CAGcast #58: The Legend of Frank
- Thread starter CheapyD
- Start date
felixlighter
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
In the videogame world, taking a shot at The Legend of Zelda is like kicking the Pope in the balls during Midnight Mass; You're going to get a reaction and it might get ugly. Personally, I completely agree with CheapyD. I've slowly been losing interest in Zelda since Majora's Mask.
I absolutely loved Ocarina of Time when it was released but it doesn't feel like the Zelda formula has really evolved since that game. They've added a feature here and there but those features usually didn't make the game any better and in most cases it made the game worse.
Take the Windwaker sailing for instance. It got so tiresome traveling in the game, that I would have to put my TV in picture in picture mode and watch a television show while I traveled between dungeons. You gain the ability to warp to designated spots on the map later on but it was very limited and it still forced you to sail from a warp portal to your final destination. Sailing was a huge part of that game; it was key to the story and you spent a large part of your time doing it. It was a miserable major feature, and that feature alone would have killed any other non-Zelda game but it still managed to get a 94.7 average review on game rankings!
It seems like the reviewers give the game a pass on any bad aspects and they only focus on the parts they got right. I think reviewers know, if they alienate the Zelda fans with a negative review, they could hurt their readership/viewership and I'm sure that influences their final scores. Just take the 8.8 score Gamespot gave Twilight Prince as an example. 8.8 is a great score for any other game but because it was a Zelda game it was huge controversy.
And by the way, for those arguing that The Elder Scrolls' franchise is just as popular and established as Zelda, it isn't even close. If I asked my mom to name a videogame she would immediately say Mario or Zelda. If you asked her about The Elder Scrolls she would be completely clueless. You know a game is big when it passes the mom test.
I absolutely loved Ocarina of Time when it was released but it doesn't feel like the Zelda formula has really evolved since that game. They've added a feature here and there but those features usually didn't make the game any better and in most cases it made the game worse.
Take the Windwaker sailing for instance. It got so tiresome traveling in the game, that I would have to put my TV in picture in picture mode and watch a television show while I traveled between dungeons. You gain the ability to warp to designated spots on the map later on but it was very limited and it still forced you to sail from a warp portal to your final destination. Sailing was a huge part of that game; it was key to the story and you spent a large part of your time doing it. It was a miserable major feature, and that feature alone would have killed any other non-Zelda game but it still managed to get a 94.7 average review on game rankings!
It seems like the reviewers give the game a pass on any bad aspects and they only focus on the parts they got right. I think reviewers know, if they alienate the Zelda fans with a negative review, they could hurt their readership/viewership and I'm sure that influences their final scores. Just take the 8.8 score Gamespot gave Twilight Prince as an example. 8.8 is a great score for any other game but because it was a Zelda game it was huge controversy.
And by the way, for those arguing that The Elder Scrolls' franchise is just as popular and established as Zelda, it isn't even close. If I asked my mom to name a videogame she would immediately say Mario or Zelda. If you asked her about The Elder Scrolls she would be completely clueless. You know a game is big when it passes the mom test.
felixlighter
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
[quote name='CheapyD']Yeah, the CAGcast mountain was really good as were a few others.
I know most of this conversation here is about Zelda, but I'm also wondering about everyone's thoughts on the CAGcast Video Remix idea.
Do you think it's worth pursuing?[/QUOTE]
I think it's worth a shot but the amount of effort it takes to put one together may be overwhelming for most. I could see it coming down to the same 3 or 4 people each week but as long as they are entertaining, like the ones submitted for the contest, I don't see what it would hurt.
I know most of this conversation here is about Zelda, but I'm also wondering about everyone's thoughts on the CAGcast Video Remix idea.
Do you think it's worth pursuing?[/QUOTE]
I think it's worth a shot but the amount of effort it takes to put one together may be overwhelming for most. I could see it coming down to the same 3 or 4 people each week but as long as they are entertaining, like the ones submitted for the contest, I don't see what it would hurt.
[quote name='CheapyD']Yeah, the CAGcast mountain was really good as were a few others.
I know most of this conversation here is about Zelda, but I'm also wondering about everyone's thoughts on the CAGcast Video Remix idea.
Do you think it's worth pursuing?[/quote]
Already answered...maybe as in [insert Superfriends voice] "Last week, on the CAGcast..."
Other than that, I can see it falling flat.
It's nice to see a way of getting the CAGmunity involved, but what is the video remix's purpose? Amusing summary? A video 'cast to add to the audio on iTunes?
I know most of this conversation here is about Zelda, but I'm also wondering about everyone's thoughts on the CAGcast Video Remix idea.
Do you think it's worth pursuing?[/quote]
Already answered...maybe as in [insert Superfriends voice] "Last week, on the CAGcast..."
Other than that, I can see it falling flat.
It's nice to see a way of getting the CAGmunity involved, but what is the video remix's purpose? Amusing summary? A video 'cast to add to the audio on iTunes?
mik
CAGiversary!
[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]
I think Gears was pretty over-reviewed, too. Seems like both those games (Gears and Zelda) had their scores penciled in before they were ever released.
