CAGcast #58: The Legend of Frank

CheapyD

CheapyD

Head Cheap Ass
Staff member
Feedback
14 (100%)
"Is Zelda overrated?", "Family Fun With the DS", and "Famitsu's Review Scores" are just some of the many topics discussed this week, along with video game shopping and industry news, your questions from the CAGbag and much more!

Don't forget to:
Not a Digger? Register (it helps the CAGcast and is fast, easy, and free)
Add CheapyD & Wombat as your Digg friends!
Download - 91 minutes, 42MB
(Review us)
RSS feed - Add to Google - Add to My Yahoo - MySpace
Past CAGcasts

[media]http://media.libsyn.com/media/cheapyd/cagcast58.mp3[/media]


Show Linkage/Notes:
Intro music: Rygar (NES)

Blogs Sound off on the CAGcast [1, 2] - iTunes reviews
Digg the CAGcast
MySpace
CONTEST: CAGcast Flash Video

On Famitsu and paid off review scores [selectbutton]

New Releases

Oblivion on Gamerankings
Zelda on Gamerankings
Wii Sells A Cool Mil In Japan

Daigasso! Band Brothers

Gears of War Update Detailed
CES: The Xbox 360 to get IPTV in '07, ships 10.4mil consoles
Rumor: Xbox IPTV may not be so grand
Guitar Hero II For 360, New Tracks Revealed, Distortion Petals?
Xbox 360 movie downloads outperforming Amazon rival

Analyst: $60 Pricing May Not Be Sustainable
SanDisk 2GB Memory Stick Pro Duo $37.99 after $20.00 Mail-In Rebate @ Newegg (martin8me)
The Warriors PSP $19.99 (Pre-order) at EB/Gamestop.com (Strider Turbulence)
Preorder Forza 2 for $50 @ Best Buy & Amazon.com (SlaughterX)
$10 off select PS3 games at Amazon

EA ‘Investigating’ Alleged Madden Porn
Ziff Davis Working to Sell 1up, EGM, GFW
Gamepro expo redubbed "E for All"
Microsoft Will Add Video Games to Zune by July 2008

CAGbag
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]Outro: Colecovisiion Atari Expansion Module


Bonus pictures!

Taken at Yodobashi Camera in Shinjuku (Tokyo).

Outdoor display, the boxes are emtpy, but the yellow signs above them indicate they are in-stock at normal retail price.
ps3display.jpg




Behind the counter, the real deal waits for thier buyers.
Not sure if all are 60GB models, but at least some of them are.
As usual, no DS Lites or Wiis are in-stock.
ps3stack.jpg


​
 
I don't really agree with your viewpoint on reviews Cheapy. You see, the reviewer points out what he finds fun about it (which you the reader should know if you'll like) and what bugged them (which you might not even care about) . Because of that you the reader is suppose to decide if the game is for you, not I.


Also as for the Zelda scores, I think you just enjoy open ended action RPGs more. The fact that your wife is telling you what to do since you can't read the text might ruin it a bit for you too.
 
Tagged!

Comparing Zelda to Oblivion is an apples to oranges discussion. They're two different game experiences. I do see your point about Zelda getting higher scores because of the name factor, and you're absolutely right, but that really doesn't take anything away from Oblivion. Let's put it another way--the audience that Zelda was designed for is going to agree that the game deserves those scores. They will not necessarily enjoy Oblivion more than Zelda. I would argue Zelda has a wider audience than Oblivion. Also, remember too that Oblivion's scores are really high and the game is critically acclaimed on it's own.

Basically, this "controversial" opinion is almost like Wombat's complaint about Famitsu. We all know Zelda is golden in most people's eyes and unless the dev team completely fucks it up, there's no way it won't get a glowing review. But the game really is fun, and complaining that it gets better game journalist reviews is meaningless because most people will disagree with some part of a game review regardless. If you can take the game review with a grain of salt, then you'll have to trust that most of us will too.
 
Eh, I don't think it's a fair comparison. In Oblivion you're practically creating the story yourself, you customize your own character, do what you want... and occasionally play the main story/quest.

In Legend of Zelda, it's more about this character named Link, and what happens to him and his surroundings. You're not in control of how things go, it's not open ended, and besides the exploration... I really wouldn't want it any other way. I have no desire in creating a balding middle-aged man named "Frank" to have save Hyrule.

At the end of the day, they are two outstanding games, but very different games. Not only creatively, but technically as well.

................................

And thanks to CheapyD for actually adding me back on the Wii, you disappoint me Wombat.
 
But who says Frank needs to be a "balding middle-aged man"?
Imagine a game exactly like Zelda, but all the names are changed, and the character designs are just different enough to avoid a lawsuit.

Is it still a 95/100 game?

