are only known to a handful of people. These sort of cult classics tend to be popular amongst filmmakers more than they are with people in general, meaning that their influence will discreetly leak into the industry without ever obtaining widespread recognition.

This is exactly why I distinguished influence from innovation; they're not the same thing at all. If a game or film brings a certain genre into the spotlight, then it's going to attain long-term recognition for that alone. Where innovation comes into this understanding is that any genre already fading from the spotlight needs something new and innovative to bring about a successful revival (and for the record, it doesn't matter if said "innovation" has appeared in a completely different genre. Hybridity is itself an innovation). This is what Zelda needs right now.

Edited by Raien, 27 March 2009 - 04:38 PM.

[Duke Serkol]

spunky-monkey, on Mar 27 2009, 09:57 PM, said:

WHY couldn't this mode of transport have been something like a bird or dragon straight out of Final Fantasy or Secret of Mana? At least those concepts would be more compatible with the setting.

Excellent point.
I once had plans for a fangame in which Link would ride a Griffin.

spunky-monkey, on Mar 27 2009, 09:57 PM, said:

are they all a mindless bunch of Nintendo loyalists? A strange lot who'd latch onto any concept simply because it's *popular* and would still manage to enjoy something as ridiculous as a skateboarding Link, spraying graffiti across the streets of New Hyrule without ever questioning their standards (or lack of).

One could think so (the Nintendo loyalist thing) but it seems to me that in actuality, as bizarre as it may be, the thing is simply that people don't care about logic in videogame storytelling.
I mean, I know lots of people don't care about storytelling in videogames in the first place, and that I can understand, but caring about the plot but not whether it makes sense or not? That is something that really puzzles me.
A bit of that loyalist thing is probably true though... imagine if it was a fangame that had introduced a train in Zelda. Odds are the abomination would have properly been buried under a sea of flames.

spunky-monkey, on Mar 27 2009, 09:57 PM, said:

Thanks to the old classics I've forced myself to endure some bullshit over the recent years in the now apparently vain-hope it was just a casual-experimental-phase Ninty were going through, Celda while disturbing didn't put me off altogether, but this whole train driver content takes the biscuit entire confectionary.

That is exactly how I feel about this.

spunky-monkey, on Mar 27 2009, 09:57 PM, said:

I always thought it was a sore malformed disappointment in comparison to OoT/MM, is that perhaps because I'm not "people"? Is anyone who thinks contrary to this just a minority?

What, you are discovering that we're a minority now?

Edited by Duke Serkol, 27 March 2009 - 06:48 PM.

[SnowsilverKat]

Well, I guess my only suggestion for people who object to the train so much is to...er...not play the game? I dunno. I doubt Nintendo's going to change their minds about this game based on what the fans say, one way or another - they certainly didn't budge when people complained about Celda or when the Wii's name was first announced. Basically what I'm saying is, this train's coming, like it or not.

[Duke Serkol]

SnowsilverKat, on Mar 28 2009, 12:26 AM, said:

I guess my only suggestion for people who object to the train so much is to...er...not play the game? I dunno. I doubt Nintendo's going to change their minds about this game based on what the fans say, one way or another - they certainly didn't budge when people complained about Celda or when the Wii's name was first announced. Basically what I'm saying is, this train's coming, like it or not.

Of course, there's no doubt that the game will come out train and all, no matter what.
However that shan't take away our right and determination to abundantly whine, bitch and moan about it

[Raien]

General constants in fan mods:

1) Most models and environments are re-used from official titles.
2) Some models are altered slightly to create an illusion of difference.
3) Anything brand new looks less detailed (i.e. more "rookie") than the offical work.
4) Mod's story ignores the context of the series mythology and adds things in for the hell of it.

All four signs are visible in ST.

Edited by Raien, 27 March 2009 - 06:55 PM.

[DarkJuno]

Raien, on Mar 27 2009, 09:19 AM, said:

I don't want them to stick to the usual Zelda formula. I want them to revamp the entire Zelda formula, not just force in "gameplay devices" that have little-to-no effect on the majority of the experience. What Nintendo are doing now with Zelda is the equivalent to RE Zero's "partner-zapping" system. What I want Nintendo to do is something equivalent to the change present in Resident Evil 4. And considering how the public and press reacted to RE Zero and RE4 respectively, I am pretty confident that this is where Nintendo is going wrong. What Aonuma really wants is for a Zelda game to have the same impact as OoT and RE4 did, and the only way he can do that is by full-scale improvement of the formula.

