zelda disappointment
Dave Stevens
After waiting for the release of Zelda since the N64 was released, I am now
feeling quite let down by the actual game delivered. Sure its has the best
graphics I have ever seen, but the gameplay is just to near to the SNES
original. I like the zelda format, don't get me worry, but I feel a little
cheated when Zelda64 is SO close to the original. Enter dungeon, find map,
find compass, find boss key. Even the sound fx are to close to the
original. I just feel that the attention put in to the graphics have taken
the focus away from the actual 'game'. At some stages it even feels like I'm
playing Tomb Raider. Zelda has lost its RPG feel.
Does anyone else feel the same, All I've read in this NG is Zelda 64 best
thing since sliced bread.
(hey) And as for that bloody fairy, Nintendo, please let me just play the f
'in game myself!!!!
Dave
PlasticFantastic
know I'm not the only one who hates that stupid shit head little fairy Navi.
She's so annoying most of the time!
Chris Marentette
Windsor, Ontario, Canada
Dave Stevens <david_...@ntcc.grenoble.hp.com> wrote in message
news:36922...@isoit370.bbn.hp.com...
Gargantua Blargg
> After waiting for the release of Zelda since the N64 was released, I am now
> feeling quite let down by the actual game delivered. Sure its has the best
> graphics I have ever seen, but the gameplay is just to near to the SNES
> original. I like the zelda format, don't get me worry, but I feel a little
> cheated when Zelda64 is SO close to the original. Enter dungeon, find map,
> find compass, find boss key. Even the sound fx are to close to the
> original. I just feel that the attention put in to the graphics have taken
> the focus away from the actual 'game'. At some stages it even feels like I'm
> playing Tomb Raider. Zelda has lost its RPG feel.
>
> Does anyone else feel the same, All I've read in this NG is Zelda 64 best
> thing since sliced bread.
Shaddup! It is the best game ever, and everyone (except you) agrees. Just
read all the magazines. The hype was all true. And it wasn't even
generated by the companies! It was generated by players like everyone
except yourself. You suck!
<Majority mode off>
J Nugent
Dave Stevens wrote in message <36922...@isoit370.bbn.hp.com>...
>Hi
>
>After waiting for the release of Zelda since the N64 was released, I am now
>feeling quite let down by the actual game delivered. Sure its has the best
>graphics I have ever seen, but the gameplay is just to near to the SNES
>original. I like the zelda format, don't get me worry, but I feel a little
>cheated when Zelda64 is SO close to the original. Enter dungeon, find map,
>find compass, find boss key. Even the sound fx are to close to the
>original. I just feel that the attention put in to the graphics have taken
>the focus away from the actual 'game'. At some stages it even feels like
I'm
>playing Tomb Raider. Zelda has lost its RPG feel.
>
>Does anyone else feel the same, All I've read in this NG is Zelda 64 best
>thing since sliced bread.
>
>'in game myself!!!!
>
>Dave
>
>
Here's my 2c........
I'm guessing the Zelda64 developers had this dilema (sp?)......"How do
we make a new Zelda game that....
1.)captures the classic Zelda "essence"
2.) will push the envelope of visuals/sound and gameplay
3.) will capture a new generation of N64 players and bring the N64 console
some much needed market share
I think overall they did a wonderful job,...is the game --"The greatest game
of all time...."....I dont think so, .....Dont get me wrong, I play Zelda
religiously and think its very entertaining and find myself sometimes
saying..."Wow, that was cool".....but I think all the new, cool stuff they
put in it is balanced out by some of the monotonous, "Oh, I've seen this
before----I've got to walk all the way across the map to get one item and
then return back here to beat this boss"
I do think the dungeons are very similar to previous Zelda's regarding the
compass/map/boss key.....my only thoughts on this would be they should have
hid some of these items outside the dungeons, near the entrances.......(For
example Dampe the gravekeeper would give you the boss key to the Shadow
dungeon after you beat him in a longer more difficult race, or whatever)
As for NAVI,.....damn does she get annoying or what??.....Her only redeeming
quality is how she turns green and tries to make you notice hidden
stuff......I wish the setup menu had some way of shutting her
up.....Although I havent finished the game, I think it'd be interesting to
have NAVI grow up and turn out to be the daughter of the queen Fairy,...So
you could get to see a more lifelike representation of her----hopefully not
as "Skanky" and all the other grownup fairy's....
later......jason
Rkkim2
>
>After waiting for the release of Zelda since the N64 was released, I am now
>feeling quite let down by the actual game delivered. Sure its has the best
>graphics I have ever seen, but the gameplay is just to near to the SNES
>original. I like the zelda format, don't get me worry, but I feel a little
>cheated when Zelda64 is SO close to the original. Enter dungeon, find map,
>find compass, find boss key. Even the sound fx are to close to the
>original. I just feel that the attention put in to the graphics have taken
>the focus away from the actual 'game'. At some stages it even feels like I'm
>playing Tomb Raider. Zelda has lost its RPG feel.
>
Hey, if you wanna play a game that is very similar to the SNES Zelda, try
playing Mystical Ninja Starring Goemon.
Pandagas
In article <blargg-0501...@p222.amax20.dialup.aus1.flash.net>,
bla...@flash.net (Gargantua Blargg) writes:
>Shaddup! It is the best game ever, and everyone (except you) agrees. Just
>read all the magazines. The hype was all true. And it wasn't even
>generated by the companies! It was generated by players like everyone
>except yourself. You suck!
Seriously though.. people ignore the main reason why this
game is flawed.. which i find a bit irritating. It is all to easy to
put the blame all on Navi and i actually think it's cute when she says
"HEY!!!".. what about the static characters? That is one of the most bogus
things about it, yet no-one seems to say anything about that.
It is still the best game made up until now though, and i think
there is a difference between not liking a game and
it not being a great game. For instance, I don't listen to
Beethoven and i thought Nirvana were shit.. but i'm not denying
that they were great!!!!
---------
It surrrrre is nice outside! Climb a tree! Goof off! - Calvin and Hobbes
Kyle...just Kyle
Gargantua Blargg wrote in message ...
>"Dave Stevens" <david_...@ntcc.grenoble.hp.com> wrote:
>
>> After waiting for the release of Zelda since the N64 was released, I am
now
>> feeling quite let down by the actual game delivered. Sure its has the
best
>> graphics I have ever seen, but the gameplay is just to near to the SNES
>> original. I like the zelda format, don't get me worry, but I feel a
little
>> cheated when Zelda64 is SO close to the original. Enter dungeon, find
map,
>> find compass, find boss key. Even the sound fx are to close to the
>> original. I just feel that the attention put in to the graphics have
taken
>> the focus away from the actual 'game'. At some stages it even feels like
I'm
>> playing Tomb Raider. Zelda has lost its RPG feel.
>>
>> thing since sliced bread.
>
>read all the magazines. The hype was all true. And it wasn't even
>generated by the companies! It was generated by players like everyone
>except yourself. You suck!