Nothing sinister about it, but it seems that people have a special place in their hearts for the Zelda franchise and because "Zelda" is stamped on the game, people likely judge it to be greater than the sum of its parts.
 
[quote name='CheapyD']But who says Frank needs to be a "balding middle-aged man"?
Imagine a game exactly like Zelda, but all the names are changed, and the character designs are just different enough to avoid a lawsuit.

Is it still a 95/100 game?

Nothing sinister about it, but it seems that people have a special place in their hearts for the Zelda franchise and because "Zelda" is stamped on the game, people likely judge it to be greater than the sum of its parts.[/quote] Well what I meant was, I'm accustomed to the Legend of Zelda gameplay, and I wouldn't want the franchise to become a game that's similar to Oblivion.

If this hypothetical game had the same gameplay as Twilight Princess, then yes... I consider the quality of the game to be around 95%/100%, regardless of what name is stamped. But I'm a bit different in that regard, I don't buy a game because of what name is on the cover, or like you said, judge it to be greater than what it is.

As far as other people go, it's probably true that just having the name "Zelda" on the cover has some influence on their opinion, but this holds true for many other franchises (Final Fantasy comes to mind here.) With that being said, it's difficult for me to disagree with the reviewers final scores, even if they are potentially inflated, as I more or less agree with them.
 
I've listened to about four or five episodes of the CAGcast so far, and I had some major qualms at first. This week's installment - despite some disagreement on a certain Zelda discussion (more on that later) - almost completely changed my mind. I'm sure you've heard praise such as "I love that it's just a couple of normal guys" before, but it really rang true this week, and such stark contrast to such podcasts as EGM Live and more traditional gaming shows is refreshing. Keep up the good work.

As for the "Legend of Frank" topic, I completely see where you're coming from. Typical reviews from typical game journalists are privy to franchise pandering - especially with Nintendo franchises. But this case of media bias is in no way due to Famitsu-style PR schemes. The cause is much more personal.

For many of said reviewers, the first games in their hands were first-party Nintendo titles. At the time, such games were innovative, well-polished and groundbreaking. For these reasons, Super Mario Bros., The Legend of Zelda, Castlevania and other NES classics were released to rave reviews from the few people reviewing games in 1986. These games became classics - became franchises - by their own merit as games.

Fast-forward to the Nintendo 64 era, when our beloved characters made impressive jumps to the third dimension. Super Mario 64 was an astounding leap forward for platformers and a great game. The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time was presented on a massive scale and made Link a character gamers could really idolize. Sprites in 2D? Not so much. Ocarina created such a fanbase because being able to ride a horse, shoot arrows, throw bombs and wield a big ol' sword and have it look moderately real. For a ten-year-old boy, embarking on such an adventure was something never before seen in a video game. One ten-year-old picked up archery because of it, and - much to the confusion of his girlfriend - he is proud of that fact.

Today's reviews, especially the "9.3 out of 10" style of ratings, exemplify the editorial nature of game reviews as journalistic content. A reviewer is going to be affected by a franchise game or any sequel in proportion to his or her attatchment to the series. In other words, a fan of Ocarina of Time is goin to immediately feel at home with Twilight Princess.

But what about the game? Does The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess continue the franchise's familiar formula of dungeon crawling and field/town/lake exploring? Hell yes! But because Twilight Princess still manages to illicit the sense of adventure and scale as previous installments, afficianados of the series will be immediately inclined to enjoy the experience. The term fanboy is a misnomer in this case; the franchise has proven itself worthy before and past experience is a legitimate factor.

For Wombat: I never played Castlevania growing up. My first experience with the series was the DS title: Castlevania: Dawn of Sorrow. I checked out some reviews at IGN, Gamespot, etc. when I got my DS and literally said to myself, "Alright, Castlevania got 9s and up. I've heard that name before. Vampires? Medusa heads? Sign me up."

I got home, unwrapped it and proceeded to enjoy some basic sidescrolling action with occassional upgrades to weapons. By the time I was near the end, I was completely bored with the title. It was a perfectly solid 2D sidescroller and I feel certain it would've enamored my 13-year-old self in an era where the genre was more the norm. However, I had a great time with games such as Viewtiful Joe, so the genre can't be at fault.

So game reviews are editorialized and flawed. That's no news, but reviewers aren't to blame for biased franchise reviews. If you want to blame somebody, blame Mario and his damn Italian charm. Or Zelda's fine ass.

Just kidding.
 
Downloading now.

Well trying to, anyway.

Gamespot: ~3 minutes to go.
CAGcast: ~82 minutes to go.

...Huh?

EDIT: It just jumped up to two hours - it looks like it'll have to wait until I get to work.
 
[quote name='PlumeNoir']Downloading now.

