RPGamer Zelda Review
Joshua Kaufman
>
> <<bleh...IMHO, Ryan here did a bad review of Zelda...anyway take a took
> at it.>>
>
> He said that the game was a good game, but it didn't live up to the
> hype. He gave it a 8.5. That's not bad. I think if anyone gives Zelda
> less than perfect, you guys would act insane. I didn't like the game
> and I'm a Zelda fan.
But it what he critisized was wrong. As others have said, he probably
went through with a guide. Part of the game is figuring out what to do,
and that includes technique like figuring out boss patterns. So what if
you can beat bosses while barely getting hit, but how many times does
one (without a guide) have to fight it before figuring out how to kill
it.
Also, he ranks it easy....if there's ont thing it's not, it's easy.
-Joshua
--
User of the name Aerith... Master bad punner... Composer of 8 opi....
Player of FF series... Worshiper of Nobuo Uematsu... Watcher of Sailor
Moon... Member of the Ellipsis Faction... Proprietor of the ellipsis...
ICQ#: 5404138 AOL-IM: TerraEpon
"Is the whole world going bonkers or is it just me!?!"
- Serena on Sailor Moon (eps. 54)
"As you can see, this is a Playstation black disk. Cut number 1 contains
computer data, so please, don't play it. But you probably won't listen
to me, will you?"
- Alucard, when you put C-SOTN in a CD-player
Joshua Kaufman
>
> <<Most of those RPGamer guys are PSX fans, and usually have negative thoughts
> against N64... Esp that stupid, biased.. son of a bitch, A.K. But oh well.>>
>
> Perhaps because they have been waiting and waiting for a good RPG on the N64
> and haven't found one yet. Now before you jump and say "What about Zelda??!?!"
> Many people do not consider the Zelda series an RPG. Many consider it a
> action/adventure. Still it's just a thought. A lot of what he said i agreed
> with. But i think it's a better game than he made it out to be.
If they didn't consider the Zelda series Rpgs, then they wouldn;t be on
RPGamer.
Alexander Schaewe
bleh...IMHO, Ryan here did a bad review of Zelda...anyway take a took at
it.
-Alexander
Webmaster for Squall Domain, the #1 source for Final Fantasy VIII
FanArt!
http://seph.simplenet.com
( Sutaz )
negative from the begining. oh well. i agree the plot aint nothing new
but the experience is new. i think he just had to be one of those guys
who had to go against the hype. and he picked on n64 graphics. um hello,
what about psx blocky, pixelation graphics? each system has their
strengths and weaknesses for graphics. anyhoo, it was a boring review.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Su...@webtv.net
The Official ONEIROID PSYCHOSIS
Fan Club
See the creations of Lars and Leif
Hansen at Psychosis Laboratories
http://pw2.netcom.com/~psylabs/main.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Scott Lewis
>Alexander Schaewe wrote in message
<29254-36...@newsd-122.bryant.webtv.net>...
>http://www.rpgamer.com/games/zelda/z5/z5rev.html
>bleh...IMHO, Ryan here did a bad review of Zelda...anyway take a took at
>it.
I think he used the hint book to beat the game, which really defeats the
purpose of the game, especially this one. Beating it in 35 hours is
practically impossible without a hintbook and he makes references of things
in the hint book (the town song) which would make you think that he used it
to complete the game. Darn shame, because from what I've read the people
that have used the hintbook to complete the game have liked it the least,
while people who play it without any assistance seem to be loving it.
-Scott-
Alexander Schaewe
thoughts against N64... Esp that stupid, biased.. son of a bitch, A.K.
But oh well.
-Alexander
TechMaster
at it.>>
He said that the game was a good game, but it didn't live up to the
Alexander Schaewe
the purpose of the game, especially this one. Beating it in 35 hours is
practically impossible without a hintbook and he makes references of
things in the hint book (the town song) which would make you think that
he used it to complete the game. Darn shame, because from what I've read
the people that have used the hintbook to complete the game have liked
it the least, while people who play it without any assistance seem to be
loving it.>>
I think the same. People who tested the game, and knew every nook and
crany of it couldn't beat it under 35 hours. It's a lot better without
a hint book..but sometimes I'll come here if I'm stuck, etc.
Dark9
I disagree with his review too. The plot is awesome! What game was he
playing?!
I'd like to know if he liked the original Zelda. Anyway, he has the right to
his own opinion but he's in the minority.
-Dark9
Joshua Kaufman
>
> <<That's right. If they dont love every single N64 release, they must be
> PS lovers.>>
>
> Umm...I've chatted with some of RPGamer staff members, and I've talked
> to many people who know others there...as well as Andrew V., and so on.
> Most of them don't like N64....and A.K. had something in one of his
> letter sections that totally bashed the N64. They're pretty biased
> against it.
>
And remeber, RPGuru (both current one and the previous two) even has a
little "In the PSX" box. I think that shows they are PSX bias.
-Joshua
Joshua Kaufman
>
> On Sun, 29 Nov 1998 13:14:29 -0500, Joshua Kaufman
> <kauf...@email.uc.edu> wrote:
>
> >Alexander Schaewe wrote:
> >>
> >> <<That's right. If they dont love every single N64 release, they must be
> >> PS lovers.>>
> >>
> >> Umm...I've chatted with some of RPGamer staff members, and I've talked
> >> to many people who know others there...as well as Andrew V., and so on.
> >> Most of them don't like N64....and A.K. had something in one of his
> >> letter sections that totally bashed the N64. They're pretty biased
> >> against it.
> >>
> >
> >And remeber, RPGuru (both current one and the previous two) even has a
> >little "In the PSX" box. I think that shows they are PSX bias.
>
> which isn't even considered an RPG by many people, including me), and
> really only Quest 64 for anything in A.K.'s time, the N64 would look
> like crap to someone who mostly plays only RPGs.
But it could be "game I'm playing", or "Rpg I'm playing", so you could
Stick in Zelda, or Grandia, or FF6, or PS2, or whatever.
-Joshua
--
Joshua Kaufman
>
> In article <3660CE...@email.uc.edu>,> Perhaps he wasn't aware that nobody is allowed to dislike it. The lowest
> score he gave was to plot. Are you going to claim that Zelda does not have a
> familiar plot? That it doesn't emphasize action over story?
>
> > As others have said, he probably
> > went through with a guide. Part of the game is figuring out what to do,
> > and that includes technique like figuring out boss patterns. So what if
> > you can beat bosses while barely getting hit, but how many times does
> > one (without a guide) have to fight it before figuring out how to kill
> > it.
> > Also, he ranks it easy....if there's ont thing it's not, it's easy.
>
> valid. He said it's a 10 hr game, but swells to 35 because of fighting and
> dungeon crawling. Without the guide, I can only assume there would be even
> more fighting and dungeon crawling piled on top of that 10 hr game. Doesn't
> sound appealing to me.
>
No, the amount of a fighting wouldn;'t be too much more. More time spend
on actually solving puzzles, which is really more to the point of the
game over battles.
Blake Hyde
>
>>Alexander Schaewe wrote in message
><29254-36...@newsd-122.bryant.webtv.net>...
>>http://www.rpgamer.com/games/zelda/z5/z5rev.html
>
>>it.
>
>purpose of the game, especially this one. Beating it in 35 hours is
>practically impossible without a hintbook and he makes references of things
>in the hint book (the town song) which would make you think that he used it
>to complete the game. Darn shame, because from what I've read the people
>that have used the hintbook to complete the game have liked it the least,
>while people who play it without any assistance seem to be loving it.
I agree. I used the NP review for the first dungeon when link is young,
but then decided that I wouldn't use it anymore after that. It's taking
longer, but it's a lot more fun. Except for the bosses. I get no fun
out of the bosses--Barinade and Volvagia, especially. I also hate the
little mini-dungeon for the eye of truth. I keep falling through the
floor! AGGGH!
--
Blake Hyde (ROT13: ou...@pbaarpgh.arg)
-==(UDIC)==-
Novan Dragon
--------------
d+ e- N+ T--- Om-- U1347'!S'8!K u uC++ uF uG++ uLB+ uA nC+ nR nH- nP nI--
nPT nS+ nT wM wC+ wS- wI++ wN- o oA++ y a666
--------------
Rock2577
against N64... Esp that stupid, biased.. son of a bitch, A.K. But oh well.>>
Perhaps because they have been waiting and waiting for a good RPG on the N64
and haven't found one yet. Now before you jump and say "What about Zelda??!?!"
Many people do not consider the Zelda series an RPG. Many consider it a
action/adventure. Still it's just a thought. A lot of what he said i agreed
with. But i think it's a better game than he made it out to be.
Brad
"If we deny love that is given to us, if we refuse to give love because we fear
the pain of loss, then our lives will be emtpy our loss greater"
-Margaret Wies and Tracy Hickman
from: Dragons of Winter Night
Rock2577
true-RPG) on the system. That tends to put many people off of the N64, which
is why it's not doing as well in Japan as the PSX.
Skye
right now.
Skye
Alexander Schaewe wrote in message
<27455-366...@newsd-121.bryant.webtv.net>...
Most of those RPGamer guys are PSX fans, and usually have negative
thoughts against N64... Esp that stupid, biased.. son of a bitch, A.K.
But oh well.
-Alexander
Alexander Schaewe
PS lovers.>>
Umm...I've chatted with some of RPGamer staff members, and I've talked
to many people who know others there...as well as Andrew V., and so on.
Most of them don't like N64....and A.K. had something in one of his
letter sections that totally bashed the N64. They're pretty biased
against it.
-Alexander
z...@my-dejanews.com
zig...@webtv.net (Alexander Schaewe) wrote:
> http://www.rpgamer.com/games/zelda/z5/z5rev.html
>
> bleh...IMHO, Ryan here did a bad review of Zelda...anyway take a took at
> it.
Why is it a bad review? Because he didn't give it a perfect 10? I think it
is an excellent review. It praises the game, but points out the emphasis on
action over plot, the possible irritation caused by dungeons, the
shortcomings in the graphics. Moreover, it recommends the game to anyone who
liked the previous titles, but does not advise purchasing the system just for
the game. I agree that this game does sound like it merits better than the
8.5 score he gave it. However, I think many magazines are being
irresponsible by calling it perfect, or calling it the best game ever, ir
recommending it to all video game fans everywhere. It may be the best
Action/Adventure game ever, it may be the best N64 game ever, but to rank it
above all games of all genres, past, present, and future, is absurd. For
those of you who disagree with me, think about this: If this game is
perfect, and will never be surpassed, what does that mean for the next Zelda
sequel?