I'm still trying to work up the interest to pick up in Zelda where I left
off. I'm maybe 20 hours into the game, and I just got bored and switched
off to Saturn Fire Pro wrestling. I haven't gone back since. That was two
weeks ago.
------------------------------------------------------------
Digital-Ages Online -- Dreamcast, N64, PSX, etc
http://www.digital-ages.com
------------------------------------------------------------
There are no happy endings. If you come across something that looks like
one, you just haven't finished the story yet.
------------------------------------------------------------
Gargantua Blargg
...
> Seriously though.. people ignore the main reason why this
> game is flawed.. which i find a bit irritating. It is all to easy to
> put the blame all on Navi and i actually think it's cute when she says
> "HEY!!!".. what about the static characters? That is one of the most bogus
> things about it, yet no-one seems to say anything about that.
Flawed on different levels. I don't play the Zelda games for a good story
<chuckle>. I play it for exploration and finding things. The characters'
speech, other than the taking down to the "idiot player" tone that mainly
Navi has, is largely irrelevant. The story is pretty lame. Playing it
through the second time around, I was falling alseep during the sages'
speeches.
> It is still the best game made up until now though,
In my book, there is no "best game". Games don't occupy a one-dimensional
space. Zelda sure doesn't beat F-Zero X for pure maniacal fun
(slam-a-slam-boom bye bye!), or Tetris Attack for super-fast finger
mashing, or Super Mario Kart for two-player shell-shooting fun. I could go
on, but I hope you (and others) get the point.
> and i think
> there is a difference between not liking a game and
> it not being a great game.
Yes. Not liking a game means it's bad, and not thinking a game is great
can mean it is OK:
awful game bad game ok game great game
<------------------------------------------------------>
<-------- not liking game --|
<------------------------- not a great game --|
The two overlap, in that a game that's not great can be one you don't
like, but not usually the other way around.
> For instance, I don't listen to
> Beethoven and i thought Nirvana were shit.. but i'm not denying
> that they were great!!!!
you aren't denying that they were *both* great. Big difference. You are
not rating them against each other, as you would be if you said one was
better than the other.
--
IF YOU DON'T THINK FOR YOURSELF, SOMEONE ELSE WILL
Gargantua Blargg | bla...@flash.net | http://www.flash.net/~blargg/
Phoenix Gamma
<david_...@ntcc.grenoble.hp.com> wrote:
#Hi
#
#After waiting for the release of Zelda since the N64 was released, I
am now
#feeling quite let down by the actual game delivered. Sure its has
the best
#graphics I have ever seen, but the gameplay is just to near to the
SNES
#original. I like the zelda format, don't get me worry, but I feel a
little
#cheated when Zelda64 is SO close to the original. Enter dungeon,
find map,
#find compass, find boss key. Even the sound fx are to close to the
#original. I just feel that the attention put in to the graphics have
taken
#the focus away from the actual 'game'. At some stages it even feels
like I'm
#playing Tomb Raider. Zelda has lost its RPG feel.
#
#Does anyone else feel the same, All I've read in this NG is Zelda 64
best
#thing since sliced bread.
I *liked* the fact that it was just like the original games!
-me
"Who knows what black and crazy thoughts swim inside a girlfriend's heart?"
Replies to sup...@usa.net - remove the "noway" spam block.
Icy Q#: 13246560 - Drop on by, baby...
Phoenix Gamma
wrote:
#Shaddup! It is the best game ever, and everyone (except you) agrees.
Just
#read all the magazines. The hype was all true. And it wasn't even
#generated by the companies! It was generated by players like everyone
#except yourself. You suck!
#
#<Majority mode off>
No, you shut up! Zelda sucks more than anything on planet earth!
Why? Not because its a bad game, but because other people like it and
I refuse to like stuff that lots of other people like as well, even if
it happens to be good, because I've got some inane hangup about
"following the majority" or some such nonsense like that, even when
we're talking about stuff that's genuinely good.
You know, because the majority of people wear clothes, I've decided to
walk around naked, and because the majority of people eat food, I eat
paint stripper and sandpaper, just to be different. because the
majorit of people have fingers, I've cut all mine off and I'm typing
this via a pen permanently lodged in my mouth which I use to tap the
keys with.
I ain't following no freakin' majority, 'cos I'm different and stuff.
Fight for your right or something.
<anal
thinks-he's-making-a-statement-for-minority-rule-but-is-just-being-a-contentious-ass
mode off>
Robert Chang
I suppose it never occured to you that some people might genuinely not like
this game? No, of course not. I guess the thoughts of single-minded
fanatics just don't work that way. Just because someone is in the minority
doesn't mean they want to be there.
-bob
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
= b...@soda.berkeley.edu = It is now pitch black. You are likely to =
= go...@uclink.berkeley.edu = be eaten by a grue. --Zork =
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Pandagas
In article <blargg-0501...@p246.amax20.dialup.aus1.flash.net>,
bla...@flash.net (Gargantua Blargg) writes:
>pand...@aol.com (Pandagas) wrote:
>
>...
>> Seriously though.. people ignore the main reason why this
>> game is flawed.. which i find a bit irritating. It is all to easy to
>> put the blame all on Navi and i actually think it's cute when she says
>> "HEY!!!".. what about the static characters? That is one of the most bogus
>> things about it, yet no-one seems to say anything about that.
>
>Flawed on different levels. I don't play the Zelda games for a good story
><chuckle>. I play it for exploration and finding things. The characters'
>speech, other than the taking down to the "idiot player" tone that mainly
>Navi has, is largely irrelevant. The story is pretty lame. Playing it
>through the second time around, I was falling alseep during the sages'
>speeches.
I wasn't really paying much attention to them the first time around.
I've got a fairly ambivalent attitude to in-game movies anyway so
I don't actually know what the story is.. i just like playing the game.
>> It is still the best game made up until now though,
>
>In my book, there is no "best game". Games don't occupy a one-dimensional
>space. Zelda sure doesn't beat F-Zero X for pure maniacal fun
>(slam-a-slam-boom bye bye!),
Yes, but i play F Zero X for completely different reasons than Zelda.
F-Zero X is like a cheap thrill.. it is not a game where you
immerse yourself in an imaginary land..
There is probably a broader point there about the purpose of
videogaming.
>awful game bad game ok game great game
><------------------------------------------------------>
><-------- not liking game --|
><------------------------- not a great game --|
>
>The two overlap, in that a game that's not great can be one you don't
>like, but not usually the other way around.
No, i hate the Tomb Raider series.. i don't really like touring car games..
beat em ups suck. Any game like Doom where the object
is merely to press a switch and fight some
bad guys doesn't appeal to me. On the other hand LBA2 is a
game which i love.. but there are loads of things wrong with it!!!
There are games which are basically shit.. but then there is a grey
area of okay games which you'll either like or loathe.
Zelda is a great game.. but you might not like it.
All the problems you and ZFP have mentioned, I hardly noticed.
>> For instance, I don't listen to
>> Beethoven and i thought Nirvana were shit.. but i'm not denying
>> that they were great!!!!