I think Gears was pretty over-reviewed, too. Seems like both those games (Gears and Zelda) had their scores penciled in before they were ever released.
sinewav
CAGiversary!
I also feel Zelda:TP was overrated and was going to get a 9.0 minimum just for the fact that it is a Zelda game. Kudos to anyone who speaks out on this.
As to the question of why in Guitar Hero II for 360 the guitar controller is not wireless Red Octane in an earlier statement was quoted in saying that the wireless technology is propietary to Microsoft and they are not allowing any 3rd party devices to use it, hence the lack of ANY 3rd party 360 wireless controllers on the market, so Microsoft is the one at fault here sadly. Unless Microsoft licenses their wireless tech it seems we'll be stuck with tethered guitars until someone comes out with their own wireless technology aka AntCommandos on PS2. If I find the source with the RedOctane quote I'll post it.
As to the question of why in Guitar Hero II for 360 the guitar controller is not wireless Red Octane in an earlier statement was quoted in saying that the wireless technology is propietary to Microsoft and they are not allowing any 3rd party devices to use it, hence the lack of ANY 3rd party 360 wireless controllers on the market, so Microsoft is the one at fault here sadly. Unless Microsoft licenses their wireless tech it seems we'll be stuck with tethered guitars until someone comes out with their own wireless technology aka AntCommandos on PS2. If I find the source with the RedOctane quote I'll post it.
joeljermon
CAGiversary!
[quote name='felixlighter'] And by the way, for those arguing that The Elder Scrolls' franchise is just as popular and established as Zelda, it isn't even close. If I asked my mom to name a videogame she would immediately say Mario or Zelda. If you asked her about The Elder Scrolls she would be completely clueless. You know a game is big when it passes the mom test.[/quote] It's not as well known as Zelda, but that doesn't change the fact that Oblivion is also fundamentally to its predecessors. Not that it's necessarily a bad thing for a series, as long as it doesn't become Megaman - which I think Zelda is in no danger of doing, especially since the next one will be built for the Wii from the ground up and will probably the controller in completely new ways rather that could not be done on a normal controller, rather than just adapting old controls to the Wii.
[quote name='sinewav']As to the question of why in Guitar Hero II for 360 the guitar controller is not wireless Red Octane in an earlier statement was quoted in saying that the wireless technology is propietary to Microsoft and they are not allowing any 3rd party devices to use it, hence the lack of ANY 3rd party 360 wireless controllers on the market, so Microsoft is the one at fault here sadly. Unless Microsoft licenses their wireless tech it seems we'll be stuck with tethered guitars until someone comes out with their own wireless technology aka AntCommandos on PS2. If I find the source with the RedOctane quote I'll post it.[/quote] I know, but surely Microsoft realizes the earnings potential here and would consent to a wireless guitar, especially if they get to share in the accessory royalties.
One of two things will happen:
1) The game ships with a wired guitar, and a few months later, a wireless guitar is released.
2) The game ships with a wireless guitar.
I really can't imagine a wireless guitar not being released at all.
One of two things will happen:
1) The game ships with a wired guitar, and a few months later, a wireless guitar is released.
2) The game ships with a wireless guitar.
I really can't imagine a wireless guitar not being released at all.
[quote name='CheapyD']Yeah, the CAGcast mountain was really good as were a few others.
I know most of this conversation here is about Zelda, but I'm also wondering about everyone's thoughts on the CAGcast Video Remix idea.
Do you think it's worth pursuing?[/QUOTE]
As a CAGcast video alumni (is it okay that I claim that title?) I have mixed feelings. On one hand, I enjoyed doing it and enjoyed viewing what others did. On the other hand, to have them produced on a weekly basis seems to me to take away from some of the uniqueness of the event. What made it cool was that it was the first time it had been done -- and nobody knew what to expect from anyone else. My best guess is that if you have them produced on a weekly basis, and under a weekly deadline, the entries will appear in much fewer numbers and have a lower quality than what you got this first round.
Only speaking for myself (though I'm sure the other contestants had similar situations) the production time just to get the clips edited down from one 90 minutes show and put back together in a logical sequence took about 4-5 hours. Then preparing the graphics, creating the timeline, aligning the audio, and synching all of that to the animation -- and my animation was pretty simple -- took about triple the amount of time the audio editing did.
I hope that none of this sounds like complaining, because I enjoyed just about every moment I put into making it, but to have to produce something like that in a one week deadline (and still have the high quality of the entries you got this last time) seems like a pretty tough challenge. Every quarter maybe? Every month?
I don't know what the solution is, though I would like the video challenges to continue. Obviously you want it to be more than a yearly event, as do I, so I'll be interested to see what the others who participated have to say about the weekly video idea.
I know most of this conversation here is about Zelda, but I'm also wondering about everyone's thoughts on the CAGcast Video Remix idea.
Do you think it's worth pursuing?[/QUOTE]
As a CAGcast video alumni (is it okay that I claim that title?) I have mixed feelings. On one hand, I enjoyed doing it and enjoyed viewing what others did. On the other hand, to have them produced on a weekly basis seems to me to take away from some of the uniqueness of the event. What made it cool was that it was the first time it had been done -- and nobody knew what to expect from anyone else. My best guess is that if you have them produced on a weekly basis, and under a weekly deadline, the entries will appear in much fewer numbers and have a lower quality than what you got this first round.