-ZFP
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
z...@my-dejanews.com
Joshua Kaufman <kauf...@email.uc.edu> wrote:
>
> But it what he critisized was wrong.
Perhaps he wasn't aware that nobody is allowed to dislike it. The lowest
score he gave was to plot. Are you going to claim that Zelda does not have a
familiar plot? That it doesn't emphasize action over story?
> As others have said, he probably
> went through with a guide. Part of the game is figuring out what to do,
> and that includes technique like figuring out boss patterns. So what if
> you can beat bosses while barely getting hit, but how many times does
> one (without a guide) have to fight it before figuring out how to kill
> it.
> Also, he ranks it easy....if there's ont thing it's not, it's easy.
So he used a guide. In my opinion, that makes one of his points all the more
valid. He said it's a 10 hr game, but swells to 35 because of fighting and
dungeon crawling. Without the guide, I can only assume there would be even
more fighting and dungeon crawling piled on top of that 10 hr game. Doesn't
sound appealing to me.
-ZFP
The Love-Love Catchball of Death
<kauf...@email.uc.edu> wrote:
>Alexander Schaewe wrote:
>>
>> <<That's right. If they dont love every single N64 release, they must be
>> PS lovers.>>
>>
>> Umm...I've chatted with some of RPGamer staff members, and I've talked
>> to many people who know others there...as well as Andrew V., and so on.
>> Most of them don't like N64....and A.K. had something in one of his
>> letter sections that totally bashed the N64. They're pretty biased
>> against it.
>>
>
>And remeber, RPGuru (both current one and the previous two) even has a
>little "In the PSX" box. I think that shows they are PSX bias.
Well, what do you expect. With only two (Quest 64 <bleck>, and Zelda
which isn't even considered an RPG by many people, including me), and
really only Quest 64 for anything in A.K.'s time, the N64 would look
like crap to someone who mostly plays only RPGs.
---
The Love-Love Catchball of Death!!!
---
athol-brose
>And remeber, RPGuru (both current one and the previous two) even has a
>little "In the PSX" box. I think that shows they are PSX bias.
No, I think it shows he has a PSX.
--
r. n. dominick -- cinn...@one.net
Very very very very very very good!
athol-brose
Schaewe wrote:
>http://www.rpgamer.com/games/zelda/z5/z5rev.html
>bleh...IMHO, Ryan here did a bad review of Zelda...anyway take a took at
>it.
I'd be interested to know what you think is so bad about this
review. 8.5 isn't the 10s it's been getting elsewhere, but I trust an
8.5 more than a 10. (I practically ignored videogamespot's review of
Zelda when I saw the list of all 10s.) To my mind, Zelda: OOT is a
nice game, fun, with a few flaws.
Jesse Dorland
Schaewe) wrote:
>http://www.rpgamer.com/games/zelda/z5/z5rev.html
>
>bleh...IMHO, Ryan here did a bad review of Zelda...anyway take a took at
>it.
I think the overall score and some of the ratings should've been higher,
but the text itself seems to be fairly intelligent. I was expecting
something like Videogames.com's farcical
Zelda-is-flawless-and-anyone-who-says-otherwise-is-a-liar review.
There are some things I don't agree with. The difficulty (easy) and
length (30 hours) he listed lead me to believe that he had a strategy
guide handy, and never strayed from the storyline to do much of anything
that's optional.
The "Sound" score is the one rating that I actually thought should be
lower. While the sound effects are usually good, some of them (like the
fire crackling) sound artificial, and the game obviously uses a lot of
effects from previous Nintendo titles.
-Jesse
====================================================
Jesse Dorland
jessedorland AT hotmail DOT com
====================================================
Skye
fans. I'd hate it too if that was my main genre.
Skye
Alexander Schaewe wrote in message
<2640-366...@newsd-122.bryant.webtv.net>...
<<That's right. If they dont love every single N64 release, they must be
PS lovers.>>
Umm...I've chatted with some of RPGamer staff members, and I've talked
to many people who know others there...as well as Andrew V., and so on.
Most of them don't like N64....and A.K. had something in one of his
letter sections that totally bashed the N64. They're pretty biased
against it.
-Alexander
Matt Seidl
more
>valid. He said it's a 10 hr game, but swells to 35 because of fighting and
>dungeon crawling. Without the guide, I can only assume there would be even
>more fighting and dungeon crawling piled on top of that 10 hr game.
Doesn't
>sound appealing to me.
This is just ridiculous--any game is easier when you have a strategy guide
leading you through by the nose (Be it a book that gives you the patterns
for Pac-Man, all the way up to Zelda). Part of the whole attraction of
RPGs/Action RPGs is the ability to explore the world, figure out puzzles,
find items, fighting foes. If that doesn't appeal to you, you certainly
can't be an RPG fan.
Alexander Schaewe
the more valid. He said it's a 10 hr game, but swells to 35 because of
fighting and dungeon crawling. Without the guide, I can only assume
there would be even more fighting and dungeon crawling piled on top of
that 10 hr game. Doesn't sound appealing to me.>>
I don't agree with his review because he cheated, and used a guide. It's
much more enjoyable without using a guide. And he said the game
surrounds action...which is stupid...since it's all about puzzle's. The
action is only a little taste of the game..as is the plot. Zelda is all
about puzzle's, and that's why people like them...but the way he reviews
it is totally different.
I'm atleast 50 hours into the game, and I still have 2 levels to
complete, plus Ganon's castle. Along the way I've been trying to figure
out every puzzle, and so on. 35 hours is just enough time to skip
everything, and only complete the game without Epona, most magic and
weapons, etc. Bottom line....I don't like reviews by people who use
guides.
And the puzzle's, fighting, and so on work out nicely and are quite
equal. There is more than 10 hours put into the game besides the regular
levels. He didn't play the entire game..so his review isn't valid.....
and you haven't even played the game either, as far as I know. So your
opinion, based on hype and what you've heard... isn't valid too.
Alexander Schaewe
RPG fans. I'd hate it too if that was my main genre.>>
So they should be biased against a system because of that? That's
stupid... just becuase I run an FF8 site, doesn't mean I hate N64. The
same thing should apply to them...but most of the RPGamer staff are
stuck up(A few cool guys on the staff...but hardly any), as was the
SquareNet staff. Biased people shouldn't be allowed to be part of big
sites such as RPGamer, But that's MHO. There isn't much of a mix at
RPGamer.(A few things on Nintendo and Sega..but hardly any.) Might as
well call it PSX-RPGamer.
Jason Ng
BTW, N64 games have blurry, low framerate graphics.
Jason Ng
BTW, it is an excellent review.
sean
its good points. Every game has flaws..they seemed to expect why too much .
My point is dont belive hype untill you actually play the game (personaly I
love zselda 64 to death) I didnt care for they hype..Just the game. On the
other hand rpgamer did the reverse..but every one has there opininons..
sean
Alexander Schaewe wrote in message
<29254-36...@newsd-122.bryant.webtv.net>...
http://www.rpgamer.com/games/zelda/z5/z5rev.html
bleh...IMHO, Ryan here did a bad review of Zelda...anyway take a took at
it.
-Alexander
Alexander Schaewe
is an excellent review. >>
Read the other posts to why his review isn't that great...btw, it isn't
because he didn't give it a 10.
And his review isn't excellent, unless you feel that you should use a
guide for Zelda and ruin a great gaming experience. One thing that was
stupid in his review...he called Zelda 64 easy. All games can be easy
when using a guide...but Zelda 64 is far from easy...medium is about
right.
Alexander Schaewe
review? BTW, N64 games have blurry, low framerate graphics.>>
He has a point. They praised the FF8 demo for great graphics...when
infact it's really blocky...in some fights the colors look bad, and so
on. Also I noticed a screenshot he had that said "Some of Zelda's great
graphics" or something like that...when he showed a picture of a
brigde...that leads to Ganon's castle. That part hardly looks great..IMO
he was making fun of the way it looks by putting one of the worst
possible screens to show off the graphics.
FredricksJ
>infact it's really blocky...in some fights the colors look bad, and so
>on.
I agree, I bought Brave Fencer Musashi just to get a look at the Final Fantasy
VIII demo and I thought "Uh oh. This game looks worse than the last one. Lets
just hope that its because they aren't finished with the game. It would truly
suck if VIII was a step down from VII
Joshua Kaufman
>
> Okay guys, a review is an opinion of the reviewer, maybe this guy didn't
> get as much as we did out of it...
>
Of course he didn;t. He used a guide. Makes any game, especially this
one, lose its touch.
Alexander Schaewe
the time the PSX was the only viable RPG system. They probably should
change it now. I was replying to the guy before you, though. I didn't
get his original post.>>
Josh has a point. Why not "gaming playing at the moment"? I SERIOUSLY
doubt they play only RPGs, since that's the only thing up there ALL the
time. And it should be other systems as well.
VANCE HOLMES
get as much as we did out of it...
Alexander Schaewe <zig...@webtv.net> wrote in article
<29254-36...@newsd-122.bryant.webtv.net>...
> http://www.rpgamer.com/games/zelda/z5/z5rev.html
>
> bleh...IMHO, Ryan here did a bad review of Zelda...anyway take a took at
> it.
>
CREEPmunky
The Love-Love Catchball of Death
<kauf...@email.uc.edu> wrote:
>The Love-Love Catchball of Death wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 29 Nov 1998 13:14:29 -0500, Joshua Kaufman
>> <kauf...@email.uc.edu> wrote:
>>
>> >Alexander Schaewe wrote:
>> >>
>> >> <<That's right. If they dont love every single N64 release, they must be
>> >> PS lovers.>>
>> >>
>> >> Umm...I've chatted with some of RPGamer staff members, and I've talked
>> >> to many people who know others there...as well as Andrew V., and so on.
>> >> Most of them don't like N64....and A.K. had something in one of his
>> >> letter sections that totally bashed the N64. They're pretty biased
>> >> against it.