Well trying to, anyway.

Gamespot: ~3 minutes to go.
CAGcast: ~82 minutes to go.

...Huh?

EDIT: It just jumped up to two hours - it looks like it'll have to wait until I get to work.[/quote]

Strange... it took about 5 - 6 mins for it to download on my end. Maybe too many people are all trying to download it at once? :D
 
[quote name='CheapyD']But who says Frank needs to be a "balding middle-aged man"?
Imagine a game exactly like Zelda, but all the names are changed, and the character designs are just different enough to avoid a lawsuit.

Is it still a 95/100 game?

Nothing sinister about it, but it seems that people have a special place in their hearts for the Zelda franchise and because "Zelda" is stamped on the game, people likely judge it to be greater than the sum of its parts.[/quote]

I'd like to believe at least the reviewers would rate the score higher not because of the name "Zelda" being stamped on it, but because the essence of a Zelda caliber epic is retained from installment to installment.

But then again, Squenix is whoreing the FFVII name to no end with dribble such as Dirge of Cerberus and other crappy mobile games. People still buy them, but reviewers have the balls to realise the folly of such spin-offs.
 
Was listening on the way to work, but hit a nasty patch of ice on the freeway and almost spun out, so I'm going to have to go back and relisten to the first 30 minutes.

About the Flashcasts, Cheapy. Maybe I misunderstood (like I said, my attention was drawn elsewhere) and this is what you said, but would it be a better idea to have people do a two to five minute "promo" for the CAGcast every week? By this, I mean something like a "highlight reel" for the latest episode.

The only problem I see with that is timing. By the time someone gets done, it'll be time for the next CAGcast. Then it is more of a "What you missed last week on the CAGcast." (Now that I think about that more, I kinda like that idea...) I would be interested in even working on such a thing, now that I have a better handle on Flash.

Of course, this is probably what you meant whilst I was fighting icy flat beasts on the road...
 
[quote name='CheapyD']But who says Frank needs to be a "balding middle-aged man"?
Imagine a game exactly like Zelda, but all the names are changed, and the character designs are just different enough to avoid a lawsuit.

Is it still a 95/100 game?

Nothing sinister about it, but it seems that people have a special place in their hearts for the Zelda franchise and because "Zelda" is stamped on the game, people likely judge it to be greater than the sum of its parts.[/quote]
The fact is I love Legend of Zelda just because the great characters in the games itself. I love being Link he is my favorite character in the world for me to play as in an adventure/rpg game and being him alone makes the game have a better expreince to me. Well yeah a game with exactly the same in game mechanics wouldn't do as well just b/c the truth people just love Link. I do have to agree that this Zelda is a great Zelda game , but it just didn't bring something crazy new to the table like the transformation it had on the N64 with OOT.

Oh and last thing Btw Sony didn't win an Emmy for that exactly. They just put out a press release not mentioning Nintendo which made it seem like Nintendo didn't win , but guess what Nintendo did win. Here is 2 Links to story. Link 1 - GoNintendo.com , Link 2 - Joystiq.
 
I didn't listen yet, but I do have to say this newest Zelda game was massively disappointing to me. I tried many, many times to make myself think it was the game it was hyped up to be, but it's just not. Zelda is by far my favorite franchise, but I've been less and less into the series since A Link to the Past, and Ocarina of Time.

The new one just isn't fun to play like the old ones used to be, and I really felt that the design was just big for the sake of being big, with really not a whole lot going on in the overworld. Also, some of the dungeons/temples puzzles we just plain retarded... like they designed them to be completely illogical to make the game harder and seem longer. Nintendo really dropped the ball in the music catergory in the game too.

I remember when you got a new Zelda game in the past you knew you would be hearing some new beautiful music that would be staying in your head for a long time to come, and would be an instant classic. I'm not even sure if this game has any new songs, and if it does I definitely don't remember them.

The first six hours of this game could have easily been cut down to one or two, and I actually think the game on a whole cut have been cut down and streamlined in many parts that were just too drawn out. The Wolf parts are annoying just like to boat parts of Wind Waker... great I get to go look for some Tear of Lights, fun!

I saw that Oblivion was mentioned.... to me that's the direction Zelda should have gone in after OOT.... obviously not that deep and RPGish, but somewhere in that realm. It should have become more open ended, this game felt extremely lineir to me. I want a game where you feel like you're questing, this one felt like I was getting yelled at by some shadow bitch the whole time. When was the last time you could walk into a store in a Zelda game and buy a truly interesting and useful items besides a bottle? Everything is so cookie-cutter, bombs, hearts, and potions. The original Zelda was way cooler, the blue candles, rings, keys... totally awesome.