Only speaking for myself (though I'm sure the other contestants had similar situations) the production time just to get the clips edited down from one 90 minutes show and put back together in a logical sequence took about 4-5 hours. Then preparing the graphics, creating the timeline, aligning the audio, and synching all of that to the animation -- and my animation was pretty simple -- took about triple the amount of time the audio editing did.
I hope that none of this sounds like complaining, because I enjoyed just about every moment I put into making it, but to have to produce something like that in a one week deadline (and still have the high quality of the entries you got this last time) seems like a pretty tough challenge. Every quarter maybe? Every month?
I don't know what the solution is, though I would like the video challenges to continue. Obviously you want it to be more than a yearly event, as do I, so I'll be interested to see what the others who participated have to say about the weekly video idea.
jollydwarf
CAGiversary!
Not that I'm one to talk, but there are some mammoth posts in this thread, so I'm not reading all that.
Instead, bullet points* for Cheapy and Wombat that may or may not have already been mentioned and consequently expounded upon:
1.) Cheapy, I think the Zelda reviews are a combination of many things that you mentioned, but I sincerely think there's also the reviewers considering the Nintendonuts/loyalists, and factoring in self-preservation. No, seriously. This ain't
in' Ratchet & Clank or Kameo. Maybe they don't get whacked by a guy in a Tingle costume, but I think there's something to them fearing the consequences (and overflowing Inbox) if they give a new entry in the franchise any less than a "10" (9.5. ABSOLUTE minimum). Gamespot? Pretty ballsy, pretty commendable, pretty freaking crazy.
2.) Oblivion and Zelda aren't any more of a valid comparison in terms of scores than Zelda and Soul Calibur. Hell, the second is more 'valid', as Link has appeared in both series. They're all excellent series that do different things, even if the aesthetic makes them look vaguely similar at times.
3.) Larry "Major Nelson" Hryb is a diva. I can hear it in each and every one of his podcasts. I've never liked him, but I deal with him to listen to his guests, not his incessant pimping of his "Dee-eth Lite". That he probably doesn't care for CAG surprises me not at all, as he's probably not a big fan of the whole mentality that the site is based on, i.e. never paying full price for games, not playing along nicely with the 'managed message' and the "BESURETODRINKYOUROVALTINE" marketing that they repeatedly work over 'the kids' with. You guys are better off without him.
4.) I've read Game Informer, actually got suckered into a subscription last Spring, and I have to say, the Western gaming mags are working extra-hard to catch up to the Famitsu M.O.
5.) The new Castlevania has a real anime-teenybopper aesthetic to it, which is obviously to pander to, well, that crowd, but it's a fair trade-off for quality 2-D gaming. If Konami ever does a proper console Symphony of the Night sequel, I might buy two copies, just to 'do my part' to support what publishers probably perceive as fiscal suicide outside of the DS/GBA. Hell, an original 2-D Castlevania on the PSP could redeem the system.
6.) It's clear that Epic is hiding from consumer demand behind some mandate from Microsoft which obviously is not exactly 'dogma'. To me, this all comes down to a philosophical issue (which in turn becomes a commercial issue), because they'd rather piss people off this way than by having fans endlessly bemoan sandbagging teams and people doing everything they can to ascend in the rankings. 50/50 on them giving in down the road.
7.) Why do gaming "analysts" continue to get any sort of attention from anybody, especially the game-playing gaming media??
*--Okay, bullet paragraphs.
EDIT: I really can't imagine a wireless guitar not being released at all.
This is what I call the "I'm George Lucas and I'm Never Releasing the Original OT Again" syndrome. You will be proven right sooner than later.
Instead, bullet points* for Cheapy and Wombat that may or may not have already been mentioned and consequently expounded upon:
1.) Cheapy, I think the Zelda reviews are a combination of many things that you mentioned, but I sincerely think there's also the reviewers considering the Nintendonuts/loyalists, and factoring in self-preservation. No, seriously. This ain't
in' Ratchet & Clank or Kameo. Maybe they don't get whacked by a guy in a Tingle costume, but I think there's something to them fearing the consequences (and overflowing Inbox) if they give a new entry in the franchise any less than a "10" (9.5. ABSOLUTE minimum). Gamespot? Pretty ballsy, pretty commendable, pretty freaking crazy.2.) Oblivion and Zelda aren't any more of a valid comparison in terms of scores than Zelda and Soul Calibur. Hell, the second is more 'valid', as Link has appeared in both series. They're all excellent series that do different things, even if the aesthetic makes them look vaguely similar at times.
3.) Larry "Major Nelson" Hryb is a diva. I can hear it in each and every one of his podcasts. I've never liked him, but I deal with him to listen to his guests, not his incessant pimping of his "Dee-eth Lite". That he probably doesn't care for CAG surprises me not at all, as he's probably not a big fan of the whole mentality that the site is based on, i.e. never paying full price for games, not playing along nicely with the 'managed message' and the "BESURETODRINKYOUROVALTINE" marketing that they repeatedly work over 'the kids' with. You guys are better off without him.