>> >>
>> >
>> >And remeber, RPGuru (both current one and the previous two) even has a
>> >little "In the PSX" box. I think that shows they are PSX bias.
>>
>> Well, what do you expect. With only two (Quest 64 <bleck>, and Zelda
>> which isn't even considered an RPG by many people, including me), and
>> really only Quest 64 for anything in A.K.'s time, the N64 would look
>> like crap to someone who mostly plays only RPGs.
>
>But it could be "game I'm playing", or "Rpg I'm playing", so you could
>Stick in Zelda, or Grandia, or FF6, or PS2, or whatever.
Because they wouldn't do past games (they're cutting edge!:), and at
the time the PSX was the only viable RPG system. They probably should
change it now. I was replying to the guy before you, though. I didn't
get his original post.
---
The Love-Love Catchball of Death
Schaewe) wrote:
><<Because they wouldn't do past games (they're cutting edge!:), and at
>the time the PSX was the only viable RPG system. They probably should
>change it now. I was replying to the guy before you, though. I didn't
>get his original post.>>
>
>Josh has a point. Why not "gaming playing at the moment"? I SERIOUSLY
>doubt they play only RPGs, since that's the only thing up there ALL the
>time. And it should be other systems as well.
Because it's an RPG site. Doesn't do much for the good of the RPG
world if they reveal that Tekken 3 is in the PSX half the time. :) It
would be cool though, especially if they could do it real time (yeah
right). Maybe a listing of all his video game systems.
In the N64: Zelda 64
In the PSX: Queen's Greatest Hits
In the Saturn: Queen's Greatest Hits II
In the CD-I: McDonald's Strawberry Milkshake
In the 3D0: Classic Queen
In the SNES: F-Zero (upside down-- hammered in, can't get out)
In the Genesis: F-Zero (tried smashing it on the genesis to get out)
(it didn't work)
In the Turbografix 16: The Turboexpress (tried smash the snes/genesis
against the turboexpress, which flew accross the room and got stuck in
the turbografix 16)
In the NES: Queen's Greatest Hits (2nd Version)
In the Atari 2600: Nothing
In the Game Boy: The SNES, Genesis, TG16, TGXP (don't ask)
In the Game Gear: The Game Boy
In the ColecoVision: Mario 64
In the PC: Intel
Mr. Burns: Take off my belt!
Smithers: With pleasure, sir!
Jason Ng
> Read the other posts to why his review isn't that great...btw, it isn't
> because he didn't give it a 10.
>
> And his review isn't excellent, unless you feel that you should use a
> guide for Zelda and ruin a great gaming experience. One thing that was
> stupid in his review...he called Zelda 64 easy. All games can be easy
> when using a guide...but Zelda 64 is far from easy...medium is about
> right.
And who said he used a guide? Stop making this up...
z...@my-dejanews.com
"Matt Seidl" <mse...@driveninc.com> wrote:
>
> This is just ridiculous--any game is easier when you have a strategy guide
> leading you through by the nose (Be it a book that gives you the patterns
> for Pac-Man, all the way up to Zelda). Part of the whole attraction of
> RPGs/Action RPGs is the ability to explore the world, figure out puzzles,
> find items, fighting foes. If that doesn't appeal to you, you certainly
> can't be an RPG fan.
I enjoy all of the above, but there are limits. Random encounters, dungons
filled with monsters that pop back when you leave the area, or bosses that
kill you and force you to replay large portions of a game can make
exploration a real pain. I would much rather turn to a guide in these cases
than hack at mosters for hours while wandering aimlessly.
z...@my-dejanews.com
zig...@webtv.net (Alexander Schaewe) wrote:
>
> I don't agree with his review because he cheated, and used a guide. It's
> much more enjoyable without using a guide.
Why is that? If it had a plot to spoil, I would agree, but it doesn't sound
like that's the case. Even if the guide tells you what to do, it should
still be fun to actually do it.
> And he said the game
> surrounds action...which is stupid...since it's all about puzzle's. The
> action is only a little taste of the game..as is the plot. Zelda is all
> about puzzle's, and that's why people like them...but the way he reviews
> it is totally different.
Okay, the game doesn't emphasize action over plot, it emphasizes puzzles over
plot. Either way, given that this reveiw is on an RPG site, I can see why
this would influence his opinion of the game.
> I'm atleast 50 hours into the game, and I still have 2 levels to
> complete, plus Ganon's castle. Along the way I've been trying to figure
> out every puzzle, and so on. 35 hours is just enough time to skip
> everything, and only complete the game without Epona, most magic and
> weapons, etc. Bottom line....I don't like reviews by people who use
> guides.
>
> And the puzzle's, fighting, and so on work out nicely and are quite
> equal. There is more than 10 hours put into the game besides the regular
> levels. He didn't play the entire game..so his review isn't valid.....
I think the bottom line is you didn't agree, so his review isn't valid. If
this game is so perfect, how could it be ruined just by playing with a guide?
Given that no one uses a guide unless they don't mind having things spoiled
for them, it shouldn't have affected his enjoyment of the game.
> and you haven't even played the game either, as far as I know. So your
> opinion, based on hype and what you've heard... isn't valid too.
Why not? I've only commented on things I've seen and comments I've heard
people make. If I started commenting on the ending or the gameplay, things I
would need to play the game to see, then my opinion would be invalid.
Rufus
>
>In article <636-3663...@newsd-121.bryant.webtv.net>,
> zig...@webtv.net (Alexander Schaewe) wrote:
>>
>> I don't agree with his review because he cheated, and used a guide. It's
>> much more enjoyable without using a guide.
>
>Why is that? If it had a plot to spoil, I would agree, but it doesn't sound
>like that's the case. Even if the guide tells you what to do, it should
>still be fun to actually do it.
>
Ok, if you had a guy standing by you while your tring out the puzzle to rubix cube and he's
telling you what to do will you have fun? The guts of the zelda series is its puzzles. Thats why
I spent hours in one dungeon thinking what to do. Then the boss is when you try to figure out his
weakness(which is easy cause of navi). The guide ruined the fun factor and difficulty of the
game(which he put easy!yea right).
Alexander Schaewe
Making what up? Most people in this thread agree with me. It's
IMPOSSIBLE to go through Zelda in 35 hours, when first playing
it...unless you used a guide. People who tested the game..and knew
everything about it cannot beat it under 35. IGN64 couldn't beat it
under 40 hours. He also called it easy...and said the last boss, Ganon
didn't even hit him once and he killed him easily. I doubt he even
finished the game...since Ganon has different forms when you fight him
at the end...each harder than the other..and fustrating.(Or so I've
heard...but from a good source.)
Scott and Doug Craig
> I enjoy all of the above, but there are limits. Random encounters,
dungons
> filled with monsters that pop back when you leave the area, or bosses
that
> kill you and force you to replay large portions of a game can make
> exploration a real pain. I would much rather turn to a guide in these
cases
> than hack at mosters for hours while wandering aimlessly.
>
> -ZFP
>
Wow, you just described the Final Fantasy series!
Doug
Joshua Kaufman
He beat it in 35 hours, said it was easy, and didn;t make much mention
of the puzzle difficulty. He was using a guide.
Joshua S Redford
I agree that his review is practically worthless if he used a guide to get
through the game. I didn't read the review, but I don't see how he could
state whether the game was difficult or hard. I like your rubik's cube
analogy, but I think I have one that is even more accurate. It is the
equivalent of someone pausing tetris right before each piece is about to
drop and them telling you where to put it. I don't know how anyone can
rate a game if they're cheating like that.
Josh Redford
Patrick Friedel
>However, I think many magazines are being irresponsible by calling it
>perfect, or calling it the best game ever, ir recommending it to all
>video game fans everywhere. It may be the best Action/Adventure game
>ever, it may be the best N64 game ever, but to rank it above all
>games of all genres, past, present, and future, is absurd. For those
>of you who disagree with me, think about this: If this game is
>perfect, and will never be surpassed, what does that mean for the
>next Zelda sequel?
Uhh. It'll suck boulders through a garden hose? I thought that the
RPGamer review of Zelda was pretty decent, too. Some of his
complaints may seem invalid to some of y'all drooling Zelda Fanboys
(ducking), but I think some of his complaints are semi-valid from a
straight RPG player mindset. And, like others in this thread, I don't
_trust_ perfect tens. Yeah, Zelda is a pretty damn good game, it's
got a lot of faboo looks and a lot of depth, but it isn't 100%. No
game will ever be 100%. At least not to everyone. e.g. - I see some
reviews raving about the "perfect camera" in Zelda, but the _same_
camera drives me up the wall more often than not. (i.e. 90% of the
time it's fine, no big deal. But the other 10% of the time, I want to
look _here_ now, get the camera behind me _now_, grr, I'm DYING here
damnit...) It's better than most other 3rd person cameras, but the
lack of _any_ control other than 1st person look around and the
Behind-Me-Cam on the Z-Button occasionally makes life difficult. I'm
getting better at tapping the Z-Button to bring the camera behind me,
and the Hold vs. Switch option made it better as a camera control, but
there are still times when I'd like to have a freer camera.
And so far, the damned Keese are being my biggest problem. Navi
won't pick up on 'em until they're too close to Z target, or she picks
them up far enough away, but she's off screen and I don't see that she
has them targeted. Since she tucks herself into your tunic when
there's nothing for her to do, I can't tell if she's being a lazy bum
or if she's hunting out a baddie for me. (shrug) Simple enough to fix
- if Navi never rested you'd know that if you don't see her around
you, there's something interesting going on and you could hit Z to see
where she is.
That doesn't keep me from wanting work to be over _now_ so I can go
home and play it, mind you. But there are some little faults with it
which keep it from being the game of the century for me. (To me the
biggest problem is the music. Bleah. It's not annoying, but it
hasn't ever been really dramatic, driving or particularly impressive
so far either, they're all just cute little tunes. And the only
particularly good ones so far have been little snippits here and there
for a boss or a Ocarina tune.. Occasionally the target music (the
girl at Lon Lon Ranch's song, etc) seem to be more interesting than
any of the other field music.)