The series is really getting stale for me, which sucks because A Link to the Past and Ocarinca of Time are my two favorite games. I keep waiting for a Zelda game to sweep me off my feet like those did, but Wind Waker, and Twilight Princess definitely are not those games. I think I seriously enjoyed Minish Cap more, and I know I enjoyed Link's Awakening, and Oracle of Seasons/Ages more.
 
I'd like to see CAG Flash videos every week. I don't have the talent to create them, but I'd love to watch them.

Also... Cheapy, you emailed me that I won a secondary prize in the Child's Play raffle. I emailed my address, but haven't heard anything. Did you receive all the winners information?
 
[quote name='CheapyD']
Imagine a game exactly like Zelda, but all the names are changed, and the character designs are just different enough to avoid a lawsuit.

Is it still a 95/100 game?

Nothing sinister about it, but it seems that people have a special place in their hearts for the Zelda franchise and because "Zelda" is stamped on the game, people likely judge it to be greater than the sum of its parts.[/quote]

I think there's some truth to this, and I've thought so since Ocarina of Time. I think I would phrase it differently, though: I think people put up with things in Zelda -- poor gameplay mechanics, boring segments, and outdated or simplistic ideas -- simply because it's Zelda.

I think Zelda falls apart with all the bits that have nothing to do with the main adventure (note: I am still Wiiless and have not played TP). Fishing (Ocarina - ugh), horse riding (Ocarina, double ugh), sailing (Windwaker), and the various stupid bottle/fetch quests all drag down the game. I also thought all of them were essentially sub-par mini-games that were actually unpleasant to play.

That's not to say that any Zelda game as a whole is bad. They're not, and even without Zelda wallpaper, the games would still be in the 80s to 90s. It's hard to hate on Zelda too much because of it's annoying bits, because there's so much that's done very well. Every Zelda game amazes in some way, which is in itself a feat. How many games can you say that about?

Interestingly, there's both evidence in favor and opposed to the idea that Zelda gets special treatment for its Zeldaness. Okami didn't get the super-high near-perfect ratings that Zelda always does, and I consider Okami to be Zelda done right, without most of the B.S. that tends to drag down Zelda outings. If Okami were sumi-e Zelda, I have no doubt it would have scored 10s across the board.

But, that said, critics and gamers still loved Okami. So the idea of Zelda, even with all its limitations, is still popular even without the Zelda paintjob.
 
Comparing Zelda to Oblivion is apples to oranges in the extreme. It's like comparing Mario Kart to Gran Turismo. Sure both games are fun in their own right, but they are based on completely different gameplay ideologies.

The difference in numerical scoring of the games, your main complaint, is a problem with reviews, not the games themselves. Number reviews are just a basic guideline on how good or bad a game may be, but they are poor indicators of how games stack up to either other. There are too many other factors that come into play to say that Oblivion should have scored higher than Zelda. Why should it score higher? Because the graphics are more realistic, because it is open-ended, because it had downloadable content?

Some people actually prefer a more linear game with the optional sidequest here and there over a massive open-ended affair where you forget what you were doing from day to day. I know I fall into that category and while I wouldn't rate the new Zelda a 10, it is definitely one of the best games I have played in a long time.

I will agree that the beginning of the game dragged a bit, but the pacing is just about perfect once you get past the first dungeon. I also didn't mind the slow start as I was still getting used to the Wiimote/Nunchuk setup. I don't know where Cheapy came up with the idea that "you don't do a whole lot," but that is so far off base that I don't even know where to start.

This is the first Zelda game where I felt like I was doing something different every few hours or so. The dungeons have been brilliant, some of the best I have seen in a Zelda game, and my only real complaint is that overall it has been pretty easy.

I also can't imagine playing the game without being able to read the dialog and only hearing "gay" or a summary of what was said for each of the conversations from my wife. Why play the game at all if you don't even know what is going on? At that point, the game is just a jump from dungeon to dungeon with fetch quests thrown in here and there.

Lastly, if the game was called The Legend of Frank, it frankly wouldn't have sold as well or been reviewed as well. Link is a character which gamers can identify. He, in all of his incarnations, has a back story that we all know, interacts in a world that we are familiar with, and has a similar goal in each game. It would take "Frank" a couple of stellar outings to build up that image. Link was an unknown character once too.
 
[quote name='lebowsky']Lastly, if the game was called The Legend of Frank, it frankly wouldn't have sold as well or been reviewed as well. Link is a character which gamers can identify. He, in all of his incarnations, has a back story that we all know, interacts in a world that we are familiar with, and has a similar goal in each game. It would take "Frank" a couple of stellar outings to build up that image. Link was an unknown character once too.[/QUOTE]

That was pretty much what Cheapy was getting at.
 