>
>you aren't denying that they were *both* great. Big difference. You are
>not rating them against each other, as you would be if you said one was
>better than the other.
You can't rate them against each other... it's like comparing
Manchester United at the time of the Munich air disaster with
the current side!!! My point was really that just because I don't
like Beethoven doesn't mean that he wasn't a great composer.
In other words.. if you don't like a game - it doesn't
mean it isn't a great game. I hate all beat-em ups. They are boring,
not very long lasting, and there is too much hit and hope.
I'm sure there are many great beat-em ups though.
Pandagas
In article <bob-ya02408000R0601990535340001@news>, b...@csua.berkeley.edu
(Robert Chang) writes:
>I suppose it never occured to you that some people might genuinely not like
>this game?
Why does that mean it's not a great game?
Gargantua Blargg
> bla...@flash.net (Gargantua Blargg) writes:
>
> >pand...@aol.com (Pandagas) wrote:
...
> >> It is still the best game made up until now though,
> >
> >In my book, there is no "best game". Games don't occupy a one-dimensional
> >space. Zelda sure doesn't beat F-Zero X for pure maniacal fun
> >(slam-a-slam-boom bye bye!),
>
> Yes, but i play F Zero X for completely different reasons than Zelda.
Yeah, that's my point. If it were the BEST GAME EVER, wouldn't you play it
no matter what you were interested in at the time?
> F-Zero X is like a cheap thrill..
No, it's a simple thrill. Nothing cheap about the fun I have, certainly.
When did you decide that simple pleasures were cheap?
> it is not a game where you immerse yourself in an imaginary land..
OK, this is another kind of game. How is this any less cheap?
> There is probably a broader point there about the purpose of
> videogaming.
Video Games = games = pointless entertainment activities that involve some
sort of challenge.
> >awful game bad game ok game great game
> ><------------------------------------------------------>
> ><-------- not liking game --|
> ><------------------------- not a great game --|
> >
> >The two overlap, in that a game that's not great can be one you don't
> >like, but not usually the other way around.
>
> No, i hate the Tomb Raider series..
Don't you distinguish between games you personally like or disklike, and
games that are well-made (even though you don't like them) and not
well-made?
> i don't really like touring car games..
> beat em ups suck.
But you can certainly see if one has surface and technical quality (high
frame rate, clean graphics, good sound).
...
> There are games which are basically shit.. but then there is a grey
> area of okay games which you'll either like or loathe.
OK, agreed.
> Zelda is a great game.. but you might not like it.
Oh, I love Zelda (pick any one, except possible Zelda 2 for NES :-) It's
just not the *best* game ever, even the best Zelda. It can't be, either,
because it has to be presented in one graphic style, namely 3D. The others
are in 2D. I like 2D styles more in many ways because there's more
artistic expression possible. So, even in the Zelda series alone, it would
be hard to name a "best" one. Nostalgically, I'd say #1 is the best.
Environment immersion-wise, Zelda 5 is the best, beacuse it's 3D. Action
side-scroller-wise, Zelda 2 wins hands-down.
> All the problems you and ZFP have mentioned, I hardly noticed.
Surely you would notice the design bugs with having to be in the *perfect*
position for an Ocarina song to work. Or having to switch boots endlessly
in the Water Temple. Or the low frame rate (20 frames per second).
> >> For instance, I don't listen to
> >> Beethoven and i thought Nirvana were shit.. but i'm not denying
> >> that they were great!!!!
> >
> >you aren't denying that they were *both* great. Big difference. You are
> >not rating them against each other, as you would be if you said one was
> >better than the other.
>
> You can't rate them against each other... it's like comparing
> Manchester United at the time of the Munich air disaster with
> the current side!!!
Yeah! Same goes for Zelda, even in the series alone. You can't compare
them directly, because games don't exist in a single dimension.
> My point was really that just because I don't
> like Beethoven doesn't mean that he wasn't a great composer.
> In other words.. if you don't like a game - it doesn't
> mean it isn't a great game.
This is not the point of topic at all. The point is that Zelda isn't, and
cannot be, the best game out of all other games ever made.
> I hate all beat-em ups. They are boring,
> not very long lasting, and there is too much hit and hope.
> I'm sure there are many great beat-em ups though.
Again, different topic, and I agree with the idea here.
Robert Chang
(Pandagas) wrote:
> In article <bob-ya02408000R0601990535340001@news>, b...@csua.berkeley.edu
> (Robert Chang) writes:
>
> >I suppose it never occured to you that some people might genuinely not like
> >this game?
>
> Why does that mean it's not a great game?
When did I say it wasn't a great game? Did you even read the article that
I was relpying to? Remember? Its the one you snipped so that you could
quote me out of context.
Castellan
>I'm still trying to work up the interest to pick up in Zelda where I left
>off. I'm maybe 20 hours into the game, and I just got bored and switched
>off to Saturn Fire Pro wrestling. I haven't gone back since. That was two
>weeks ago.
I got that way roundabout the Water Temple. Even though I was making
progress I really felt no interest to pursue playing the game save to
complete a review for Gaming Age and to see the other boss encounters. The
dungeon puzzles were definitely becoming too "find the key" oriented
(as opposed to the dungeons with Young Link), the story was vapid, ill-defined,
and lacking in characterization, and I really didn't feel any overwhelming
need to defeat Ganon, since he seemed to be just another "villain in a tower"
and not a tangible archnemesis.
It got even worse come the Shadow Temple, which, boat sequence
aside, is the one of the worst-designed dungeons in ANY Zelda, ever. It's
just one long, linear stretch of jumps and traps culminating in a boss battle
so addled by slowdown and awkward control (the drum and having to use the
Lens constantly) that it is tediously unfun.
Zelda has a lot of significant flaws, and, in retrospect, I really
feel I overrated the game. It's actually very short and simple, with very
few landmarks; the illusion of length and scope is maintained due to
puzzles and play which center around frequent searching and wandering (I
wouldn't even call it exploration, since the meaningful areas of the game
are so small) as one looks to find a needed key/item or the next dungeon.
I'd venture to say that the majority of the time spent in the game is NOT
engaged in meaningful, involving play, but in simple wandering, searching,
or trial-and-error attempts to negotiate an obstacle/puzzle. The enemies
lack in variety, Hyrule Field is large and featureless, the sound is
very mediocre (in both composition and delivery), and the design starts to
really break down towards the end. We won't even broach issues of frame
rate, graphic glitches, texture repetition, character dialogue, and those
jarring, disjoint 2D town sequences.
I think the reason I initially felt Zelda was great was because it
does one thing very, VERY well: it delivers an experience in a very
cinematic, polished style, with great controls and a great interface. That's
superb if you are looking for an "experience," and not a pure game. However,
as a GAME, which relies on deep, meaningful, productive play (not just
occasional spurts), Zelda really isn't all that shit-hot.
Is Zelda the best EXPERIENCE to date? Possibly - it does offer an
immersive environment with one of the best interfaces I've seen to date.