4.) I've read Game Informer, actually got suckered into a subscription last Spring, and I have to say, the Western gaming mags are working extra-hard to catch up to the Famitsu M.O.
5.) The new Castlevania has a real anime-teenybopper aesthetic to it, which is obviously to pander to, well, that crowd, but it's a fair trade-off for quality 2-D gaming. If Konami ever does a proper console Symphony of the Night sequel, I might buy two copies, just to 'do my part' to support what publishers probably perceive as fiscal suicide outside of the DS/GBA. Hell, an original 2-D Castlevania on the PSP could redeem the system.
6.) It's clear that Epic is hiding from consumer demand behind some mandate from Microsoft which obviously is not exactly 'dogma'. To me, this all comes down to a philosophical issue (which in turn becomes a commercial issue), because they'd rather piss people off this way than by having fans endlessly bemoan sandbagging teams and people doing everything they can to ascend in the rankings. 50/50 on them giving in down the road.
7.) Why do gaming "analysts" continue to get any sort of attention from anybody, especially the game-playing gaming media??
*--Okay, bullet paragraphs.
EDIT: I really can't imagine a wireless guitar not being released at all.
This is what I call the "I'm George Lucas and I'm Never Releasing the Original OT Again" syndrome. You will be proven right sooner than later.
[quote name='inubu']As a CAGcast video alumni (is it okay that I claim that title?) I have mixed feelings. On one hand, I enjoyed doing it and enjoyed viewing what others did. On the other hand, to have them produced on a weekly basis seems to me to take away from some of the uniqueness of the event. What made it cool was that it was the first time it had been done -- and nobody knew what to expect from anyone else. My best guess is that if you have them produced on a weekly basis, and under a weekly deadline, the entries will appear in much fewer numbers and have a lower quality than what you got this first round.
Only speaking for myself (though I'm sure the other contestants had similar situations) the production time just to get the clips edited down from one 90 minutes show and put back together in a logical sequence took about 4-5 hours. Then preparing the graphics, creating the timeline, aligning the audio, and synching all of that to the animation -- and my animation was pretty simple -- took about triple the amount of time the audio editing did.
I hope that none of this sounds like complaining, because I enjoyed just about every moment I put into making it, but to have to produce something like that in a one week deadline (and still have the high quality of the entries you got this last time) seems like a pretty tough challenge. Every quarter maybe? Every month?
I don't know what the solution is, though I would like the video challenges to continue. Obviously you want it to be more than a yearly event, as do I, so I'll be interested to see what the others who participated have to say about the weekly video idea.[/quote]
Only if I can claim CAG Video Alumni as well!
I agree totally with the above. Although, only combing through one cagcast wouldn't be as daunting, it still takes the time to edit and splice. (Or enhance or alter levels and sound quality as I know I had to do a great deal of. Damn Skype!)
And then the animating was what killed me, having never made anything in Flash before. I learned how NOT to do a lot of things. I made mine because I was off work for the last week of '06, so I had more time than I usually do. (I also have a need to know Flash and this was good practice with a deadline to fight.) And I STILL didn't have time to do new drawings like I had intended.
Not including the times I was listening to the CAGcasts and taking notes, I would guess I spent 40+ hours on mine (even if you couldn't tell). Editing and arranging the audio and editing it down was one thing - I didn't realize how many problems I would run into doing the animations.
If I was going with my suggestion recap theme, I image I could do one in, rough guess, 20 hours - now that I have a better handle on it - for 2 or 3 minute segments. The problem with this is...well...I have a life and other projects that I am involved in. (I also seem to notice a small human racing by me from time to time.) This time would be lessened once I have made my own avatars with their own set of animations and mouth shapes (but that would require the initial overhead of drawing then beforehand.)
Like Inubu, I don't want to sound down, but I have to be realistic but it was a lot of fun and would love to do more. I could probably do one a month, but weekly would be a killer and just not possible for me. Plus, I also don't think I could commit to "I'll do every third week and so-and-so will do the third week."
I think monthly is doable, if I devote an entire weekend once a month.
Only speaking for myself (though I'm sure the other contestants had similar situations) the production time just to get the clips edited down from one 90 minutes show and put back together in a logical sequence took about 4-5 hours. Then preparing the graphics, creating the timeline, aligning the audio, and synching all of that to the animation -- and my animation was pretty simple -- took about triple the amount of time the audio editing did.
I hope that none of this sounds like complaining, because I enjoyed just about every moment I put into making it, but to have to produce something like that in a one week deadline (and still have the high quality of the entries you got this last time) seems like a pretty tough challenge. Every quarter maybe? Every month?
I don't know what the solution is, though I would like the video challenges to continue. Obviously you want it to be more than a yearly event, as do I, so I'll be interested to see what the others who participated have to say about the weekly video idea.[/quote]
Only if I can claim CAG Video Alumni as well!
I agree totally with the above. Although, only combing through one cagcast wouldn't be as daunting, it still takes the time to edit and splice. (Or enhance or alter levels and sound quality as I know I had to do a great deal of. Damn Skype!)