If you think Zelda gets high scores only because of its name, what about otehr game series like Halo, GTA, and Final Fantasy? Why single Zelda out? Note, however, that while the scores of all these series may be slightly inflated, they are also very good series. It's certainly not a whole point's boost. If TP were "Legend of Frank," I don't think it would have gotten 10s - but it would have still gotten a few 9.5s, and still very few scores below 9.

I think Oblivion has some serious flaws out of the box and you need the PC version with mods for it to be a great game...I won't get into that, though, because I'd rather not derail this thread.

But really, the games are very different. Your complaint "it's worse than Oblivion because it's not open-ended" is ridiculous. They've different types of games. And Twilight Princess does have a lot more sidequests, minigames, and extra things to find than most linear games. But really, I might as well complain that Gran Turismo sucks because it doesn't have weapons like Mario Kart or blistering speed like Burnout. There are some aspects of Zelda games that wouldn't work with a completely open-ended Oblivion-sized world, such as the interesting structured dungeon designs and puzzles that the series is known for (probably my favorite part about Zelda games, actually).

Also, you criticize Twilight Princess for being too similar to previous Zeldas. But Oblivion isn't exactly anything new and revolutionary, either. It's the fourth Elder Scrolls game, just the first one to get mainstream attention. Did you ever play Morrowind? Oblivion is fairly similar to it.

I listen to several gaming podcasts, and you guys are the only ones who don't think Twilight Princess is great. In fact, you're the only ones who have even mentioned Oblivion when talking about it. That tells me that your opinion is in the vast minority, and that very few people even think of it as very similar to Oblivion.
 
[quote name='CheapyD']But who says Frank needs to be a "balding middle-aged man"?
Imagine a game exactly like Zelda, but all the names are changed, and the character designs are just different enough to avoid a lawsuit.

Is it still a 95/100 game?

Nothing sinister about it, but it seems that people have a special place in their hearts for the Zelda franchise and because "Zelda" is stamped on the game, people likely judge it to be greater than the sum of its parts.[/QUOTE]

Probably no.
The reviewers will compare it to Zelda, and they will ask themselves which one has better "differences"... and if in the end they like the designs better in Zelda, or the music, or the array of items or whatever, they will give Zelda the 95 and the Frank game 80.

Zelda does get bonus points for being Zelda, but it also gets a lot of points for being pretty damn well made.
 
[quote name='shipwreck']That was pretty much what Cheapy was getting at.[/quote]

As stated above, any established franchise (that is good), is going to get a slight numbers boost in a review. The name only goes so far though. Look at the Tomb Raider series. The first few games were pretty critically acclaimed and very popular and then the series just went to shit. If all of the Zelda games over the years hadn't been high quality, the Zelda name wouldn't hold the prestige that it does. The numbers boost doesn't come because the game has the word "Zelda" in it, it is because the Zelda games have been some of the best games made.

The main point I was trying to get across is that you can't compare numerical scores between games that are so different. I'm sure Oblivion is a great game, but to say that it should have scored higher than Zelda is strange, as games, like other forms of art, are completely subjective - and thus don't lend themselves well to numerical scores.
 
Man Oblivion was just too boring. IT's quantity over quality.

Zelda has much more engaging and focused dungeons and that's why I play a Zelda game. IT's pretty awesome when I get to the next dungeon in Zelda and have to figure out the puzzles (which are more than just push this lever here to open a door btw) to get through it. Very engaging.

I'd say the Zelda name hurts it as much as helps it. Sure some folks automatically praise it because it's ZElda, but at the same time many folks write Zelda off for the same reason. Believe me if this game came out on the 360 and was called Legend of Frank then 360 nuts would priaise it.

I couldn't get into Oblivion. Again it's draw is the quantity thing. 40 classes. 50 spells. 60 skills. 10000 things to pick up. Tons of dungeons and npcs. And you know what? 99% of all that stuff is lame. But some people like that. Hey I can do anything. Oblivion though gameplay wise is much more straightforward and boring and repetitive.

Well instead of playing Oblivion I went to Home Depot and talked to the NPCS there and bought a weapon (hammer) and some ammo (nails) and went and replaced a few shingles on the house that I own.

That to me felt like Oblivion only more realistic.
 