Ack, sorry, see that now that I have the time to read everything more thouroughly. Rough night last night, I take it back

Quote

Rubbish. Video games continue to change and develop with time, and there's no reason whatsoever why a Zelda game cannot learn from what other developers are achieving.

Yes, but in the end that's just fine tuning what they've already done. It's still pretty much the same stuff they've done before. Zelda is nothing like Resident Evil or Tomb Raider, those were broken, clunky, unwieldy messes that managed to struggle along long after their play style out stayed their welcomes till someone finally realized they needed a change. I don't really see how you can do as great a change as that without totally changing everything - it doesn't really need it. If anything Zelda just needs to work on presentation and general atmosphere more then gameplay, though hell that's Nintendo's problem in general. Though hell, if they do something radical and it doesn't turn out like Bomberman Zero, I'll go for it. I just don't think it really needs that major a change.

I'm fairly sure Counterstrike and Halo were a lot more instrumental in popularizing FPS games to the general public then Prime did, even if I think it's a better game then the other two can ever hope to be. Unless you're refering to FPS that aren't just "Shoot things that move" and make you use your brain, then I suppose - though I've met a depressingly large number of people who think Bioshock did the whole First Person Adventure deal first and don't even mention MP, much less System Shock.

[Raien]

I think combat in Zelda could be dramatically improved. That's something that has fallen by the wayside since TWW, in favour of puzzle-orientated content.

[Selena]

There are very few adventure games that do combat as well as Zelda. If combat needs to be tweaked, just throwing in more battles should be sufficient. The controls are very balanced and function well. Making better use of the Wiimote for sword usage could factor in, but otherwise things are fairly solid on that front. Like DJ said, the reason RE4 got a combat overhaul is because the early RE games were downright horrible at it. This is not the case with Zelda.

Quote

You need to read posts more carefully. I said Metroid Prime was instrumental in popularising the genre, not revolutionising the genre. You know, like FFVII popularised the JRPG genre. Prime is one game in a general trend; namely the development of an obscure genre into something much more mainstream. Despite that such trends began with the likes of System Shock 2, the fact is that a lack of true innovation does not make it any less significant as a video game. The same goes for BioShock; it's not the first, but it has certainly played a role in demonstrating the effectiveness of the genre, and the movement of the genre towards the mainstream.

This is exactly why I distinguished influence from innovation; they're not the same thing at all. If a game or film brings a certain genre into the spotlight, then it's going to attain long-term recognition for that alone. Where innovation comes into this understanding is that any genre already fading from the spotlight needs something new and innovative to bring about a successful revival (and for the record, it doesn't matter if said "innovation" has appeared in a completely different genre. Hybridity is itself an innovation). This is what Zelda needs right now.

I definitely disagree on this - that making something popular should count as an achievement on its own. Any game that is responsible for popularizing an innovation tends to get the actual credit for the innovation. Final Fantasy VII, for example, is ridiculously overhyped and given way way way way more praise than it actually deserves. The same thing with Halo and BioShock, and any number of games that popularize concepts that were already in use. Which I think, from a creative standpoint, is incredibly unjust and does the actual innovators a horrible disservice.

It's like the popular girl in school taking an idea that a shy nerd developed, implementing it, and then getting all the credit. You could argue that the original innovators will get some kind of recognition for their contributions from cult followings or what not... but they're called cult followings for a reason. It's only a small group of people that know a game/movie/book even exists. The general public never picks up on who actually created the idea in the first place. The real innovators seldom get the credit for the contributions they make.

Note that I'm not counting games who improve upon concepts. That's another form of innovation. Nor am I including mixing innovations to make a good hybrid game. That's another form of innovation too. I mean something like BioShock. Nothing was really improved or enhanced. It was pretty much System Shock 2 underwater. Nothing was very innovative, but it still gets all the credit for its gameplay 'innovations.' Which is not fair at all. The only consolation is that the same creators were responsible for both games, give or take a few team members. So they, at least, get some overdue appreciation for their efforts. But the same cannot be said for many other 'popular' games that fall into this category.

For someone who says he wants to be a writer, this is a somewhat surprising stance to take - unless I'm misunderstanding. What if you write a very good book and sell only a few copies? Then some other author comes along, takes many of your concepts, and goes on to have commercial success while you never receive the praise you rightly deserve for inventing those concepts in the first place. Would you still happily praise the book that 'popularized' your concepts and consider it an achievement? Or if not yourself, then another author. It just does not seem fair from a creative standpoint.