And then the animating was what killed me, having never made anything in Flash before. I learned how NOT to do a lot of things. I made mine because I was off work for the last week of '06, so I had more time than I usually do. (I also have a need to know Flash and this was good practice with a deadline to fight.) And I STILL didn't have time to do new drawings like I had intended.
Not including the times I was listening to the CAGcasts and taking notes, I would guess I spent 40+ hours on mine (even if you couldn't tell). Editing and arranging the audio and editing it down was one thing - I didn't realize how many problems I would run into doing the animations.
If I was going with my suggestion recap theme, I image I could do one in, rough guess, 20 hours - now that I have a better handle on it - for 2 or 3 minute segments. The problem with this is...well...I have a life and other projects that I am involved in. (I also seem to notice a small human racing by me from time to time.) This time would be lessened once I have made my own avatars with their own set of animations and mouth shapes (but that would require the initial overhead of drawing then beforehand.)
Like Inubu, I don't want to sound down, but I have to be realistic but it was a lot of fun and would love to do more. I could probably do one a month, but weekly would be a killer and just not possible for me. Plus, I also don't think I could commit to "I'll do every third week and so-and-so will do the third week."
I think monthly is doable, if I devote an entire weekend once a month.
Michaellvortega
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 30 (100%)
First of all, great job putting together this episode.
Wombat not asking for free stuff good+
Cheapy with his drug talk, bad -
Zelda: TTP - I don't care if people hate me because I said it, the game is stale. We have been getting the same damn compass and the same damn dungeon map the same damn way every game since the N64. LOZ sells on name brand alone and that's that. Was it a horrible game? No. Was it a perfect 10? NO! People that think LOZ TTP is 10 or NEAR 10 are nostalgic mother ers.
The Madden with porn on it was not a legit Xbox disc, that's why it had porn on it. This was discussed in a thread here already.
Pics of the fake xbox DVD
http://www.abc4.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=43b5c535-4bd2-4da5-8145-1dc63a92faa2
thread
http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=122435&page=6&highlight=madden+porn
Major Nelson=Famitsu, both are PR covered bull shit, sure sometimes they come through with something interesting but for the most while their worth is Nil.
Wombat not asking for free stuff good+
Cheapy with his drug talk, bad
-Zelda: TTP - I don't care if people hate me because I said it, the game is stale. We have been getting the same damn compass and the same damn dungeon map the same damn way every game since the N64. LOZ sells on name brand alone and that's that. Was it a horrible game? No. Was it a perfect 10?
NO! People that think LOZ TTP is 10 or NEAR 10 are nostalgic mother ers.The Madden with porn on it was not a legit Xbox disc, that's why it had porn on it. This was discussed in a thread here already.
Pics of the fake xbox DVD
http://www.abc4.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=43b5c535-4bd2-4da5-8145-1dc63a92faa2
thread
http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=122435&page=6&highlight=madden+porn
Major Nelson=Famitsu, both are PR covered bull shit, sure sometimes they come through with something interesting but for the most while their worth is Nil.
I've played Elder Scrolls since 1995. To me Oblivian and Morowind before it felt like nothing more then a facelift.
I was comparing it to Zelda because people said the same thing about it in comparison to Ocarina.
I don't like Oblivian that much because I have played hundred of hours of the game for the past 10+ years.
For Zelda though I still feel the magic. I find the game to be great. And personally I don't want the game to change.
If it did something to fundementally change the game it is it wouldnt be Zelda and I would hate it.
I love Adventure games. I love RPG's. I love Strategy games. I love games with good storys in general. My favorite games this past 2 years have been Heroes of Might and Magic 5. Dreamfall The Longest Journey. Shin Megami Tensai Devil Summoner 1 and 2.
I just don't think shooter games and such are that great. And for people like me who like those types of games more then the action shooter less story driven type games I feel like Zelda TP is a great game and one of the best you can play period.
If you want to see Zelda change and become something else. Like how drastic Redident Evil changed with 4. Stop buying the game all together. Because I for one don't want Zelda to switch genres and become something else.
I was comparing it to Zelda because people said the same thing about it in comparison to Ocarina.
I don't like Oblivian that much because I have played hundred of hours of the game for the past 10+ years.
For Zelda though I still feel the magic. I find the game to be great. And personally I don't want the game to change.
If it did something to fundementally change the game it is it wouldnt be Zelda and I would hate it.
I love Adventure games. I love RPG's. I love Strategy games. I love games with good storys in general. My favorite games this past 2 years have been Heroes of Might and Magic 5. Dreamfall The Longest Journey. Shin Megami Tensai Devil Summoner 1 and 2.
I just don't think shooter games and such are that great. And for people like me who like those types of games more then the action shooter less story driven type games I feel like Zelda TP is a great game and one of the best you can play period.
If you want to see Zelda change and become something else. Like how drastic Redident Evil changed with 4. Stop buying the game all together. Because I for one don't want Zelda to switch genres and become something else.
jollydwarf
CAGiversary!