My, this went on longer than I thought it would. All I want to say
is this: Zelda is a damn fine game, probably the best game available
for any system right now. Will it be bettered in the future?
Undoubtably. But is there another game that I want to play more right
now? Nope.
--
Patrick Friedel
harg...@my-dejanews.com
zig...@webtv.net (Alexander Schaewe) wrote:
> <<They're an RPG site (read that again: RPGs). The N64 is worthless for
> RPG fans. I'd hate it too if that was my main genre.>>
>
> So they should be biased against a system because of that? That's
> stupid... just becuase I run an FF8 site, doesn't mean I hate N64. The
> same thing should apply to them...but most of the RPGamer staff are
> stuck up(A few cool guys on the staff...but hardly any), as was the
> SquareNet staff. Biased people shouldn't be allowed to be part of big
> sites such as RPGamer, But that's MHO. There isn't much of a mix at
> RPGamer.(A few things on Nintendo and Sega..but hardly any.) Might as
> well call it PSX-RPGamer.
>
Look back on their history, Alex. I seem to recall these were the same people
who bashed the PSX in its first year because of its lack of RPG games. They
were into the Saturn and SNES at the time. These were the same people who
criticized Sony's then policy of "No RPGs". They do bash particular systems.
Those without good RPGs. N64 has Zelda, and Nintendo called it an
Adventure/RPG. Zelda isn't a good RPG. Zelda isn't even a traditional RPG.
Come now, what traditional RPG relies on your reflexes/hand-eye coord? If the
go into they game thinking its an RPG, they'll be dissapointed. Its more like
a souped up Mario where you can equip a few items. But if were to review
Zelda as a Mario Type game where you can equip progressively powerful items
as you advance through the game --- --- then its one helluva great game.
IMHO, it was a mistake that these people who are RPG fanatics to even review
Zelda as an RPG.
Jason Ng
> Making what up? Most people in this thread agree with me. It's
> IMPOSSIBLE to go through Zelda in 35 hours, when first playing
> it...unless you used a guide. People who tested the game..and knew
> everything about it cannot beat it under 35. IGN64 couldn't beat it
> under 40 hours. He also called it easy...and said the last boss, Ganon
> didn't even hit him once and he killed him easily. I doubt he even
> finished the game...since Ganon has different forms when you fight him
> at the end...each harder than the other..and fustrating.(Or so I've
> heard...but from a good source.)
He never said he used a guide, you're just creating excuses to trash his
review because he gave Zelda a less than perfect rating. Since when is
IGN64 the final word on anything?
z...@my-dejanews.com
<Pine.GSO.3.96.98120...@callisto.acsu.buffalo.edu>, Joshua
S Redford <red...@acsu.buffalo.edu> wrote:
>
> > Ok, if you had a guy standing by you while your tring out the puzzle to rubix cube and he's
> > telling you what to do will you have fun? The guts of the zelda series is its puzzles. Thats why
> > I spent hours in one dungeon thinking what to do. Then the boss is when you try to figure out his
> > weakness(which is easy cause of navi). The guide ruined the fun factor and difficulty of the
> > game(which he put easy!yea right).
Personally, I can still enjoy a game if it's easy, as long as it isn't too
short. I had assumed there was more to the new Zelda than just puzzles. Now
I wouldn't touch it with a 10-foot pole.
> I agree that his review is practically worthless if he used a guide to get
> through the game. I didn't read the review, but I don't see how he could
> state whether the game was difficult or hard. I like your rubik's cube
> analogy, but I think I have one that is even more accurate. It is the
> equivalent of someone pausing tetris right before each piece is about to
> drop and them telling you where to put it. I don't know how anyone can
> rate a game if they're cheating like that.
They should still be able to rate it because unlike Tetris or a Rubik's Cube,
I assumed that Zelda wasn't just a puzzle game. If that's all there is to
it, and having the solutions ruins the game, then I certainly don't think you
can call it the best game ever. If the game was really that good, it would
still be great even with a guide. I consulted a guide while playing
Xenogears. It was just text, so everything I saw was still fresh and new,
and it didn't really say anything about the plot, so the game was still full
of surprises. Knowing how to get through the dungeons didn't spoil it one
bit. I still wanted to explore the "wrong paths" anyway. It still took me
62 hours to finish the game. If you can't say the same about Zelda, it
really isn't much of a game.
-ZFP
z...@my-dejanews.com
"Scott and Doug Craig" <csc...@erols.com> wrote:
> >
> > I enjoy all of the above, but there are limits. Random encounters,
> dungons
> > filled with monsters that pop back when you leave the area, or bosses
> that
> > kill you and force you to replay large portions of a game can make
> > exploration a real pain. I would much rather turn to a guide in these
> cases
> > than hack at mosters for hours while wandering aimlessly.
> >
> > -ZFP
> >
>
> Wow, you just described the Final Fantasy series!
And in my opinion, the Zelda series! I agree, there's a lot of moster
hacking in FF, but it's always had characters I care about and a plot I want
to see through to the end. I can't say the same for Zelda.
Golf Patrol
Its the same as the other Zelda games. Using a guide to get through it the first time would ruin the
game. Does that mean that the game is JUST puzzles? no. It means that puzzles are a big part of the game.
If you just want to play the game to "see everything" with the guide, I wouldn't recommend it to you.
What the guide would be for me is something to look at AFTER I had finished the game to see all the
secrets that I missed.
Alexander Schaewe
his review because he gave Zelda a less than perfect rating. Since when
is IGN64 the final word on anything?>>
Do you think, a guy from RPGamer is going to confess to using a guide?
Never. Most of them are too stuck up to say they use guides. IGN64 is
the #1 source for most Nintendo 64 info, and IMO do very nice reviews,
most of the time. Like it or not IGN64 is what people listen to. I doubt
this kid could beat it under 35 hours without a guide. You seem to
ignore the fact that people who TESTED THE GAME, and went through it 5
times at the least. couldn't beat it under 35 hours.
Jason Ng
> Do you think, a guy from RPGamer is going to confess to using a
> guide?Never. Most of them are too stuck up to say they use guides.
Why should he confess to something he didn't do? You have no proof at all.
> IGN64 is the #1 source for most Nintendo 64 info, and IMO do very nice
> reviews, most of the time.
"nice reviews, most of the time" as in when they don't trash a N64 game? And
when they do, they get accused of being biased.
> Like it or not IGN64 is what people listen to.
You got any facts to support this?
> I doubt this kid could beat it under 35 hours without a guide. You seem to
> ignore the fact that people who TESTED THE GAME, and went through it 5
> times at the least. couldn't beat it under 35 hours.
Ignore the facts? What facts? Show me where you got these facts.
Bruce Gottfred
> I assumed that Zelda wasn't just a puzzle game. If that's all there is to
> it, and having the solutions ruins the game, then I certainly don't think you
> can call it the best game ever. If the game was really that good, it would
> still be great even with a guide. I consulted a guide while playing
> Xenogears. It was just text, so everything I saw was still fresh and new,
> and it didn't really say anything about the plot, so the game was still full
> of surprises. Knowing how to get through the dungeons didn't spoil it one
> bit. I still wanted to explore the "wrong paths" anyway. It still took me
> 62 hours to finish the game. If you can't say the same about Zelda, it
> really isn't much of a game.
Zelda is not just a puzzle game. It's a game of exploration. There's a
very large environment for you to discover, experiment with, and wonder
at. I wouldn't call it a true RPG, but it has those elements in common
with them. And those are the things that make it fun. If you've played
the game knowing what was around each corner, and knowing what each
object does, and knowing how to get to each secret, you've robbed
yourself of a really great game.
If you travel to Paris how do you want to go? Do you want to take a
tour where someone will lead you around by the nose to all the sites?
Let's see, half hour stop so you can go to the top of the Eiffel Tower.
Quick zip into the Louvre so you can glance at the Mona Lisa. Photo-op
at Notre Dame. Now, have you done Paris? I would say you haven't. Not
until you've sat in a cafe for an afternoon, wandered the streets,
figured out how the Metro works, and found a really great pastry shop.
You can't do those things with a guide.
If you enter Kakariko village with a list of things to do, do them, then
leave - then you're not playing the game. And if you haven't played the
game - why are you writing a review about it?
Bruce
Jesse Dorland
>In article
><Pine.GSO.3.96.98120...@callisto.acsu.buffalo.edu>, Joshua
>S Redford <red...@acsu.buffalo.edu> wrote:
>
>>
>> > Ok, if you had a guy standing by you while your tring out the puzzle to rubix cube and he's
>> > telling you what to do will you have fun? The guts of the zelda series is its puzzles. Thats why
>> > I spent hours in one dungeon thinking what to do. Then the boss is when you try to figure out his
>> > weakness(which is easy cause of navi). The guide ruined the fun factor and difficulty of the
>> > game(which he put easy!yea right).
>
>Personally, I can still enjoy a game if it's easy, as long as it isn't too
>short. I had assumed there was more to the new Zelda than just puzzles. Now
>I wouldn't touch it with a 10-foot pole.
No one said anything about Zelda being "just puzzles," and it certainly
isn't. Please, for the love of God, play the game. At least then, your
comments will be supported by some actual experience, rather than
ignorance.
>> I agree that his review is practically worthless if he used a guide to get
>> through the game. I didn't read the review, but I don't see how he could
>> state whether the game was difficult or hard. I like your rubik's cube
>> analogy, but I think I have one that is even more accurate. It is the
>> equivalent of someone pausing tetris right before each piece is about to
>> drop and them telling you where to put it. I don't know how anyone can
>> rate a game if they're cheating like that.
>
>They should still be able to rate it because unlike Tetris or a Rubik's Cube,
>I assumed that Zelda wasn't just a puzzle game.
You assumed right. Give yourself a pat on the back!
>If that's all there is to
>it, and having the solutions ruins the game, then I certainly don't think you
>can call it the best game ever. If the game was really that good, it would
>still be great even with a guide.
If you're using a strategy guide to completely obliterate the main point
of a game, then of course it's not going to be great.
>I consulted a guide while playing
>Xenogears. It was just text, so everything I saw was still fresh and new,
>and it didn't really say anything about the plot, so the game was still full
>of surprises. Knowing how to get through the dungeons didn't spoil it one
>bit. I still wanted to explore the "wrong paths" anyway. It still took me
>62 hours to finish the game.