Great show guys... But Cheapy, $130 for a mic? That one fellow in the CAGBag might be right about revoking your name...
 
i can see why peopel would say this past zelda was overrated especially after beting it and feeling seriously let down towards the end. i really think that the delay on the game wasnt just to use it as a way to sell wii's but also because nintendo saw that the game was lacking in certain areas so they tacked on the last few dungeons as a way to lengthen the game.

some of the weapons from those dungeons were cool but overall most of them werent used more than a few times before you just left them on the side or until you did the cave of ordeals challenge.

and wtf is with that lame ass ending? ive never been more dissappointed in an ending in any game ever. i wont drop it in here in case some of you havent beaten it yet but if that ending didnt leave you wondering if you missed something or wtf is this all there is then something is wrong with you.

and im curious if anyone else here was dissappointed in the dragon boss on that last dungeon and the last dungeon too. all of the bosses in the first set of dungeons( though way too easily beaten) were awesome to see and interesting in the usual zelda sense of going in new ways but the last few bosses sucked. especially the dragon and maybe this is because i had finished shadow of the colossus before id played zelda and in that game they have this sweet flying dragon boss battle in a dessert that will blow you away with howreal and fun and challenging it is but zeldas dragon looked crappy and to me looked liek something a kid would draw in art class.


dont get me wrong the first 2 thirds of the game i loved it and loved everythign about it but that last 3rd drug on forever to the point where i just wanted to finish the dungeons to finish them not to see what would be there and to see the bosses i just wanted to get them done already. and the final battle with gannon was too easy and laughable too.

and whoever the reviewer was that complained about how dull the towns were wasnt kidding they are so damn dull. at least in oot or MM you had alot of fun game you could play and try out to get things or just for fun and yeah TP had some games but they werebt fun to play and you only did them to get the item or ite,s you know you could get to help you along in your quest. aside from fishing i dont see anyone trying these mini games more than twice unless like me you did the balloon pop mission to get money to afford the magical armor.

all in all im not excited or looking foward to the next zelda installment so i can say unless the wii drops to 100 bucks or lower or i get one for free im done with nintendo consoles except for the occasional game or RE4 on the GC.
 
I don't see what Oblivion's score has to do with the Zelda score. If Zelda is overrated, it should be overrated based on it's own merit as opposed to "It's not game X". That is simply a ridiculous criteria. Where do you stop?

"Zelda sucks because It is rated higher than SSX and SSX has much better snowboarding."

Even within genres there is plenty of variety. The only legit standard of comparision is previous games in the series. I'm aware that it is human nature to compare things that have a similar feel...that's fine but it is no way to review a game (or claim a game is scored too highly). I'm not a huge Zelda fan. Wind Waker was my first 3D zelda, I've only finished 2 of the 2d Zeldas. I have to say I LOVE the new zelda. Not because it is the same old green clothed elf we've played. I love it because of the compelling world it creates.
 
I'm not going to talk about Zelda, but I completely agree with Wombat's assessment of Castlevania Portrait of Ruin. More of the same is a great thing when you're talking about maybe the best 2D franchise left. I'd also love to see a 2D Castlevania on a next gen console, but I'll take what I can get.
 
Really enjoyed the Zelda discussion. My cohorts and I had a similar discussion on our latest show--he had Zelda at the top of his games of the year, and Oblivion was at the top of mine.

Your comment about it being hard to go back to Zelda after playing Oblivion is right on the money. I understand--and don't mind--that the graphics have taken a hit on the Wii vs. the 360. But there are a number of areas where Zelda is still so archaic that could be easily remedied. The fact that Oblivion's dialogue is all spoken, for example, makes it immeasurably more immersive.

The counter to the argument (and the one that my friend offered) is that fans of the series are so enamored of the formula, that straying from it too far would create an enormous negative reaction. In the example above of voice acting for the game, he felt that since people have been playing Zelda for nigh on 15 years now, they have a solid concept, in their head, of what Link sounds like. Adding voice to the character would run the risk of alienating all those fans who think, "Hey! That's not what Link is supposed ot sound like!"

I suppose that the negative reactions to the look of Wind Waker would support that point of view. It's a shame, because without some pretty radical reinvention, I'm totally finished with a series I used to (and still want to) love. I think the franchise deserves more.
 
I'm sorry but this show is lacking something very important...

MORE DEMON TENTACLE PENIS!

(Can I say penis?)
 
Yeah maybe Zelda's dungeons should be like Oblivion's too. A bunch of random dark hallways with rats in them and 2 levers to push for puzzles. :p
 
One of the very first things my friend said when we started playing Oblivion is "This is how the next Zelda game shoud be". That really says it all, I think.

I have been disappointed with Twilight Princess as well. For many of the same reasons other people have said. I honestly think I would have liked it better if they would have just left it a GameCube exclusive. The graphics are bad (but would have been excusable on the GC), and I don't feel that the Wii controls really add anything to the experience. It is still a good game, but I'd have to side with Wombat and say it is probably one of my least favorite Zeldas.
 
I got the Wii and Zelda for Xmas and I honestly believe that had I bought these myself I'd be disappointed. TP is a good game, certainly better than Wind Waker, but my favorite is still Zelda: A Link to the Past. I got about 10 hrs into TP and went back to Rainbow Six Vegas and Gears of War. On comparing TP to Oblivion, I think its kinda like comparing a kid to its parent. Obilivion is what I imagine Zelda could turn into when it grows up.
 