Nintendo is in a Catch-22 with the Zelda franchise. It miraculously made the transition to 3-D with its integrity and excellence intact, but where else to take it now? If they revolutionize it, they're going to hear about it from their reactionary fans. If they don't 'fix' what isn't 'broken', they're going to be penalized by many for being stagnant. It's the same dilemma for Square Enix and Final Fantasy. It's going to be the same issue for Bungie.
Some franchises are 'comfort food'. Zelda is one of them. Some are inherently based on pushing envelopes, like GTA. I like the balance of experiencing both kinds.
Some franchises are 'comfort food'. Zelda is one of them. Some are inherently based on pushing envelopes, like GTA. I like the balance of experiencing both kinds.
Ikohn4ever
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 5 (100%)
Well first off your whole frank rant works with every game. If you had a first person shooter with a broken story mode and good online multiplayer and called it Alien Battle Fest for the Planet. It wouldnt have sold as well as something called Halo 2 so I dont think you can just play the name game with Zelda. It works with every major franchise.
As for the Oblivion comparison, it just doesnt work. Oblivion is a completly Open Ended game that is meant to do what you want and continually add content to enhance the story. Zelda is much more of a linear game. You cant be a bad guy, you have to save the princess, and you gotta beat the bad guy. Linear gameplay is completely different than nonlinear gameplay. Of course you feel more into Oblivion, you can do whatever you want whenever you want . Zelda is a story based driven game, no matter what you do, you will have to complete a certain task to move on.
Finally, comparing a game because of same score is an invalid comparison. So if Tony Hawk 2 gets a 9.0 and Phoenix Wright gets a 9.0 we could compare them on the basis of score? That just doesnt make any sense at all.
As for the Oblivion comparison, it just doesnt work. Oblivion is a completly Open Ended game that is meant to do what you want and continually add content to enhance the story. Zelda is much more of a linear game. You cant be a bad guy, you have to save the princess, and you gotta beat the bad guy. Linear gameplay is completely different than nonlinear gameplay. Of course you feel more into Oblivion, you can do whatever you want whenever you want . Zelda is a story based driven game, no matter what you do, you will have to complete a certain task to move on.
Finally, comparing a game because of same score is an invalid comparison. So if Tony Hawk 2 gets a 9.0 and Phoenix Wright gets a 9.0 we could compare them on the basis of score? That just doesnt make any sense at all.
[quote name='j.elles']I've played Elder Scrolls since 1995. To me Oblivian and Morowind before it felt like nothing more then a facelift.
I was comparing it to Zelda because people said the same thing about it in comparison to Ocarina.
I don't like Oblivian that much because I have played hundred of hours of the game for the past 10+ years.
[/QUOTE]
I dont think you got what I said. I've been playing Elder Scrolls for a long time. Why is Oblivian the same as Daggerfall which came out 10 years earlier. People don't want the game to be changed fundementally.
They want it to be tweaked, enhanced, expanded, and streamlined in certain areas so it's more fun. To me Zelda did this in Spades as Oblivian did over Morrowind. I don't want Zelda to be more of an action game. To me Zelda fills my adventure fix which is sorely lacking in this age of gaming.
And Oblivian is not an adventure game. The storys all right but a LOT of the quests were IN Daggerfall and Morrowind and I've played the series for so long I can see the errors and holes more then have fun with the game.
But Zelda feels to me like an adventure game. And other then fan made games there aren't that many adventure games.
Quest for Glory. To me Zelda took over the hole that old Sierra PC game left. They actually are kind of similiar in many ways. But Action Adventure games are not as common as shooters and such and I for one want them to be.
Zelda DOES NOT need be more of a shooter or an action game, Other games need to have more exploration and be more like an adventure game. Its my favorite genre and I can't get my fix very regularly at all.
So f%ck @#!. If Zelda isn't an adventure game at its core in the future I'll hunt down all the people who made it change.
I was comparing it to Zelda because people said the same thing about it in comparison to Ocarina.
I don't like Oblivian that much because I have played hundred of hours of the game for the past 10+ years.
[/QUOTE]
I dont think you got what I said. I've been playing Elder Scrolls for a long time. Why is Oblivian the same as Daggerfall which came out 10 years earlier. People don't want the game to be changed fundementally.
They want it to be tweaked, enhanced, expanded, and streamlined in certain areas so it's more fun. To me Zelda did this in Spades as Oblivian did over Morrowind. I don't want Zelda to be more of an action game. To me Zelda fills my adventure fix which is sorely lacking in this age of gaming.
And Oblivian is not an adventure game. The storys all right but a LOT of the quests were IN Daggerfall and Morrowind and I've played the series for so long I can see the errors and holes more then have fun with the game.
But Zelda feels to me like an adventure game. And other then fan made games there aren't that many adventure games.
Quest for Glory. To me Zelda took over the hole that old Sierra PC game left. They actually are kind of similiar in many ways. But Action Adventure games are not as common as shooters and such and I for one want them to be.
Zelda DOES NOT need be more of a shooter or an action game, Other games need to have more exploration and be more like an adventure game. Its my favorite genre and I can't get my fix very regularly at all.