You're comparing two completely different types of games. While using a
strategy guide for gameplay solutions may not ruin anything in a
plot-oriented RPG, it ruins *everything* in a game like Zelda, because
Zelda revolves almost entirely around gameplay.
If the Xenogears strategy guide revealed major plot elements, it would
defeat your reason for playing the game in the first place. Having your
hand held through Zelda's dungeons, puzzless, boss battles, sidequests
and so on does exactly the same thing.
-Jesse
====================================================
Jesse Dorland
jessedorland AT hotmail DOT com
====================================================
z...@my-dejanews.com
Golf Patrol <p...@golf.99> wrote:
>
> Its the same as the other Zelda games. Using a guide to get through it the first time would ruin the
> game. Does that mean that the game is JUST puzzles? no. It means that puzzles are a big part of the game.
> If you just want to play the game to "see everything" with the guide, I wouldn't recommend it to you.
If using a guide to solve the puzzles would ruin the game, to me that means
it is essentially just puzzles. If there's not enough left in the game to
make it good once the puzzles have been solved, then it may as well be a
puzzle game.
Mike G.
> >
> > Alexander Schaewe wrote:
> >
> > > Read the other posts to why his review isn't that great...btw, it isn't
> > > because he didn't give it a 10.
> > >
> > > And his review isn't excellent, unless you feel that you should use a
> > > guide for Zelda and ruin a great gaming experience. One thing that was
> > > stupid in his review...he called Zelda 64 easy. All games can be easy
> > > when using a guide...but Zelda 64 is far from easy...medium is about
> > > right.
> >
> > And who said he used a guide? Stop making this up...
>
> He beat it in 35 hours, said it was easy, and didn;t make much mention
> of the puzzle difficulty. He was using a guide.
>
> -Joshua
35 hours? That is amusing. I've invested 26 hours and have only beat two
dungeons. It's called savoring the experience. I feel kind of sorry for
website and other reviewers who are pretty much compelled to rush through
games so they can deliver their opinions ASAP to the gaming hordes.
--mike g.
Alexander Schaewe
game? And when they do, they get accused of being biased.>>
No...when they don't trash a game that isn't that great. They've done it
sometimes, but mostly their reviews are better than most N64 sites out
there. But the best source for N64 reviews would be from Scott McCall.
<<--Like it or not IGN64 is what people listen to. You got any facts to
support this?>>
Do a poll in this newsgroup, and ask who here visits IGN64, and who
here takes their reviews seriously...most, if not all of this group goes
to IGN64. They're a VERY good source for news as well.
<<--I doubt this kid could beat it under 35 hours without a guide. You
seem to ignore the fact that people who TESTED THE GAME, and went
through it 5 times at the least. couldn't beat it under 35 hours.
Ignore the facts? What facts? Show me where you got these facts.>>
There has been articles on IGN64, NG, and a few out gaming sites. The
people who tested the games, and went through them atleast 5 times
couldn't beat it under 35 hours. If the facts weren't there I wouldn't
say they were...I've been in this newsgroup for quite a long time, I
know well enough by now factless posts are useless. He used a guide,
even Josh in this thread agrees....and he's been around for a long time.
It isn't something I just "make up". You'll enjoy Zelda much more
without a Guide...and he used a guide, no doubt.
Scott Lewis
He did.
"In fact, in the official player's guide put out for this game by Nintendo,
it has instructions for playing the town theme on the Ocarina. "
While it does not directly say that he used the players guide for the game,
it obviously states that he spent a good deal of time going over it, and put
together with the rest of his overall uncommon thoughts about the game
(easy, simple puzzles) it reinforces the fact that he most likely used the
Official Player's Guide as a crutch to make a poor review.
Proof? No. A large amount of hard evidence showing that he most likely
used a hint guide to complete the game? Yup.
-Scott-
Joe Ottoson
gillg...@producer.com (Mike G.) wrote:
> 35 hours? That is amusing. I've invested 26 hours and have only beat two
> dungeons. It's called savoring the experience. I feel kind of sorry for
> website and other reviewers who are pretty much compelled to rush through
> games so they can deliver their opinions ASAP to the gaming hordes.
That's why "replay value" is so highly prized...
Blarg
>valid. He said it's a 10 hr game, but swells to 35 because of fighting and
>dungeon crawling. Without the guide, I can only assume there would be even
>more fighting and dungeon crawling piled on top of that 10 hr game. Doesn't
>sound appealing to me.
>
>-ZFP
I utterly disagree. "It swells to 35"? What is that supposed to mean?
That the only true "game" is when you're watching cutscenes and
travelling on the overworld? Fighting and dungeon crawling is the true
meat of Zelda 64.
You may as well take all the combat out of FF7 and see what that's
like. Doesn't sound appealing to me.
Also, when using a guide, the single most strongest point of
Zelda--the ingenious puzzle design and exploration--is annihilated. I
wouldn't enjoy the game very much either if I used one.
Blarg
Blarg
>like that's the case. Even if the guide tells you what to do, it should
>still be fun to actually do it.
This makes almost zero sense. Using a guide for puzzles is equivalent
to using a cheat code for Doom. Sure, it's still fun to blow hellspawn
away, but not nearly so. If I reviewed Doom using invincibility and
all weapons I would give a much lower score than it deserved.
>Okay, the game doesn't emphasize action over plot, it emphasizes puzzles over
>plot. Either way, given that this reveiw is on an RPG site, I can see why
>this would influence his opinion of the game.
It emphasizes *adventure*, that being making your way through a
virtual world and figuring things out, whether they are puzzles,
combat, or interacting with characters.
>I think the bottom line is you didn't agree, so his review isn't valid. If
>this game is so perfect, how could it be ruined just by playing with a guide?
> Given that no one uses a guide unless they don't mind having things spoiled
>for them, it shouldn't have affected his enjoyment of the game.
I think the bottom line is that MOST people don't agree. While it
doesn't make the review invalid, it does make it useless for the
majority of gameplayers who want to know whether or not to buy the
game. Name any puzzle-, plot-, or adventure-based game that is not
ruined by a guide, and I'll rethink my opinion.
>Why not? I've only commented on things I've seen and comments I've heard
>people make. If I started commenting on the ending or the gameplay, things I
>would need to play the game to see, then my opinion would be invalid.
>-ZFP
Yeah, whatever.
Blarg
Joshua S Redford
> In article
> <Pine.GSO.3.96.98120...@callisto.acsu.buffalo.edu>, Joshua
> S Redford <red...@acsu.buffalo.edu> wrote:
>
> >
> > > Ok, if you had a guy standing by you while your tring out the puzzle to rubix cube and he's
> > > telling you what to do will you have fun? The guts of the zelda series is its puzzles. Thats why
> > > I spent hours in one dungeon thinking what to do. Then the boss is when you try to figure out his
> > > weakness(which is easy cause of navi). The guide ruined the fun factor and difficulty of the
> > > game(which he put easy!yea right).
>
> Personally, I can still enjoy a game if it's easy, as long as it isn't too
> short. I had assumed there was more to the new Zelda than just puzzles. Now
> I wouldn't touch it with a 10-foot pole.
>
> > I agree that his review is practically worthless if he used a guide to get
> > through the game. I didn't read the review, but I don't see how he could
> > state whether the game was difficult or hard. I like your rubik's cube
> > analogy, but I think I have one that is even more accurate. It is the
> > equivalent of someone pausing tetris right before each piece is about to
> > drop and them telling you where to put it. I don't know how anyone can
> > rate a game if they're cheating like that.
>
> They should still be able to rate it because unlike Tetris or a Rubik's Cube,
> I assumed that Zelda wasn't just a puzzle game.
It's not, but that is a large part of it and I, personally, wouldn't have
it any other way. The Echer puzzle was simply marvelous!
If that's all there is to
> it, and having the solutions ruins the game, then I certainly don't think you
> can call it the best game ever. If the game was really that good, it would
> still be great even with a guide.
I consulted a guide while playing
> Xenogears. It was just text, so everything I saw was still fresh and new,
> and it didn't really say anything about the plot, so the game was still full
> of surprises. Knowing how to get through the dungeons didn't spoil it one
> bit.
I just don't understand this concept. Why don't you have someone play the
game for you and just call you into the room whenever the next part of the
story is about to be shown?
I still wanted to explore the "wrong paths" anyway.
I don't see how it is fun when you know that it *is* the wrong path.
It still took me
> 62 hours to finish the game. If you can't say the same about Zelda, it
> really isn't much of a game.
Oh brilliant! If we can't say that Zelda takes +62 hours to beat with a
strategy guide then we can't say it is much of a game. What does that say
for your beloved FF7 then?
Josh Redford
Blarg
>filled with monsters that pop back when you leave the area, or bosses that
>kill you and force you to replay large portions of a game can make
>exploration a real pain. I would much rather turn to a guide in these cases
>than hack at mosters for hours while wandering aimlessly.
>-ZFP
So you're saying you don't want challenge in your RPG's, right?
Without things like random encounters, you'll just keep hacking away
at the enemy until they're dead. If you die, it doesn't matter,
because the enemy is dead too and they can't load a saved game. Guides
utterly ruin any game, unless of course the puzzle has been
insurmountable for a long time and you want to get on with the game.
The RPGamer guy who did the review apparently used a guide for the
entire game, which is just plain dumb.
Blarg
Golf Patrol
or better yet, why argue about it with people who do like that sort of thing?
z
Jason Ng
> Do a poll in this newsgroup, and ask who here visits IGN64, and who
> here takes their reviews seriously...most, if not all of this group goes
> to IGN64. They're a VERY good source for news as well.
I've seen many posts trashing IGN's reviews, I've rarely see any that praise
their reviews.
> There has been articles on IGN64, NG, and a few out gaming sites. The
> people who tested the games, and went through them atleast 5 times
> couldn't beat it under 35 hours. If the facts weren't there I wouldn't
> say they were...I've been in this newsgroup for quite a long time, I
> know well enough by now factless posts are useless. He used a guide,
> even Josh in this thread agrees....and he's been around for a long time.
> It isn't something I just "make up". You'll enjoy Zelda much more
> without a Guide...and he used a guide, no doubt.