Is it the best GAME (in a quasi-mathematical sense) seen to date? Nowhere
even close. Personally, I prefer my games to be more GAME than EXPERIENCE,
or a good balance of the two, and hence, Zelda was, ultimately, a bit
disaffecting (just as MGS was for me) since it leans to far towards the
"experience" end of the spectrum, as I see it.
--- ---
Douglas L. Erickson - ECN Computer Publications and Training Specialist
mail to: dou...@mailhost.ecn.ou.edu --- http://www.ecn.ou.edu/~douglas
SegaNet: http://www.seganet.com/ for Sega-related info ICQ#: 12822495
--- ECN does not, in any way, sponsor or endorse my rabid opinions. ---
Michael Gillgannon
Tales of Destiny.
--mike g.
-----------------
Castellan ranted:
Joshua Kaufman
>
> Be advised that this is coming from a guy who raved about
> Tales of Destiny.
I can see why. Tales of Destiny is much more of a "game" than an
"experiance" compared to most PSX Rpgs. I can totally see this guy
loving ToD.
-Joshua
--
AOL-IM: TerraEpon ICQ: 5404138
In the PSX: (none at the moment)
In the Saturn: Sakura Taisen
In the N64: (none at the moment)
Robert Chang
> Be advised that this is coming from a guy who raved about
> Tales of Destiny.
So? Tales of Destiny is a great game. A little high on the random
encounter rate, perhaps. It is easily comparable if not superior to Zelda
64 in the areas of plot, character development, depth and gameplay. Its
not quite at the same graphics level, but who cares?
Pandagas
In article <bob-ya02408000R0601990801010001@news>, b...@csua.berkeley.edu
(Robert Chang) writes:
>In article <19990106091033...@ngol05.aol.com>, pand...@aol.com
>(Pandagas) wrote:
>
>> In article <bob-ya02408000R0601990535340001@news>, b...@csua.berkeley.edu
>> (Robert Chang) writes:
>>
>> >I suppose it never occured to you that some people might genuinely not
>like
>> >this game?
>>
>> Why does that mean it's not a great game?
>
>When did I say it wasn't a great game?
I didn't say you did. I asked a question.
> Did you even read the article that
>I was relpying to?
No.
> Remember?
No.
> Its the one you snipped so that you could
>quote me out of context.
That must be the one.
Pandagas
In article <blargg-0601...@p126.amax18.dialup.aus1.flash.net>,
bla...@flash.net (Gargantua Blargg) writes:
>pand...@aol.com (Pandagas) wrote:
>> >In my book, there is no "best game". Games don't occupy a one-dimensional
>> >space. Zelda sure doesn't beat F-Zero X for pure maniacal fun
>> >(slam-a-slam-boom bye bye!),
>>
>> Yes, but i play F Zero X for completely different reasons than Zelda.
>
>Yeah, that's my point. If it were the BEST GAME EVER, wouldn't you play it
>no matter what you were interested in at the time?
In that case ISS 98 is the BEST GAME EVER... is that what we
really want to be saying?
>> F-Zero X is like a cheap thrill..
>
>No, it's a simple thrill. Nothing cheap about the fun I have, certainly.
>When did you decide that simple pleasures were cheap?
By cheap i mean easy to get into. You just stick on the game and
you are off. You don't really have to think that hard about it.
>> There is probably a broader point there about the purpose of
>> videogaming.
>
>Video Games = games = pointless entertainment activities that involve some
>sort of challenge.
Yes, but there are many words that describe "entertainment".
Which ones are the most important in a videogaming experience?
>Don't you distinguish between games you personally like or disklike, and
>games that are well-made (even though you don't like them) and not
>well-made?
Actually, I thought that _was_ what i was doing. I mean that
Tomb Raider is a top game, which i hate.
>> Zelda is a great game.. but you might not like it.
>
>Oh, I love Zelda (pick any one, except possible Zelda 2 for NES :-) It's
>just not the *best* game ever, even the best Zelda. It can't be, either,
>because it has to be presented in one graphic style, namely 3D.
>The others are in 2D.
Aren't they isometric to be more specific?
> I like 2D styles more in many ways because there's more
>artistic expression possible.
Yeah, but that is pretty subjective, you must admit. In what way
is there more artistic expression? When i think of Soleil (the closest thing
to Zelda on the megadrive).. it was very colourful indeed.. and each
section was almost completely different than the last.. but you'd have
to say the graphics in Zelda 64 were slightly more realistic. The sunsets are
great.
> So, even in the Zelda series alone, it would
>be hard to name a "best" one. Nostalgically, I'd say #1 is the best.
>Environment immersion-wise, Zelda 5 is the best, beacuse it's 3D. Action
>side-scroller-wise, Zelda 2 wins hands-down.
>
>> All the problems you and ZFP have mentioned, I hardly noticed.
>
>Surely you would notice the design bugs with having to be in the *perfect*
>position for an Ocarina song to work.
Seriously, i have not had any trouble getting the Ocarina to
work at all.
> Or having to switch boots endlessly
>in the Water Temple. Or the low frame rate (20 frames per second).
But the main problem is in the characterisation of the Hyrulian
inhabitants... that is a concept flaw and is therefore WAY more serious than
any technical things you mention. Even with your corrections, the
fundamental problem would still be there. The game is definately smoother
than any 3rd person/1st person game that i've played.
>> You can't rate them against each other... it's like comparing
>> Manchester United at the time of the Munich air disaster with
>> the current side!!!
>
>Yeah! Same goes for Zelda, even in the series alone. You can't compare
>them directly, because games don't exist in a single dimension.
If you have your way... the best game ever will be the early ones
which started home computer gaming in the first place... because
it was a completely new genre of entertainment.
To be honest, nothing really surprises me any more.. which is why
i'll happily say that Zelda is the best game ever.. if you had to
choose. We may cast a weepy eye over how great the Zelda's were in
the past.. and they were once the best games money could buy
(so i'm told).. but the kids aint playing them as much anymore.
We are left with the dodgy premise that because i enjoyed
Super Hang On (at the time) more than Extreme G then it must be as
good a game technically speaking.
>> My point was really that just because I don't
>> like Beethoven doesn't mean that he wasn't a great composer.
>> In other words.. if you don't like a game - it doesn't
>> mean it isn't a great game.
>
>This is not the point of topic at all. The point is that Zelda isn't, and
>cannot be, the best game out of all other games ever made.
You are saying that the tag of "best game ever" is a futile
exercise. i'm saying that it is the best game ever.. but not the
best game that will ever be made. I don't really know why
it matters..
One of the main problems with my statement, which you haven't
picked up on yet, is that it is only relative to the games which
I have played.. which is not every single game in existence.
Robert Chang
(Pandagas) wrote:
> If you have your way... the best game ever will be the early ones
> which started home computer gaming in the first place... because
> it was a completely new genre of entertainment.