[quote name='PanzerNinja']
Obilivion is what I imagine Zelda could turn into when it grows up.[/quote] For being the "child's" version of Oblivion, Zelda sure has much better dungeons. That's one of the most important parts of a Zelda game, the meticulously designed and structured dungeons, and it couldn't be done in a completely free-roaming game (just look at Oblivion's dungeon design). Saying that Oblivion is monstrously overrated because it has worse dungeon design is just like Cheapy saying Zelda is bad because it's not free-roaming like Oblivion. But the design generally doesn't bother people, because Oblivion is about a huge world to explore rather than tightly designed individual areas. Zelda is the opposite in this sense. There is a good amount of optional stuff to explore, but that's just something extra to do - the dungeons are more the focus, rather than the exploration. I'm not really an Oblivion fan because I think it has some design issues, but I can see why some people like it - the size and scope of the game is impressive.

Really, the games are quite different. Each does its own thing and does it well. Here's another analogy from PC gaming: Civilization IV is a methodical, thoughtful turn-based strategy game with a lot of emphasis on economics, diplomacy, and city-building and with combat as only one component. Dawn of War is a very fast-paced and gory real-time strategy game that focuses almost completely on the battles. Both games are technically in the same genre, but they both have very different design goals. It would be silly for me to say that Dawn of War is overrated because it lacks the economic depth of Civilization IV, or that Civ IV is overrated because the combat isn't as exciting or visceral as in Dawn of War. Likewise with Oblivion and Zelda.

Also, I still don't think it's fair to say Zelda is a rehash when Oblivion is very much like previous Elder Scrolls games. Just because most people didn't play Morrowind doesn't change teh fact that Oblivion plays pretty similarly, thoguh the combat is better.

Oh yes, and Twilight Princess is my favorite Zelda game. I played through Ocarina of Time, probably my previous favorite, about a week before I got TP, and I think TP is better in nearly every way, with the possible exception of music and story (TP's story is better in some ways, worse in others).
 
Hey good summary. I wanted to say that.

Yeah about the rehash thing too. IT's not just the previous Elder scrolls games, but old pc rpgs too like Wizardry and Ultima and the like. Those were free roaming type games from 20 years ago. IT's just that not alot of console boys have played these types of games.
 
good things about the ps3 - by a ps3 owner

-it collects dust at a fantastic rate
-fingerprints are always visible so I can prove it's mine if stolen

honestly is cheapy I think most of the points he's made has been valid. frankly companies make mistakes, and just because you point them out. it doesn't mean you hate the product.

frankly cheapy's said it before...if you're dropping X amount of dollars you want it to be the best product to own. No one likes siding with a loser.

frankly the zelda name doesn't make it a goldmine or a critical darling...wand of gamelon? faces of evil anyone?

"Anyhoo" that's all I got to say about that.
 
another nice lengthy and good cagcast. Although I cant agree with wombats comment on how big brain academy is much better than brain age. I think that the games on bba are good and the game is a great multiplayer game, but I always found myself playing more of brain age and felt i got more of a value from it with the sodoku and seeing how other people made the drawings from memory. There both fun games for different reasons
 
hey cheapy i quess u and wombat were right about
LEGEND of frank ppl would probably review like there bitch and give it 6s everywereand i think if the ps3 would pick up some steem soon o and from know on im like gonna most of the time not gonna pay games at full pric3 39.99 or less cuz the cheapness has gotten to me o and btw why does every one hate the ps3 most ppl that hate it dont even have one o and gran turismo graphics are way better then pgr3 in imp cant wait for great cagcast keep up the good work.
 
[quote name='bobthecat23']hey cheapy i quess u and wombat were right about
LEGEND of frank ppl would probably review like there bitch and give it 6s everywereand i think if the ps3 would pick up some steem soon o and from know on im like gonna most of the time not gonna pay games at full pric3 39.99 or less cuz the cheapness has gotten to me o and btw why does every one hate the ps3 most ppl that hate it dont even have one o and gran turismo graphics are way better then pgr3 in imp cant wait for great cagcast keep up the good work.[/QUOTE]


Wow.
 
The reason why I feel the comparison between TP and Oblivion is valid, is that they both have similar review scores and topped many game of the year lists. The comparision, at least what I was going for, is what warrants the scores not comparing the content, why is oblivion worth a 9.5 and why is TP worth a 9.5 and why are they both worth such high praise.
Personally I think the dungeons in TP are amazing, maybe some of the best in the series, but the in-beween feel flat for me and felt mostly like padding to turn a 15 hour game into a 35 hour game. That for me was a problem.
Oblivion as we all know was huge for me, that was mostly for the amount of character options, each play although the story never changed felt different because what that character could do, but on the other hand the dungeons for the most part are, well, uninspired yet addicting. The sheer amount of place to go was a challenge.
Also as my last point if you think TP is the better game you are right, and if you think Oblivion is the better game, you are right, too.
 