No, you still have no proof that he used a guide, you made it up. So Josh
agrees with you, that is hardly considered proof.
Alexander Schaewe
means it is essentially just puzzles. If there's not enough left in the
game to make it good once the puzzles have been solved, then it may as
well be a puzzle game.>>
There is more than puzzle's. Why not go and play the game? You liked
Muashi right? Then you'll like Zelda. Actually Muashi isn't very good.
It's worse than any action/rpg or rpg I've played. (And nope..haven't
played Quest)..but it's an okay try (This being the keyword) at a
Action/RPG. I was dissapointed with Square for this title...but the FF8
demo made up for it.
Joshua S Redford
> In article <36642C10...@golf.99>,
> Golf Patrol <p...@golf.99> wrote:
> >
> > Its the same as the other Zelda games. Using a guide to get through it the first time would ruin the
> > game. Does that mean that the game is JUST puzzles? no. It means that puzzles are a big part of the game.
> > If you just want to play the game to "see everything" with the guide, I wouldn't recommend it to you.
>
> If using a guide to solve the puzzles would ruin the game, to me that means
> it is essentially just puzzles. If there's not enough left in the game to
> make it good once the puzzles have been solved, then it may as well be a
> puzzle game.
I just can't believe that you feel that the use of a guide right from the
get go, doesn't take away from the fun of an rpg.
Josh Redford
Joshua S Redford
> Alexander Schaewe wrote:
>
> > Do a poll in this newsgroup, and ask who here visits IGN64, and who
> > here takes their reviews seriously...most, if not all of this group goes
> > to IGN64. They're a VERY good source for news as well.
>
> I've seen many posts trashing IGN's reviews, I've rarely see any that praise
> their reviews.
Well how many posts do you see ever praising a game reviewer:) "You know,
guys, I have to say XXXX did a fantastic job of reviewing YYYY. It was
such a good job!" That doesn't happen very often. A game reviewers
naturally not going to be complemented when they have a review that agrees
with the majority, yet, someone (myself included) will rant if we disagree
with what a game reviewer thinks.
>
> > There has been articles on IGN64, NG, and a few out gaming sites. The
> > people who tested the games, and went through them atleast 5 times
> > couldn't beat it under 35 hours. If the facts weren't there I wouldn't
> > say they were...I've been in this newsgroup for quite a long time, I
> > know well enough by now factless posts are useless. He used a guide,
> > even Josh in this thread agrees....and he's been around for a long time.
> > It isn't something I just "make up". You'll enjoy Zelda much more
> > without a Guide...and he used a guide, no doubt.
>
> No, you still have no proof that he used a guide, you made it up. So Josh
> agrees with you, that is hardly considered proof.
Sure it is, I'm the MAN! :)
Seriously though, in all honesty, do you think the person got through the
game in ~35 hours without a guide? I did read his review and I think he
must have used a guide. Let us assume he immediately figured out the
solutions to all of the puzzles and he didn't need to increase his hearts
anymore than the ones he receive for defeating bosses. Hell, let's even
assume he didn't play any of the mini games, fight any enemies he didn't
need to, and knew which towns and places he needed to go to and in what
order *and* what needed to be accomplished (I wouldn't know how someone
could do that without a guide of some sort, but let's just assume he's
a genius and psychic:)). He implies that he spent excess time searching
for keys that he missed in the dungeons. The ppl that have beaten the
game 5 times and flew through it surly got all of the items without having
to backtrack. Hence, this would seem to indicate that either he used a
guide or is lying about the time it took him to finish the game. Why
doesn't someone email him (levi...@rpgamer.com) and ask him? If I had to
guess, I would say that he rated it somewhat lower than everyone else for
two reasons:
1. Zelda isn't a *true* rpg (not that any console game is, but lets not
get into that!) and thus, it wouldn't reflect well on a site that
specializes in rpg reviewing to give a game that isn't a true rpg higher
marks than games that are true rpgs, even if the overall quality of Zelda
is better.
2. What better way for a game reviewer to gain some attention than to rate
a very popular game substantially lower than all other reviewers have?
Actually, now that I think about it. If he finished it in 35 hours, he
must not have done anything but the very bare minimum, thus, his review
would still be rather worthless. Just think of how many of us absolutely
*love* the fishing game which almost could be a game in itself. This fact
alone could possibly render whether or not he used a guide irrelevant
since we were arguing about if his using the guide caused his review to
become less than a quality review. I say, if he did nothing other than
race through the game, the review is rather worthless (even if he
miraculously did it without a guide). Think about it: how many of us
would rate zelda lower if it didn't include mini games and side quests? I
know I would.
Josh Redford
Joshua Kaufman
>
> On Tue, 1 Dec 1998 18:01:59 -0600 (CST), zig...@webtv.net (Alexander
> Schaewe) wrote:
>
> ><<If using a guide to solve the puzzles would ruin the game, to me that
> >means it is essentially just puzzles. If there's not enough left in the
> >game to make it good once the puzzles have been solved, then it may as
> >well be a puzzle game.>>
> >
> >Muashi right? Then you'll like Zelda. Actually Muashi isn't very good.
> >It's worse than any action/rpg or rpg I've played. (And nope..haven't
> >played Quest)..but it's an okay try (This being the keyword) at a
> >Action/RPG. I was dissapointed with Square for this title...but the FF8
> >demo made up for it.
>
> umm... it couldn't have been worse than Beyond the Beyond, could it!?
>
Toabl #1 is the best 3d fighter on the US Psx.
But anyways, Musashi isn't that bad, it just doesn;t have the elegance
that most Square games have. It's better (IMO) than Secret of Mana
though...
-Joshua
--
User of the name Aerith... Master bad punner... Composer of 8 opi....
Player of FF series... Worshiper of Nobuo Uematsu... Watcher of Sailor
Moon... Member of the Ellipsis Faction... Proprietor of the ellipsis...
ICQ#: 5404138 AOL-IM: TerraEpon
"Is the whole world going bonkers or is it just me!?!"
- Serena on Sailor Moon (eps. 54)
"As you can see, this is a Playstation black disk. Cut number 1 contains
computer data, so please, don't play it. But you probably won't listen
to me, will you?"
- Alucard, when you put C-SOTN in a CD-player
Joe Ottoson
<Pine.GSO.3.96.981201...@callisto.acsu.buffalo.edu>,
Joshua S Redford <red...@acsu.buffalo.edu> wrote:
> > If using a guide to solve the puzzles would ruin the game, to me that means
> > it is essentially just puzzles. If there's not enough left in the game to
> > make it good once the puzzles have been solved, then it may as well be a
> > puzzle game.
>
> I just can't believe that you feel that the use of a guide right from the
> get go, doesn't take away from the fun of an rpg.
> Josh Redford
I went through the Gameboy Zelda with a strategy guide (got stuck on the
bananas first time around) I still play though the game from time to time
just becasue it's that much fun. So the strategy guide didn't ruin the game
for me in that case. Anyone who says otherwise is mypoic and approaching
gaming from the wrong angle entirely...
Alexander Schaewe
Josh agrees with you, that is hardly considered proof.>>
Oh shut up. I don't feel like finishing this discussion with you. There
is many things that lead to the fact, he used a guide. If you can't see
those facts then you must be blind, but that's not my problem. Hardly
anyone here has finished Zelda..and if they have it's atleast taken
50-60 hours. I've been playing Video Games for 15 years...before many of
you in this NG were even born, and I can't even beat it under 35 hours.
Your opinion on this, is your opinion. As is mine. Leave it at that.
Joshua S Redford
For me personally, I wouldn't find a game nearly as fun if I used a guide
to get through it (although I do use one after I'm done). Although, I
don't see how that is myopic or approaching gaming from the wrong angle.
Josh Redford
Joe Ottoson
<Pine.GSO.3.96.98120...@hercules.acsu.buffalo.edu>, Joshua
S Redford <red...@acsu.buffalo.edu> wrote:
It's just that games can be enjoyed on more than one level. A strategy
guide rarely destroys a game's fun factor... ;)
The Love-Love Catchball of Death
><<If using a guide to solve the puzzles would ruin the game, to me that
>means it is essentially just puzzles. If there's not enough left in the
>game to make it good once the puzzles have been solved, then it may as
>well be a puzzle game.>>
>
>There is more than puzzle's. Why not go and play the game? You liked
>Muashi right? Then you'll like Zelda. Actually Muashi isn't very good.
>It's worse than any action/rpg or rpg I've played. (And nope..haven't
>played Quest)..but it's an okay try (This being the keyword) at a
>Action/RPG. I was dissapointed with Square for this title...but the FF8
>demo made up for it.
Echos of Tobal #1... Anyway, I haven't played Musashiden, but...
umm... it couldn't have been worse than Beyond the Beyond, could it!?
---
The Love-Love Catchball of Death!!!
---
Scott Lewis
>guys, I have to say XXXX did a fantastic job of reviewing YYYY. It was
>such a good job!" That doesn't happen very often. A game reviewers
>naturally not going to be complemented when they have a review that agrees
>with the majority, yet, someone (myself included) will rant if we disagree
>with what a game reviewer thinks.
CoachC gives great sports reviews. He knows his stuff and should be hired
by somebody at IGN to give them ONE reviewer with some sports knowledge. . .
-Scott-
Gargantua Blargg
...
> What the guide would be for me is something to look at AFTER I had finished
> the game to see all the secrets that I missed.
Not here. I wouldn't browse a guide until I had played the game a few
times and searched for tens of hours until I didn't have any energy left
to search for more in the game. I did this with Zelda: A Link to the Past
and found everthing except one piece of heart, and a (useless) room in
Ganon's Tower.
Basically, I use a guide the same way as I use a game cheater: when I've
searched and played the game as much as I am going to.
--
bla...@flash.net | Gargantua Blargg | http://www.flash.net/~blargg/
Gargantua Blargg
Joshua S Redford
> In article <36642C10...@golf.99>, Golf Patrol <p...@golf.99> wrote:
>
> ...
> > What the guide would be for me is something to look at AFTER I had finished
> > the game to see all the secrets that I missed.