If he has his way? What the hell are you talking about? You persist is
speaking as if your opinion that Zelda is the Greatest Game Ever is some
sort of objective truth, which it isn't. Besides, what's wrong with some
of the earlier games being declared Best Game Ever. Several of them
deserve it more than Zelda, IMO.
> To be honest, nothing really surprises me any more.. which is why
> i'll happily say that Zelda is the best game ever.. if you had to
> choose. We may cast a weepy eye over how great the Zelda's were in
> the past.. and they were once the best games money could buy
> (so i'm told).. but the kids aint playing them as much anymore.
> We are left with the dodgy premise that because i enjoyed
> Super Hang On (at the time) more than Extreme G then it must be as
> good a game technically speaking.
What the kids are playing (i.e. fad of the week) isn't an indication of
greatness. Just because Casablanca isn't playing in theatres anymore and
therefore fails to show up among the top grossing movies doesn't diminish
its quality.
> One of the main problems with my statement, which you haven't
> picked up on yet, is that it is only relative to the games which
> I have played.. which is not every single game in existence.
Obviously. The primary problem with your statement, however, is that you
fail to recognize that it is only an opinion and has no basis in reality.
Michael Gillgannon
>
> > Be advised that this is coming from a guy who raved about
> > Tales of Destiny.
>
> So? Tales of Destiny is a great game. A little high on the random
> encounter rate, perhaps. It is easily comparable if not superior to Zelda
> 64 in the areas of plot, character development, depth and gameplay. Its
> not quite at the same graphics level, but who cares?
>
than average but far from great, very high on random
encouters, with average puzzles often marred by all those
random encounters, and with somewhat confusing gameplay
(everybody fighting at once, often off-screen). To say it's
not quite at the same graphics level as Zelda is the
understatement of the new year.
--mike g.
Robert Chang
Disagree. While ToD may not have flashy 3d graphics, its 2d graphics are
quite nice, thank you, with a variety of effects (reflection, for one).
Not everyone thinks that polygons rule the world.
-bob
Pandagas
In article <bob-ya02408000R0601991341180001@news>, b...@csua.berkeley.edu
(Robert Chang) writes:
>
>In article <19990106155351...@ngol07.aol.com>, pand...@aol.com
>(Pandagas) wrote:
>
>> If you have your way... the best game ever will be the early ones
>> which started home computer gaming in the first place... because
>> it was a completely new genre of entertainment.
>
>If he has his way? What the hell are you talking about?
It's only a figure of speech.
> You persist is
>speaking as if your opinion that Zelda is the Greatest Game Ever is some
>sort of objective truth, which it isn't.
Why not?
> Besides, what's wrong with some
>of the earlier games being declared Best Game Ever. Several of them
>deserve it more than Zelda, IMO.
Depends what your criteria are. By my criteria Zelda is
the best game ever. Why do you get to say that
your criteria is any better than mine?
>What the kids are playing (i.e. fad of the week) isn't an indication of
>greatness.
It was to emphasise the evolution of hardware.
> Just because Casablanca isn't playing in theatres anymore and
>therefore fails to show up among the top grossing movies doesn't diminish
>its quality.
But there isn't a great deal difference between that film and
a similar film today, apart from the sound, and picture quality.
The acting and the story (the important bits) hold true don't
they? Films aren't really evolving as a genre that much...
so i think we can say that games are more like
changes in technology.
>> One of the main problems with my statement, which you haven't
>> picked up on yet, is that it is only relative to the games which
>> I have played.. which is not every single game in existence.
>
>Obviously.
But then, nobody has.
> The primary problem with your statement, however, is that you
>fail to recognize that it is only an opinion and has no basis in reality.
In that case, your statement that it isn't is itself an opinion with
no basis in reality. So why can't I have my way?
Put it another way.. wouldn't that statement be more true if I
claimed that Cruisin' USA was the best game ever?
Would i not be nearer to the mark with Zelda?
Gargantua Blargg
>bla...@flash.net (Gargantua Blargg) writes:
> >pand...@aol.com (Pandagas) wrote:
> >> F-Zero X is like a cheap thrill..
> >
> >No, it's a simple thrill. Nothing cheap about the fun I have, certainly.
> >When did you decide that simple pleasures were cheap?
>
> By cheap i mean easy to get into. You just stick on the game and
> you are off. You don't really have to think that hard about it.
OK. I see what you mean. It isn't deep. Yes. But it's fun. Games used to
be that way, before video games :-) They were easy to pick up, but still
very fun. I find Tetris Attack has a huge curve, and is fun on so many
levels, if you want a game that is easy to pick up, yet has very deep game
play when you've played it for a couple of years.
> >> There is probably a broader point there about the purpose of
> >> videogaming.
> >
> >Video Games = games = pointless entertainment activities that involve some
> >sort of challenge.
>
> Yes, but there are many words that describe "entertainment".
> Which ones are the most important in a videogaming experience?
Anything that's fun (and I'd say that can't be duplicated by another
medium, so Monopoly on a video game system would be excluded by this).
> >Don't you distinguish between games you personally like or disklike, and
> >games that are well-made (even though you don't like them) and not
> >well-made?
>
> Actually, I thought that _was_ what i was doing. I mean that
> Tomb Raider is a top game, which i hate.
Yeah, if you compare it to other games based on its cyber-boob-mass ;-)
> >> Zelda is a great game.. but you might not like it.
> >
> >Oh, I love Zelda (pick any one, except possible Zelda 2 for NES :-) It's
> >just not the *best* game ever, even the best Zelda. It can't be, either,
> >because it has to be presented in one graphic style, namely 3D.
> >The others are in 2D.
>
> Aren't they isometric to be more specific?
Yeah, I suppose so. But the presentation medium was what we generally call
2D, as in fixed size objects overlapping to form the display, versus the
perspective transformations that 3D games have.
> > I like 2D styles more in many ways because there's more
> >artistic expression possible.
>
> Yeah, but that is pretty subjective, you must admit. In what way
> is there more artistic expression?
Most 3D games attempt to match some form of reality. 2D games are much
more abstract. 2D games are like doddling on some paper, while 3D games
are like building a model out of blocks. There just seems to be less
freedom with 3D games. I don't have this too fleshed out, and perhaps 3D
is not itself inherently more limiting, it's just that people are limiting
their use of it for models of reality.
> When i think of Soleil (the closest thing
> to Zelda on the megadrive).. it was very colourful indeed.. and each
> section was almost completely different than the last.. but you'd have
> to say the graphics in Zelda 64 were slightly more realistic. The sunsets are
> great.
I won't argue that a good simulation (sunset, lense flare) are very fun. I
have very high hopes for 3D in the future, for my own personal use. But I
just feel that 2D games had a much more abstract, different feel than 3D
games, in general, do. Tetrisphere is a good example of an abstract 3D
game.
...
> >Surely you would notice the design bugs with having to be in the *perfect*
> >position for an Ocarina song to work.
>
> Seriously, i have not had any trouble getting the Ocarina to
> work at all.