Oblivion is part FOUR of the Elder Scrolls series. It's a well-known RPG franchise that many reviewers might be inclined to give higher scores just because of the pedigree. Morrowind and Daggerfall are pretty well-known hits, after all.

I loved me some Zelda. I could see someone rating it 8.5, I could see someone rating it 9.5 - like you said, it's very subjective. I loved the dungeons and thought the game didn't have too much padding (
the statue quest and the recovery of Ilia's memory were kind fetch quest-y
). I also thought Oblivion was leagues better than Morrowind, if only for the better quest and teleportation systems.

What's really telling is that Zelda has Oblivion-style dungeons as well (big long caves filled with enemies and treasure, basically) and they are pretty lame since they don't have any puzzles. Which goes to show moving to an Elder Scrolls-style game might not be the answer.
 
I didn't feel like mcuh of the game was padding, and I didn't mind the wolf gameplay. I REALLY enjoyed riding Epona around, slashing and shooting at enemies on the field. Epona had a great sense of speed, I loved aiming the bow with the Wiimote, and controlling her just felt right. That added a lot to my game time.
 
Oblivion is part of the Elder Scrolls. Zelda TP is well part of the Zelda series and from the reviews they both seem to be compared to past titles in their own respective series and in terms of gameplay it is apple to oranges. Okami is much more comparable to Zelda.
I don't see anybody complaining about Gears of War's review scores when the main campaign itself is extremely repetitive and doesn't really do anything new with the genre apart from having great graphics.
 
[quote name='crazytalkx']I don't see anybody complaining about Gears of War's review scores when the main campaign itself is extremely repetitive and doesn't really do anything new with the genre apart from having great graphics.[/quote]
That's because while not inventing anything new, it executed every element in the game damn near perfectly. You're one of the few I've read that found the game repetitive. Personally I beat the game 3 times and didn't really grow sick of it. Gears' review scores aren't based entirely on its single player campaign either. The multiplayer is second only to Halo. It took Halo 2 out of the number one spot. It's been the top played game since its launch.

I still say Halo is better, but Gears is the only game that's been able to keep me away from Halo for this long.
 
I like the Cagcast Mountain video the best, by far. It was simply amazing. I haven't laughed so hard in a while. Plus, it brought a bit of a tear to my eye.

Simply fantastic editing, wonderfully put together, and a great concept.

Too bad it didn't win. It was definitely the best.
 
[quote name='Wombat']
Also as my last point if you think TP is the better game you are right, and if you think Oblivion is the better game, you are right, too.[/QUOTE]

If I say Cheapie is better than Wombat, am I right just as much as when I say Wombat is better than Cheapie?
 
First let me say I love the CAGCast more each time I listen to it.

Now I think what you didn't say or didn't take into account when you and Wombat talked about Zelda is different people like different genres of video games.

I for instance don't like shooters that much. I think the games are good and kind of fun to play but I don't think there great. I've played GRAW, Rainbow 6, Gears of War, Resistance, etc... as I am an avid gamer with lots of friends who are the same.

I play most games but the games I like the most are Adventure, Strategy, RPG generally story driven games with lots of exploration and things to do.

I didn't think Resident Evil 4, GRAW, Gears of War, Rainbow 6, and games like that in general are above an 8 at extreme best. Thats me though.

I think Zelda is fun because it mixes genres and appeals to lots of people. Adventure, Puzzle, Action, Dungeon Crawler, Flight elements with that dragon thing, and RPG. A number of people who like all kinds of different games are fans of Zelda and love it.

Now as a PC gamer I know lots of people who think Halo and Halo 2 are average FPS at best. And thats them being nice. Does that mean people who gave Halo and Halo 2 9's and 10's are crazy fanboys. No of course not.

It's not that Zelda TP is the best game ever. Its that so many people who are fanboys of this game are people who love all kinds of different genres as well. Except for fans of shooter games or games where the story is skipable or unimportant. People like that I just don't understand.

In the end I think its that people play games for different reasons. I personally think theres to much to do in Elder Scrolls: Oblivian and it detracts from the game as it can be hard to find or get to the parts of the game that I like. I've played the series since Elder Scrolls 2 Daggerfall. And I think the game also is to much of the same. Except for better graphics and a few small additions its the same game as all the previous ones.

I think so many people expected Zelda to be the Best Game Ever that it hurt the game a lot.

Can you contact me? I'd like to be on the next CAGCast or something. I think I have a bit to contribute.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top