So f%ck @#!. If Zelda isn't an adventure game at its core in the future I'll hunt down all the people who made it change.
Good job, as usual guys.
I agree with your viewpoint on Zelda (and other beloved franchises for that matter). Imagine if Twilight Princess was rebranded as Dark Cloud 3 with the exact same everything. It would lose points for no camera control, modest (even for a GC game) graphics, no voice acting at all, no orchestral soundtrack, and an incredibly boring (and long) beginning to the game. It'd probably end up in the 80% review score range, which is still good, but I highly doubt it would end up at 95%. It's like the vast majority of reviewers are unwilling to deduct points for certain established brands. But, double standards are a part of everyday life and reviews are no exception.
I agree with your viewpoint on Zelda (and other beloved franchises for that matter). Imagine if Twilight Princess was rebranded as Dark Cloud 3 with the exact same everything. It would lose points for no camera control, modest (even for a GC game) graphics, no voice acting at all, no orchestral soundtrack, and an incredibly boring (and long) beginning to the game. It'd probably end up in the 80% review score range, which is still good, but I highly doubt it would end up at 95%. It's like the vast majority of reviewers are unwilling to deduct points for certain established brands. But, double standards are a part of everyday life and reviews are no exception.
FriskyTanuki
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 36 (100%)
About Cheapy's comparison of Zelda and Oblivion, and that brings up the large difference in genres, I have to agree on one point. Legend of Zelda: TP is not as good as the scores suggest, though it all depends on the reviewer. If they're looking for more Zelda in a newer package, then this was an amazing game for them. That seems to be a good portion of the media from what the reviews say.
However, I'm guessing some of us expected the game to at least change the formula a little bit and feel fresh. It feels like the same game that Nintendo's been putting out for ten years now in a new, shinier package and that just doesn't really cut it. The game seems to punish exploration (tiny wallets) while emphasizing it (digging for rupees, golden bugs, chests by the dozens, etc.) and it's not helping the game. There's only one upgrade to the wallet (holds up to 600 rupees) before it's unlimited and that just doesn't cut it. Add in the lack of shops and items to spend it on and you've got a recipe for a disappointing game. The wolf parts aren't bad, but I'm not looking forward to the next section where I have to play as the wolf.
Castlevania's another game like that where the new ones don't do much that evolves the series. The GBA ones weren't much different from each other besides being brighter than CotM and having the metrosexual heroes.
Guitar Hero on the 360 won't be online, as they've been quite adamant in saying that the lag would kill any enjoyment that the game would've given you. Playing it in multiplayer in person is a great experience, moreso than doing it over the internet. Surrender is in the PS2 version, I believe it's in the first set of songs. I hope you guys don't end up spending more than $100 for the game, but I'd expect a $90 price tag whenever it releases in a few months from now.
That Madden porn thing is BS as the disc was a burned disc with a crap cover that some dumbass in California scammed a CC to return it. The photos that were released of the disc show the Madden 07 name being cut off by the hole in the middle of the disc, so it's hard to believe all these people though it was an authentic disc.
Good show as always.
However, I'm guessing some of us expected the game to at least change the formula a little bit and feel fresh. It feels like the same game that Nintendo's been putting out for ten years now in a new, shinier package and that just doesn't really cut it. The game seems to punish exploration (tiny wallets) while emphasizing it (digging for rupees, golden bugs, chests by the dozens, etc.) and it's not helping the game. There's only one upgrade to the wallet (holds up to 600 rupees) before it's unlimited and that just doesn't cut it. Add in the lack of shops and items to spend it on and you've got a recipe for a disappointing game. The wolf parts aren't bad, but I'm not looking forward to the next section where I have to play as the wolf.
Castlevania's another game like that where the new ones don't do much that evolves the series. The GBA ones weren't much different from each other besides being brighter than CotM and having the metrosexual heroes.
Guitar Hero on the 360 won't be online, as they've been quite adamant in saying that the lag would kill any enjoyment that the game would've given you. Playing it in multiplayer in person is a great experience, moreso than doing it over the internet. Surrender is in the PS2 version, I believe it's in the first set of songs. I hope you guys don't end up spending more than $100 for the game, but I'd expect a $90 price tag whenever it releases in a few months from now.
That Madden porn thing is BS as the disc was a burned disc with a crap cover that some dumbass in California scammed a CC to return it. The photos that were released of the disc show the Madden 07 name being cut off by the hole in the middle of the disc, so it's hard to believe all these people though it was an authentic disc.
Good show as always.
First you put to much stock into reviews. I've played Dark Cloud 1 2, Radiata Stories, and Chrono Cross. I hated all of them. Not saying they were bad though its just my opinion. I didn't like a lot of things in it that other people probably do. I don't want the games to change to conform to my tastes I just know now not to buy them because they dont suite my tastes.
Some games and genres dont need inovation. They just need more renfinment. Judge games on genre and play style. To many people want all games to merge into some wierd super genre. Do you want a puzzle/shooter/adventure/RPG/Sports/Racing et al. game. I sure don't. If you don't like the type of game Zelda is fine. But dont go saying it should change into something its not.