>
> Not here. I wouldn't browse a guide until I had played the game a few
> times and searched for tens of hours until I didn't have any energy left
> to search for more in the game. I did this with Zelda: A Link to the Past
> and found everthing except one piece of heart, and a (useless) room in
> Ganon's Tower.
>
> Basically, I use a guide the same way as I use a game cheater: when I've
> searched and played the game as much as I am going to.
Aren't you the same person that used the code to get everything in F-zero
x just for the multiplayer :)
Josh Redford
Merry Ashmas Barbie
No, but at least for me games, especially ones like the Zeldas, are
the most fun the first time you go through. Playing with a strategy
guide the first time just brings it down almost to the same level as
playing it again, which is still fun not as much so.
--
Merry Ashmas Barbie - "Tommorow is ano... don't ask about barbie..."
Steve McDevitt
means it is essentially just puzzles. If there's not enough left in the
game to make it good once the puzzles have been solved, then it may as
well be a puzzle game.
Why do you play games ZFP? Hmmm..... why? You are not a true gamer.
That's all. You play games for plot and don't mind cheating to get
there? Well, in that case just watch movies you twit. You are NOT a
gamer.
Steve McDevitt
z...@my-dejanews.com
zig...@webtv.net (Alexander Schaewe) wrote:
> <<If using a guide to solve the puzzles would ruin the game, to me that
> means it is essentially just puzzles. If there's not enough left in the
> game to make it good once the puzzles have been solved, then it may as
> well be a puzzle game.>>
>
Actually, I sort of assumed that there was more to Zelda than just puzzles.
However, having solutions to the puzzles should not ruin anyone's enjoyment
of the game if its as good as it's supposed to be. People keep praising the
beautiful environment, the fun of exploration, the great combat system.
People even praise the plot. I would think this would be enough to keep a
person entertained. If having the solutions to the puzzles ruins the game
though, it implies that these other elements are not enjoyable enough to
carry the came.
> Why not go and play the game? You liked
> Muashi right? Then you'll like Zelda. Actually Muashi isn't very good.
> It's worse than any action/rpg or rpg I've played. (And nope..haven't
> played Quest)..but it's an okay try (This being the keyword) at a
> Action/RPG. I was dissapointed with Square for this title...but the FF8
> demo made up for it.
Actually, I'm starting to feel the same way. Overall, I like the game, but
I'm debating wether it's worth it to bother dealing with that second time
through Steamwood puzzle. It has to be the most annoying thing I've ever
encountered in any game.
-ZFP
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
z...@my-dejanews.com
<Pine.GSO.3.96.981201...@callisto.acsu.buffalo.edu>, Joshua
S Redford <red...@acsu.buffalo.edu> wrote:
>
> I just can't believe that you feel that the use of a guide right from the
> get go, doesn't take away from the fun of an rpg.
It depends on the sort of guide. If it's a simple text guide that gets you
past the tricky parts and doesn't give away the plot, then no, I don't think
it spoils the fun, at least for me. Since all the sights and sounds are
still new, there's still the desire to explore, even if I know I'm taking the
wrong paths, and since the storyline is a big part of what I play RPG's for,
my enjoyment of that is undiminished. For example, knowing the trick to
killing the first form of Deus you encounter let me beat it my first time
through and move on to the rest of the plot development. I can't see how it
would be more enjoyable to die repeatedly, forcing me to watch the same long
chunk of text before the fight over and over again, until I finally figured
out how to kill it myself. For me, the added frustration would have made the
whole thing less enjoyable.
z...@my-dejanews.com
> > it, and having the solutions ruins the game, then I certainly don't think you
> > can call it the best game ever. If the game was really that good, it would
> > still be great even with a guide.
> I consulted a guide while playing
> > Xenogears. It was just text, so everything I saw was still fresh and new,
> > and it didn't really say anything about the plot, so the game was still full
> > of surprises. Knowing how to get through the dungeons didn't spoil it one
> > bit.
>
> I just don't understand this concept. Why don't you have someone play the
> game for you and just call you into the room whenever the next part of the
> story is about to be shown?
Because if it's a good game, I should enjoy all of the other aspects of it:
The graphics, the sound, exploration, dialogue, the combat system, etc.
> > I still wanted to explore the "wrong paths" anyway.
>
> I don't see how it is fun when you know that it *is* the wrong path.
Because I wanted to see what was down it. There were plenty of rooms in
Xenogears that served no purpose, but still had neat or creepy things in
them. Besides, I wanted to see everything for myself.
> It still took me
> > 62 hours to finish the game. If you can't say the same about Zelda, it
> > really isn't much of a game.
>
> Oh brilliant! If we can't say that Zelda takes +62 hours to beat with a
> strategy guide then we can't say it is much of a game. What does that say
> for your beloved FF7 then?
I wasn't just talking about length. What I meant was that if using a guide
makes Zelda much shorter and no fun, then it really isn't much of a game.
z...@my-dejanews.com
jessedorlan...@BEFOREMAILINGhotmail.com wrote:
>
> No one said anything about Zelda being "just puzzles," and it certainly
> isn't. Please, for the love of God, play the game. At least then, your
> comments will be supported by some actual experience, rather than
> ignorance.
Okay, but...
> If you're using a strategy guide to completely obliterate the main point
> of a game, then of course it's not going to be great.
You say Zelda isn't just puzzles, but that using a guide to to solve them
"completely obliterates the main point of the game". That certainly makes it
sound like the game revolves around solving puzzles.
Karlheinz Agsteiner
pfri...@earth.execpc.com (Patrick Friedel) writes:
> In article <73usb3$nst$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, z...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>>However, I think many magazines are being irresponsible by calling it
>>perfect, or calling it the best game ever, ir recommending it to all
>>video game fans everywhere. It may be the best Action/Adventure game
>>ever, it may be the best N64 game ever, but to rank it above all
>>games of all genres, past, present, and future, is absurd. For those
>>of you who disagree with me, think about this: If this game is
>>perfect, and will never be surpassed, what does that mean for the
>>next Zelda sequel?
...
> straight RPG player mindset. And, like others in this thread, I don't
> _trust_ perfect tens. Yeah, Zelda is a pretty damn good game, it's
> got a lot of faboo looks and a lot of depth, but it isn't 100%. No
> game will ever be 100%. At least not to everyone. e.g. - I see some
IMHO that kind of reasoning is a bit strange. A review will always be
subjective. So why not give a game a perfect ten if you think it is
the best you've ever played? Should I rate Gran Turismo 50% because I
know that probably 20% of all PSX fans don't like car games and
another 30% like their racers arcade style? The same applies to
Zelda. Should I rate it low because I suspect a lot of people just
don't like the genre? Not really.
And trying to factor in time into review ratings like zfp does is
absurd (sorry). Sure, the next Zelda/Goldeneye/Gran Turismo/Wipeout
will be better than the current one. And of course the one after that
will be even better. Fact is that computer capabilities keep
increasing exponentially and therefore the average game in ten years
will be vastly superior to today's best games. Look at games like Pole
Position. This one was a fail-proof 10/10 when it was released over a
decade ago. Now only die-hard retro fans would touch it. If someone
would dare release a new game looking and playing like it they would
certainly get ratings below 2/10. Therefore all you can do is use the
current state of the art as the base of your rating. And if a game
is the best game you've ever seen why not call it perfect, the best
ever, and recommend it to everybody? I don't see a problem there.
(alternatively you can rate a game against the "one perfect game" with
graphics that are indistinguishable from life no matter how hard you
try, a perfect plot, and an environment that lets you try out
everything you want with all the right physics. Of course the AI
passes the Turing Tests :). Compared to that game the current games
would probably rate in the 5/10000 range :) ).
Karlheinz
--
Karlheinz Agsteiner | http://www.tu-chemnitz.de/~kag
Institute of Computer Systems | "I've done everything you can do
Department of Computer Science | on computers. I'm 31."
Chemnitz University of Technology | (Douglas Coupland: Microserfs)
Jesse Dorland
>In article <4293-366...@newsd-123.bryant.webtv.net>,
> zig...@webtv.net (Alexander Schaewe) wrote:
>> <<If using a guide to solve the puzzles would ruin the game, to me that
>> means it is essentially just puzzles. If there's not enough left in the
>> game to make it good once the puzzles have been solved, then it may as
>> well be a puzzle game.>>
>>
>> There is more than puzzle's.
>
>Actually, I sort of assumed that there was more to Zelda than just puzzles.
>However, having solutions to the puzzles should not ruin anyone's enjoyment
>of the game if its as good as it's supposed to be.
Let's turn that logic around and apply it to a turn-based RPG. C'mon,
it'll be fun!
"Actually, I sort of assumed that there was more to Xenogears/FF7/Chrono
Trigger/Suikoden/Wild ARMs than just a storyline. However, having major
knowledge of major plot elements ahead of time should not ruin anyone's
enjoyment of the game if it's as good as it's supposed to be."
Now, do you agree with *that* statement? If you don't, then you just
realized the flaw in your argument -- a game is obviously not going to
be as fun as it could be if a major part of that game is revealed in a
strategy guide.
If you *do* agree with the above statement, then I guess the point is
still sailing right over your head.
I think you're taking the word "ruin" much too literally, as if to mean
that Zelda has no redeeming value without the puzzles. I don't think
anyone who's played the game would say that.
-Jesse
====================================================
Jesse Dorland
jessedorland AT hotmail DOT com
====================================================
Richard K Kim
On Wed, 2 Dec 1998 z...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> I wasn't just talking about length. What I meant was that if using a guide
> makes Zelda much shorter and no fun, then it really isn't much of a game.
>
> -ZFP
WTF?!!? Using a strategy guide will make any game shorter and less fun!
Jesus, this has got to your lamest excuse yet to bash Zelda.
Either play the game, or shut the hell up!
-Rich
Gargantua Blargg
<Pine.GSO.3.96.98120...@callisto.acsu.buffalo.edu>,
Joshua S Redford <red...@acsu.buffalo.edu> wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Dec 1998, Gargantua Blargg wrote:
...
> > Basically, I use a guide the same way as I use a game cheater: when I've
> > searched and played the game as much as I am going to.
>
> Aren't you the same person that used the code to get everything in F-zero
> x just for the multiplayer :)
Yeah. I sure as hell wasn't going to have everyone play multiplayer
without all the cars and the X-cup. Of course, I completed the
requirements a couple of days later. I like the fact that the game doesn't
wipe out any of the completion data when you enter the code.