One place in the Death Mountain Crater temple I had it not work many times
at the same spot, and then later, after MUCH searching, came back and it
worked that time. I've tried it in places in the Water Temple and found
that I could have Navi green flying at the spot that hinted me to play,
but *not* have anything happen when I played. Others have confirmed this
(Josh Redford was one I remember in particular).
> > Or having to switch boots endlessly
> >in the Water Temple. Or the low frame rate (20 frames per second).
>
> But the main problem is in the characterisation of the Hyrulian
> inhabitants... that is a concept flaw and is therefore WAY more serious than
> any technical things you mention.
Obviously we have different expectations from the game. All I wanted, and
got from it, was a great simulation of the environment, especially the
dungeons. I was satisfied with that aspect. It seems you wanted better
characters and story.
> Even with your corrections, the
> fundamental problem would still be there.
I don't doubt this. What I find annoying is that these problems could have
been fixed, at least the ones I mentioned, and perhaps yours too with the
characterization.
> The game is definately smoother than any 3rd person/1st person game that
> i've played.
Then I guess you haven't played Super Mario 64, Mario Kart 64, Banjo
Kazooie, and many others. Those all run at 30 frames per second most of
the time. Even Goldeneye runs at 30 fps some of the time (but does slow
down often, and to a *much* lower framerate than 20 fps).
> >> You can't rate them against each other... it's like comparing
> >> Manchester United at the time of the Munich air disaster with
> >> the current side!!!
> >
> >Yeah! Same goes for Zelda, even in the series alone. You can't compare
> >them directly, because games don't exist in a single dimension.
>
> If you have your way... the best game ever will be the early ones
> which started home computer gaming in the first place... because
> it was a completely new genre of entertainment.
No, my way is that there is no best game overall. In very restricted
portions of a genre, where a later game eclipses a previous game in every
way, then I'd say that game is better over all than the previous one.
> To be honest, nothing really surprises me any more.. which is why
> i'll happily say that Zelda is the best game ever.. if you had to
> choose. We may cast a weepy eye over how great the Zelda's were in
> the past.. and they were once the best games money could buy
> (so i'm told).. but the kids aint playing them as much anymore.
> We are left with the dodgy premise that because i enjoyed
> Super Hang On (at the time) more than Extreme G then it must be as
> good a game technically speaking.
This is a good point. There is so much lame crap, partly due to the larger
acceptance of video games, that we should treasure good games like Zelda.
> >> My point was really that just because I don't
> >> like Beethoven doesn't mean that he wasn't a great composer.
> >> In other words.. if you don't like a game - it doesn't
> >> mean it isn't a great game.
> >
> >This is not the point of topic at all. The point is that Zelda isn't, and
> >cannot be, the best game out of all other games ever made.
>
> You are saying that the tag of "best game ever" is a futile
> exercise. i'm saying that it is the best game ever.. but not the
> best game that will ever be made. I don't really know why
> it matters..
It would be absurd to call some CD the best CD ever (so far, at least),
and I think you're saying this, but for video games, you are saying the
opposite, that there can be a game that is the best game so far. I don't
get this.
> One of the main problems with my statement, which you haven't
> picked up on yet, is that it is only relative to the games which
> I have played.. which is not every single game in existence.
The best game *you* have played? OK, then I accept this because your
definition of "best" may allow a game of a totally different genre to be
compared, i.e. since Zelda is the best you have played, and you have
played F-Zero X (right?), then Zelda is better than F-Zero X, in your
opinion (since your definition of best says that more deep games are
better than less deep ones, Zelda being more deep and F-Zero X being less
deep). I respect this opinion, nor do I question it.
Pandagas
In article <3693D5E3...@producer.com>, Michael Gillgannon
<gillg...@producer.com> writes:
>Just my opinion, mind you,
<groan> Why do people feel the need to cover their backs all the time?
Come on!! Stick your neck on the line!!!
Pandagas
In article <bob-ya02408000R0601991355120001@news>, b...@csua.berkeley.edu
(Robert Chang) writes:
>In article <3693D5E3...@producer.com>, gillg...@producer.com wrote:
>> Just my opinion, mind you, but I would say Tales is better
>> than average but far from great, very high on random
>> encouters, with average puzzles often marred by all those
>> random encounters, and with somewhat confusing gameplay
>> (everybody fighting at once, often off-screen). To say it's
>> not quite at the same graphics level as Zelda is the
>> understatement of the new year.
>
>Disagree.
But is his opinion objectively valid?
> While ToD may not have flashy 3d graphics, its 2d graphics are
>quite nice, thank you, with a variety of effects (reflection, for one).
>Not everyone thinks that polygons rule the world.
But he thinks differently so his opinion is just as correct as
yours. Which i hope you'd agree with.
Matt Seidl
>>of the earlier games being declared Best Game Ever. Several of them
>>deserve it more than Zelda, IMO.
>
>the best game ever. Why do you get to say that
>your criteria is any better than mine?
But didn't you mention in another thread that you had problems with the
fact that the NPCs are utterly devoid of life, behaving more pieces of
scenery than human beings? I can think of several RPGs that surpass
Zelda in this regard, namely Ultima VII: The Black Gate. All NPCs have
set routines--for example, a farmer may wake up, putter around his
house, toil in the fields all day, then retire to the pub for a meal,
putter around the house again, then go to sleep again.
It seems that most people are proclaiming Zelda to be "Greatest Game
Ever" solely on the strength of the graphics alone (and even there, the
textures leave a lot to be desired). The fact that many older games are
still enjoyable today is a testament to the fact that they offered
something beyond mere graphic appeal... I highly doubt that games like
Zelda and Turok 2 will be much sought after ten years down the road.
Gargantua Blargg
[Castellan's thoughtful analysis of Zelda snipped]
>
> Be advised that this is coming from a guy who raved about
> Tales of Destiny.
Well, of course if you let him THINK FOR YOU and TELL YOU what a good game
is, you'll likely be disappointed, unless you let him tell you that you
aren't disappointed also :-) But if you read his reasons, and consider if
they would ring true for you or not, then his analysis can be helpful.
Robert Chang
(Pandagas) wrote:
> In article <bob-ya02408000R0601991355120001@news>, b...@csua.berkeley.edu
> (Robert Chang) writes:
>
> >In article <3693D5E3...@producer.com>, gillg...@producer.com wrote:
>
> >> Just my opinion, mind you, but I would say Tales is better
> >> than average but far from great, very high on random
> >> encouters, with average puzzles often marred by all those
> >> random encounters, and with somewhat confusing gameplay
> >> (everybody fighting at once, often off-screen). To say it's
> >> not quite at the same graphics level as Zelda is the
> >> understatement of the new year.
> >
> >Disagree.
>
> But is his opinion objectively valid?
Objectively valid? I'm not sure what that means. Its not objective,
that's fer sure. Valid? Sure, why not. They are all reasonable
complaints.
> > While ToD may not have flashy 3d graphics, its 2d graphics are
> >quite nice, thank you, with a variety of effects (reflection, for one).
> >Not everyone thinks that polygons rule the world.