As for innovation and revival, well, we again get into what 'the franchise really needs.' Zelda fans seem incredibly divided on what they want from Nintendo, meaning that, as DJ has suggested, there's no pleasing everyone. Some really like sticking to the formula. Others don't like essentially doing the same thing over and over. Some want combat revamped. Some would rather have story revamped and combat left alone. Some liked Majora. Others hated it. Some people could be psyched for Tank Engine adventures through Hyrule. Weird... as that is.

It can be a huge economic risk to try something very innovative when the current formula sells well. You have to remember that Nintendo is going to have a limited budget for the development of new games, especially when you consider that they also have to make Metroid and Mario games in addition to Zelda. If a great innovative experiment tanks and gets very low sales, they won't be able to make another game again for a very long time. Or will have to take money away from one of the other franchises. When looking at it from that perspective, it's understandable why they are reluctant to change things up too much in regards to Zelda. As you've pointed out with the sales and reaction to Majora, they may be reluctant to try something too out there with Zelda again. Easy handhelds are a quick way to earn cash when there aren't many third parties bringing in additional revenue.

It's not true for all franchises, of course. But Squaresoft tried to be somewhat experimental there at the end (Vagrant Story, Spirits Within, etc.) and was subsequently forced to merged with Enix. They've since moved into the gimmicky side of things as well. Pop Idol FFX-2, for one horrific example. And all the other sequels/side stories/crap they've released.

If opinion on something like Majora was as mixed as you seem to indicate, then Nintendo probably doesn't want to put its finger in the electrical socket again. How nice it would be to not worry about money when making something. Sadly, many franchises have to rely on gimmicky material just to make ends meet. Which probably says more about the 'general gaming community' and their taste than it does about the skill of the developers.

But one can hope that they store up enough funds to try experimenting again and not worry too much about the ramifications.

[NM87]

It seems like the fanatical Zelda fans that hold Zelda in a biblical manner are upset with this game, with comments such as "Trains ruin the fantasy feel". While the more casual fans are like "Oh snap trains, I like it."

What the hell is wrong with steam punk Zelda? Trains, alternative technology involving steam. I could breath he fresh innovative breath you all clamor for.

Hasn't the side who feels negatively about ST realized its fault? They claim Zelda to be saturated and nothing new has come of the pas few games, but when this new idea of a steam driven Zelda world presents itself, its blasphemous. Its like they want Zelda to stay old and somehow be new. You can teach and old dog new tricks, but not a sick one (as Raien and others make it out to be). So...isn’t' the whole basis of the argument contradictory? You want something new...but when something new comes along...you shoot it down whining about some crap about the Zelda fantasy world being ruined.

Raien said

I think combat in Zelda could be dramatically improved. That's something that has fallen by the wayside since TWW, in favour of puzzle-orientated content.

You mean the battle with the Helmasaur King compared to the battle with Jalhalla? Yea, I agree, I like the combat based bosses better.

BTW, I completely agree with Selena.

Edited by NM87, 27 March 2009 - 11:44 PM.

[SOAP]

My only gripe is that I wished that a train could have been introduced in a Wii game. The TWW art style looks crappy on the DS but when it was on the gamecube it was fanatstic. There's no telling how amazing it would have been on the Wii. The DS, at least graphically, doesn't do it justice.

[roflolmao]

*sigh* Nin10duh! is running out of ideas. I mean, a train? COME ON! Not cool man. Nintendo should wake up and smell the coffee, the new stuff they are making appeals only to SOME hardcore fans. Period.

[Duke Serkol]

NM87, on Mar 28 2009, 05:39 AM, said:

What the hell is wrong with steam punk Zelda? Trains, alternative technology involving steam. I could breath he fresh innovative breath you all clamor for.

I'm sorry, you all know I don't usually do this, but I really can't help it this time because this has already been said several time (by myself and others as well) so I need to shout it...

SIMPLY ADDING A TRAIN DOES NOT MAKE FOR STEAMPUNK!!!

Uff... if this trailer showed a major shift in the setting to demonstrate that Zelda has indeed left the medieval fantasy world, I would be the happiest. The problem is that it hasn't. It's the usual medieval fantasy only with a train randomly thrown in.

roflolmao, on Mar 28 2009, 11:13 AM, said:

the new stuff they are making appeals only to SOME hardcore fans. Period.

Uh... no, actually (and unfortunately) it is only we, some hardcore fans, that care(d) enough to be pissed.