Patrick Friedel
>In article <740ub4$5...@newsops.execpc.com>,
> pfri...@earth.execpc.com (Patrick Friedel) writes:
>> straight RPG player mindset. And, like others in this thread, I don't
>> _trust_ perfect tens. Yeah, Zelda is a pretty damn good game, it's
>> got a lot of faboo looks and a lot of depth, but it isn't 100%. No
>> game will ever be 100%. At least not to everyone. e.g. - I see some
>
>IMHO that kind of reasoning is a bit strange. A review will always be
>subjective. So why not give a game a perfect ten if you think it is
>the best you've ever played? Should I rate Gran Turismo 50% because I
>know that probably 20% of all PSX fans don't like car games and
>another 30% like their racers arcade style? The same applies to
>Zelda. Should I rate it low because I suspect a lot of people just
>don't like the genre? Not really.
I think the point that I was trying to make (which kinda got dragged
out) is that unilateral 10's from every reviewer tends to indicate
that the game has _no_ flaws for anyone, ever, at all.. And until the
RPGamer review, that's what it seems that Zelda has gotten - perfect
tens. (Or whatever the perfect rating is for that reviwer..) Now, is
it wrong to worry about these perfect reviews after playing it
yourself and finding a few nits to pick? (shrug) It doesn't happen
often, but there are times when the "Oh, gosh, lookitthat" factor
occasionally interferes with gameplay. That takes a certain bit off
for me.
All ratings are subjective, yes, and I feel that's what validates
the RPGamer review score. (And, in a way, validates the rest of the
scores out there..) He didn't like it as much as every other review
has said you will. Is this impossible? Is he some deranged lunatic?
Possibly. :) But for as good as Zelda is, it might be constrained by
the format to not being as perfect a game as can be for everyone.
Remember what happened after FFVII came out? There was a massive
backlash because it was touted as the best game ever, yadda yadda, and
then people found out that it wasn't what they were expecting. While
I feel that Zelda is significantly more accessible than FFVII, the
whole "The most amazing game in the whole history of videogames" bit
looks a lot like the FFVII reviews did.
--
Patrick Friedel
Joshua Kaufman
Yeah, yet another one of those little details that I love abotu the
game.
Scott Lewis
>past the tricky parts and doesn't give away the plot, then no, I don't
think
>it spoils the fun, at least for me. Since all the sights and sounds are
>still new, there's still the desire to explore, even if I know I'm taking
the
>wrong paths, and since the storyline is a big part of what I play RPG's
for,
>my enjoyment of that is undiminished. For example, knowing the trick to
>killing the first form of Deus you encounter let me beat it my first time
>through and move on to the rest of the plot development. I can't see how
it
>would be more enjoyable to die repeatedly, forcing me to watch the same
long
>chunk of text before the fight over and over again, until I finally figured
>out how to kill it myself. For me, the added frustration would have made
the
>whole thing less enjoyable.
I'm not sure what game you're talking about where you fight Deus, but I
assume that you were stuck in the game and could not progress in the game
any farther until you defeated him. (You couldn't access any more story
bits until you knocked him out.) In that situation, if you try to beat him
a couple times and you keep losing, sure get a tip. But Zelda's not like
that. It's designed for you to be stumped and go play elsewhere until you
figure it out. It's so non-linear that sometimes you find the answer to
your problem while you're goofing off somewhere.
98% of the puzzles in the game are well designed and are REALLY satisfying
to solve. If you cheat on your second try because you can't figure it out,
you're robbing yourself of your own enjoyment of the game.
Also, from another post, a great deal of the fun in Zelda is just doing
things - fighting, fishing, riding the horse, but I find a huge amount of
pleasure in wandering around lost in this world. I just figured out today
that I can pick up bugs. I thought that was the coolest thing, because I
never thought I could do it before and it helps me out in the game.
-Scott-
Joe Ottoson
<Pine.GSO.3.96.981202...@hercules.acsu.buffalo.edu>,
Joshua S Redford <red...@acsu.buffalo.edu> wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Dec 1998, Joe Ottoson wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <Pine.GSO.3.96.98120...@hercules.acsu.buffalo.edu>, Joshua
> > S Redford <red...@acsu.buffalo.edu> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > For me personally, I wouldn't find a game nearly as fun if I used a guide
> > > to get through it (although I do use one after I'm done). Although, I
> > > don't see how that is myopic or approaching gaming from the wrong angle.
> >
> > It's just that games can be enjoyed on more than one level. A strategy
> > guide rarely destroys a game's fun factor... ;)
> >
> For you :)
It carries across to alotta other people too. I'll play though a game
without hints and spoilers most of the time, but I can have just as much
fun with a game with a walkthrough. (But then spoilers really don't bother
me as long as I'm not exaclty sure of the execution and the context of a
game event before hand. Afterall, you know Link will win eventually but its
the how that makes it interesting)
Joe Ottoson
(Merry Ashmas Barbie) wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Dec 1998 22:53:16 -0600, jaot...@hotmail.com (Joe
> Ottoson) wrote:
>
> >In article
> ><Pine.GSO.3.96.98120...@hercules.acsu.buffalo.edu>, Joshua
> >S Redford <red...@acsu.buffalo.edu> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> For me personally, I wouldn't find a game nearly as fun if I used a guide
> >> to get through it (although I do use one after I'm done). Although, I
> >> don't see how that is myopic or approaching gaming from the wrong angle.
> >
> >It's just that games can be enjoyed on more than one level. A strategy
> >guide rarely destroys a game's fun factor... ;)
>
> No, but at least for me games, especially ones like the Zeldas, are
> the most fun the first time you go through.
I can go either way personally. A game's fun just for the sake of the game
being fun. You should be able to enjoy it either way...
Playing with a strategy
> guide the first time just brings it down almost to the same level as
> playing it again, which is still fun not as much so.
>
If a game's not fun to play though twice, it's not much of a game IMO. I
still play though the older Zeldas just because it's game and not the
mysterious puzzles that keep me coming back.
Joe Ottoson
jessedorlan...@BEFOREMAILINGhotmail.com wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Dec 1998 17:51:56 GMT, z...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> >In article <4293-366...@newsd-123.bryant.webtv.net>,
> > zig...@webtv.net (Alexander Schaewe) wrote:
> >> <<If using a guide to solve the puzzles would ruin the game, to me that
> >> means it is essentially just puzzles. If there's not enough left in the
> >> game to make it good once the puzzles have been solved, then it may as
> >> well be a puzzle game.>>
> >>
> >> There is more than puzzle's.
> >
> >Actually, I sort of assumed that there was more to Zelda than just puzzles.
> >However, having solutions to the puzzles should not ruin anyone's enjoyment
> >of the game if its as good as it's supposed to be.
>
> Let's turn that logic around and apply it to a turn-based RPG. C'mon,
> it'll be fun!
>
> "Actually, I sort of assumed that there was more to Xenogears/FF7/Chrono
> Trigger/Suikoden/Wild ARMs than just a storyline. However, having major
> knowledge of major plot elements ahead of time should not ruin anyone's
> enjoyment of the game if it's as good as it's supposed to be."
>
Hmm... That's never stopped me from enjoying a plot driven game. (Shrug)
But then, I'm still reading those Robert Jordan books too and he gave away
most of the overall plot in the first 4 books ;)
Joe Ottoson
k...@informatik.tu-chemnitz.de (Karlheinz Agsteiner) wrote:
> In article <740ub4$5...@newsops.execpc.com>,
> pfri...@earth.execpc.com (Patrick Friedel) writes:
> > In article <73usb3$nst$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, z...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >>However, I think many magazines are being irresponsible by calling it
> >>perfect, or calling it the best game ever, ir recommending it to all
> >>video game fans everywhere. It may be the best Action/Adventure game
> >>ever, it may be the best N64 game ever, but to rank it above all
> >>games of all genres, past, present, and future, is absurd. For those
> >>of you who disagree with me, think about this: If this game is
> >>perfect, and will never be surpassed, what does that mean for the
> >>next Zelda sequel?
> ...
> > straight RPG player mindset. And, like others in this thread, I don't
> > _trust_ perfect tens. Yeah, Zelda is a pretty damn good game, it's
> > got a lot of faboo looks and a lot of depth, but it isn't 100%. No
> > game will ever be 100%. At least not to everyone. e.g. - I see some
>
> IMHO that kind of reasoning is a bit strange. A review will always be
> subjective. So why not give a game a perfect ten if you think it is
> the best you've ever played?
OTOH, you gotta love the assumption that everyone who touches Zelda will
instantly think it's the greatest game they've ever played. Subjectivity
kinda allows for freedom of thought and formation of invididual opinions
you know. If the review doesn't think Zelda's perfect, should they bow to
poplar perception and rate a 10 regardless of what they thought about the
game?
Brian Scanlon
clearly could easily be stretched to include intellectual puzzles, which
comprise many traditional RPG's, such as the Final Fantasy series, as in
where to go next during parts of the game that are somewhat non linear, or
lack certain clues. Puzzle solving could also be applied to figuring out
which method of attack to use, in either case. Without being more specific,
ZFP is unable to make a reasonable claim.
"Scott Sim W. Y." wrote:
> Steve, people play games for many reasons. Some enjoy the gameplay.
> Others enjoy the music. Some also do it for the story. So it seems a
> little harsh to label anyone who plays games to enjoy the plot a
> non-gamer.
>
> Anyway, it seems that the point ZFP was making is that if the game
> consisted mainly of puzzles, then perhaps it should be classified as such
> - a puzzle game, instead of some other genre.
Scott Sim W. Y.
}<<If using a guide to solve the puzzles would ruin the game, to me that
}means it is essentially just puzzles. If there's not enough left in the
}game to make it good once the puzzles have been solved, then it may as
}well be a puzzle game.
}-ZFP>>
}
}Why do you play games ZFP? Hmmm..... why? You are not a true gamer.
}That's all. You play games for plot and don't mind cheating to get
}there? Well, in that case just watch movies you twit. You are NOT a
}gamer.
Steve, people play games for many reasons. Some enjoy the gameplay.