>
> But he thinks differently so his opinion is just as correct as
> yours. Which i hope you'd agree with.
Just as correct? Well, he's certainly entitled to his own opinion, just as
I am to mine. I don't know if I'd say either are "correct." They are both
biased opinions.
Ed Giangrande
challenge. I enjoy the concept and the play, but there is no real sense
that you are ever going to die either. I mean, the bosses are not
overly tough, and in many ways it reminds me of watching a movie more
than playing a game. You start and stop teh tape, roll along, and
different plot twists develop, but for as interactive as it may be, you
never really get a huge sense of accomplishment after a while. I mean
sure, the first few levels were incredible, especially as young link.
You were new to the game, and every inch of the game became a place to
explore. Then, after a while, the overworld became a finite place, and
eventually the overworld became a relativly small place. The
'mini-games' and puzzles were not overly tough, and I'd think that
about the only reply the game has after beating it is the fishing game
(and perhaps getting all of the gold spiders). Now I hope Nintendo
actually has a few surprises, ie maybe a few hidden modes on the game
that can be unlocked with a code or two, but I kinda doubt that. At
least with Banjo I felt that I had accomplished a lot more upon beating
it.. not to mention that the game might also have a few secrets left to
uncover.
In <36939BBC...@producer.com> Michael Gillgannon
<gillg...@producer.com> writes:
>
>Be advised that this is coming from a guy who raved about
>Tales of Destiny.
Phoenix Gamma
wrote:
#I suppose it never occured to you that some people might genuinely
not like
#this game? No, of course not. I guess the thoughts of single-minded
#fanatics just don't work that way. Just because someone is in the
minority
#doesn't mean they want to be there.
#
Please, don't be a prick all your life. Of ourse it has ocurred to me
that some people don't like Zelda. Kyle and Darien for one have
expressed not being interested in the game, but they have left it at
that and their dislike is simply because they do not like that kind of
game. Blargg on the other hand has implied on many an occasion that
he simply doesn't like it because other people do. If you don't
believe me, check DejaNews.
And next time, you moronic, illetrate cretin, don't you DARE go
calling ME names until you have carefully checked all my posts on the
subject to guage the integrity and weight of my opinions. I have said
in many other threads on this subject that I understand that some
people don't like Zelda.
Now wipe that egg of your face, fool. There's a good creature.
-me
"Last night's dream was a talking baby wizard..."
Phoenix Gamma
wrote:
#In article <36939BBC...@producer.com>, gillg...@producer.com
wrote:
#
#> Be advised that this is coming from a guy who raved about
#> Tales of Destiny.
#
#So? Tales of Destiny is a great game. A little high on the random
#encounter rate, perhaps. It is easily comparable if not superior to
Zelda
#64 in the areas of plot, character development, depth and gameplay.
Its
#not quite at the same graphics level, but who cares?
#
I suppose it never occured to you that some people might genuinely not
like
this game? No, of course not. I guess the thoughts of single-minded
fanatics just don't work that way. Just because someone is in the
minority
doesn't mean they want to be there.
Heh! Poetic justice, don't you just love it? Eat it, bobby.
Robert Chang
> On Wed, 06 Jan 1999 18:50:00 GMT, b...@csua.berkeley.edu (Robert Chang)
> wrote:
>
> #In article <36939BBC...@producer.com>, gillg...@producer.com
> wrote:
> #
> #> Be advised that this is coming from a guy who raved about
> #> Tales of Destiny.
> #
> #So? Tales of Destiny is a great game. A little high on the random
> #encounter rate, perhaps. It is easily comparable if not superior to
> Zelda
> #64 in the areas of plot, character development, depth and gameplay.
> Its
> #not quite at the same graphics level, but who cares?
> #
>
> I suppose it never occured to you that some people might genuinely not
> like
> this game? No, of course not. I guess the thoughts of single-minded
> fanatics just don't work that way. Just because someone is in the
> minority
> doesn't mean they want to be there.
>
> Heh! Poetic justice, don't you just love it? Eat it, bobby.
>
Well... I guess. It's hardly an appropriate response here, though. When
I wrote that it was in response to your post, which was basically a slap at
people who didn't like Zelda (or maybe Blargg specifically, but it didn't
say that), saying that people who didn't like the game only disliked it
because they thought it was too popular. A statement which is obviously
false. I don't see where I imply that at all. Oh, and with regards to
your other post... this is hardly the forum to call me illiterate, don't
you think? Seeing as how it's a written correspondence.
Dave Stevens
>it.. not to mention that the game might also have a few secrets left to
>uncover.
I could not agree more!!! Banjo is one of the most enjoyable and rewarding
games on the N64. Although a little disappointed with the ending (secrets
not being there etc) The game had a real sense of achievement and kept me
coming back for more. And Rare achieved what they wanted to achieve with
the game. Banjo, nothing more than a platform game. Zelda, RPG No! Zelda
is not a RPG. An experience? I wouldn't call it an experience, a game
which deliveries an experience would submerge the player into the plot, the
landscape, THE Character, Zelda hasn't done this. I think the only game I
have played in the last few years which has achieved this was FFVIII. Games
like FFVIII and Banjo have enough variety to get the 'generation next'
player interested though to the conclusion. Zelda on the other hand
deliveries the same (dated) feeling throughout the game, and after
completing the first few dungeons the knowledge that the rest as the same
makes it hard to switch it back on...
If any of the reviewers on IGN64, or video gamers read this. Any plans to
do a Zelda: After the hype feature?
Regards,
Dave Stevens
perso.wanadoo.fr/dstevens
Gary Bradley
>
> >At least with Banjo I felt that I had accomplished a lot more upon beating
> >it.. not to mention that the game might also have a few secrets left to
> >uncover.
>
> I could not agree more!!! Banjo is one of the most enjoyable and rewarding
> games on the N64. Although a little disappointed with the ending (secrets
> not being there etc) The game had a real sense of achievement and kept me
> coming back for more. And Rare achieved what they wanted to achieve with
> the game. Banjo, nothing more than a platform game. Zelda, RPG No! Zelda
> is not a RPG. An experience? I wouldn't call it an experience, a game
> which deliveries an experience would submerge the player into the plot, the
> landscape, THE Character, Zelda hasn't done this. I think the only game I
> have played in the last few years which has achieved this was FFVIII. Games
> like FFVIII and Banjo have enough variety to get the 'generation next'
> player interested though to the conclusion. Zelda on the other hand
> deliveries the same (dated) feeling throughout the game, and after
> completing the first few dungeons the knowledge that the rest as the same
> makes it hard to switch it back on...
>
I completely agree too. Although I have gone a bit further than you in
Zelda (4 big bosses), I have to say that not only is Zelda inferior to
FF7, it isn't even in the same league. Zelda is much more like Tomb
Raider (but vastly inferior and with too many boring, uneventful bits)
than an RPG, IMO. It has a wafer thin plot (compared to FF7's beautiful,
deep involving plot), promotes almost no emotional response (unlike
FF7's frequent heartbreaking, gutwrenching and infuriating moments) and
is just too uninvolving.
Don't get me wrong I am determined to finish it, but every hour of play
that passes puts me off playing the game. It's so formulaic. And it is
far too easy too. I have NEVER ONCE been in danger of death and I have
beaten four major bosses. I have also never once been stuck for how to
solve to a puzzle more than a few minutes (and I am NO expert in this
field). Add this to the distinct lack of an involving plot and you have
a game greatly inferior to FF7.
Oh yeah, in the end I predict that most of my Zelda playing time will be
spent trailing aimlessly around seeing what object/tune will work where.
Geez, Tomb Raider is a more successful RPG than that. This kind of
trial/error gameplay is at least 15 years old!!
A cinematic experience? Sure. An involving RPG? Nah, not yet anyway.
Better than FF7? Hardy har har.
My opinions only, and P.S. if Zelda suddenly gets a LOT better after the
fourth big boss then please ignore my ramblings.
Gary
Castellan
>And next time, you moronic, illetrate cretin, don't you DARE go
^^^^^^^^^
...wait for it...
"It's the irony that kills, folks."
Yup.
Gargantua Blargg
...
> Blargg on the other hand has implied on many an occasion that
> he simply doesn't like it because other people do. If you don't
> believe me, check DejaNews.
Well, whatever implications you have read in my postings, they are
incorrect. I do like the game alot, but I do think it has some quite
annoying flaws that must be acknowledged. That is all.
> And next time, you moronic, illetrate cretin, don't you DARE go
> calling ME names until you have carefully checked all my posts on the
> subject to guage the integrity and weight of my opinions.
I suggest you do the same for my postings.
...
> Now wipe that egg of your face, fool. There's a good creature.
hehehe
fanatic
Pandagas
In article <blargg-0601...@p147.amax18.dialup.aus1.flash.net>,
bla...@flash.net (Gargantua Blargg) writes:
>pand...@aol.com (Pandagas) wrote:
>> > I like 2D styles more in many ways because there's more
>> >artistic expression possible.
>>
>> Yeah, but that is pretty subjective, you must admit. In what way
>> is there more artistic expression?
>
>Most 3D games attempt to match some form of reality. 2D games are much
>more abstract. 2D games are like doddling on some paper, while 3D games
>are like building a model out of blocks. There just seems to be less
>freedom with 3D games.
Probably because, as you say, the perspective isn't fixed... you've got
slightly more freedom in drawing the character and making it move.
Or drawing a fixed environment.
This can be seen in LBA2... which has some pretty cool characters
and worlds. However, the environment graphics aren't that solid.
and even the 3D parts of the game feel oddly pre rendered.
The regenerating baddies in Zelda, for example, have a certain bland feel
to them - like the spiders in Goron Valley (the skeletons were good though),
or those mushroom type things and ghosts in Mario 64. In LBA2
they were whacky aliens!! Can't vouch for BK.. i want to play it!!!
In Soleil you had these different animals following you and
each one of them gave you a special skill... i've not seen anything like that
yet!!!
> I don't have this too fleshed out, and perhaps 3D
>is not itself inherently more limiting, it's just that people are limiting
>their use of it for models of reality.
I thought Jabbus belly was pretty abstract...
>I won't argue that a good simulation (sunset, lense flare) are very fun. I
>have very high hopes for 3D in the future, for my own personal use. But I
>just feel that 2D games had a much more abstract, different feel than 3D
>games, in general, do. Tetrisphere is a good example of an abstract 3D
>game.
Oh right.. i thought you meant within the adventure/platform genres...
for instance.. the world which Cosmic Spacehead inhabits is
pretty abstract!!
>Obviously we have different expectations from the game. All I wanted, and
>got from it, was a great simulation of the environment, especially the
>dungeons. I was satisfied with that aspect. It seems you wanted better
>characters and story.
Not the story.. i wanted a living world... or a least some attempt
to make it look like one.
>> The game is definately smoother than any 3rd person/1st person game that
>> i've played.
>
>Then I guess you haven't played Super Mario 64, Mario Kart 64, Banjo
>Kazooie, and many others. Those all run at 30 frames per second most of
>the time.
Hmm on the other hand, those games are a bit more sparse..
doesn't Zelda use a modified version of the MArio engine, in any case?
Probably i wasn't looking hard enough.. but i can't argue with the facts.
>> If you have your way... the best game ever will be the early ones
>> which started home computer gaming in the first place... because
>> it was a completely new genre of entertainment.
>
>No, my way is that there is no best game overall.
Okay.
>> You are saying that the tag of "best game ever" is a futile
>> exercise. i'm saying that it is the best game ever.. but not the
>> best game that will ever be made. I don't really know why
>> it matters..
>
>It would be absurd to call some CD the best CD ever (so far, at least),
>and I think you're saying this, but for video games, you are saying the
>opposite, that there can be a game that is the best game so far. I don't
>get this.
CD's is a much broader kettle of fish than the video.. incorporating
a lot of styles, culture, and taking place over a long time. That makes
it pretty much impossible to pick one out... I've got many more
CD's than videogames..they are all different genres within what we'd call
pop music. So that doesn't cover, classical, country, world, jazz
blues etc...
Computer games don't cover as wide an area. Lets face it..
games are a lot prettier than they used to be.. but the gameplay
has hardly ever changed. There is a very narrow band to work with.
There really isn't a great deal of difference between pac-man and doom
in terms of what you've got to do.
>> One of the main problems with my statement, which you haven't
>> picked up on yet, is that it is only relative to the games which
>> I have played.. which is not every single game in existence.
>
>The best game *you* have played? OK, then I accept this because your
>definition of "best" may allow a game of a totally different genre to be
>compared, i.e. since Zelda is the best you have played, and you have
>played F-Zero X (right?),
Right.. but i've never played Resident Evil though.. or a heap
of other playstation games. I'm pretty much addicted to strategy
on my PC...
> then Zelda is better than F-Zero X, in your
>opinion (since your definition of best says that more deep games are
>better than less deep ones,
In deciding the best game ever, yes. In terms of pure enjoyment..
i'd probably say that i like F-Zero X as much. None of those
games raise the passions like ISS 98 does. Scoring that
20 yard free kick against my brother the other day.. I thought
I was at Wembley!!! But then ISS 98 is a sports sim.
Pandagas
In article <RZRk2.8161$tr6....@news.rdc1.mi.home.com>, "Matt Seidl"
<mse...@driveninc.com> writes:
>
>
>But didn't you mention in another thread that you had problems with the
>fact that the NPCs are utterly devoid of life, behaving more pieces of
>scenery than human beings? I can think of several RPGs that surpass
>Zelda in this regard, namely Ultima VII: The Black Gate. All NPCs have
>set routines--for example, a farmer may wake up, putter around his
>house, toil in the fields all day, then retire to the pub for a meal,
>putter around the house again, then go to sleep again.
Exactly, but that is why it is not the best game that will
ever be made..there are moments to enjoy in Zelda too!!!!