I turn off voice acting in all games. I hate it. Its always bad. I hate camera controll, its just one more thing to worry about. I sold Tenchu, Shadow of the Colosuss and many other games because of bad camera issues and most of those had camera controll. I had none of those issues with Zelda and it didnt have it so I dont think thats a good complaint. I am in an Orchestra profesionally and I loved the music in Zelda so whatever.
Some games and genres dont need inovation. They just need more renfinment. Judge games on genre and play style. To many people want all games to merge into some wierd super genre. Do you want a puzzle/shooter/adventure/RPG/Sports/Racing et al. game. I sure don't. If you don't like the type of game Zelda is fine. But dont go saying it should change into something its not.
I turn off voice acting in all games. I hate it. Its always bad. I hate camera controll, its just one more thing to worry about. I sold Tenchu, Shadow of the Colosuss and many other games because of bad camera issues and most of those had camera controll. I had none of those issues with Zelda and it didnt have it so I dont think thats a good complaint. I am in an Orchestra profesionally and I loved the music in Zelda so whatever.
[quote name='FriskyTanuki']
Castlevania's another game like that where the new ones don't do much that evolves the series. The GBA ones weren't much different from each other besides being brighter than CotM and having the metrosexual heroes.
[/QUOTE]
Thats a good one. They tried to change Castlevania with the 2 N64 games and the PS2 games. All of them were hated by fans and didnt sell that well at all. Then they decieded to do a new 2d game that was like the ones that sold better and guess what? The GBA and now DS games sell fantastically and make Konami more money then the 3d console ones.
In the end if you're sick of a game you once loved a lot its time to try a different genre. There are a lot of games out there. And many would argue that the portable Castlevanias were innovative. They were just innovative in there genre. Adding new ways to make weapons with the soul system. Or the 2 player element in the new DS game as well as the portraits that lead to different places.
Spoilers
Id say the same for Zelda. Its got that marble game in the fish shop, a greatly expanded and fun fishing mode, Flying segments, Scripted Horse fighting segments, The wolf thing which I thought was cool and fresh ( cant beat leaping and hanging on to peoples necks to kill them), the addition of every ganon fight from all the other Zelda games at the end was a nice touch that surprised me, the temple in the Sky felt completly new to me for one, the new spinner item, the ability to kill people with the arrows hanging from walls and the ceiling in the second dungean.
All of those things and more felt new to me just like a lot of elements in other series are fun. A series is a series for a reason. People want more of the same.
Look at new super Mario Bros. Thats sold 4 million copies in Japan alone and continues to sell extremy well worldwide.
Castlevania's another game like that where the new ones don't do much that evolves the series. The GBA ones weren't much different from each other besides being brighter than CotM and having the metrosexual heroes.
[/QUOTE]
Thats a good one. They tried to change Castlevania with the 2 N64 games and the PS2 games. All of them were hated by fans and didnt sell that well at all. Then they decieded to do a new 2d game that was like the ones that sold better and guess what? The GBA and now DS games sell fantastically and make Konami more money then the 3d console ones.
In the end if you're sick of a game you once loved a lot its time to try a different genre. There are a lot of games out there. And many would argue that the portable Castlevanias were innovative. They were just innovative in there genre. Adding new ways to make weapons with the soul system. Or the 2 player element in the new DS game as well as the portraits that lead to different places.
Spoilers
Id say the same for Zelda. Its got that marble game in the fish shop, a greatly expanded and fun fishing mode, Flying segments, Scripted Horse fighting segments, The wolf thing which I thought was cool and fresh ( cant beat leaping and hanging on to peoples necks to kill them), the addition of every ganon fight from all the other Zelda games at the end was a nice touch that surprised me, the temple in the Sky felt completly new to me for one, the new spinner item, the ability to kill people with the arrows hanging from walls and the ceiling in the second dungean.
All of those things and more felt new to me just like a lot of elements in other series are fun. A series is a series for a reason. People want more of the same.
Look at new super Mario Bros. Thats sold 4 million copies in Japan alone and continues to sell extremy well worldwide.
Re: Legend of Frank. Do Zelda or other big franchises get some leeway with review scores? Perhaps. But, ask yourself this, do titles like Zelda (Especially TP on Wii with the wiimote) get extra scrutiny and criticism that other games wouldn't? Absolutely. Had Tp been released by a random 3rd party at Wii launch the game may have gotten even better scores, as Legend of Frank wouldn't have had to live up to both Zelda's and Nintendo's reputation.
Think about how Halo 2 both gathered great acclaim, and also took a lot of shit over changes and new stuff that wasn't in Halo. If Halo 2 was released by someone other than Bungie for Xbox, and it was called Battle or the Ring starring Sergeant Tuff. It would have gotten better reviews than Halo 2. Why? Because Sgt. Tuff didn't have to live up to Master Chief and Bungie's legacy.
The monster franchises that have a legacy of greatness didn't dupe reviewer's and gamers into buying them because of their name. They had to start somewhere. And that legacy lives or dies based on how they live up to that legacy. Nintendo by and large is the best at keeping their legacy spotless. Granted there is a mythic quality that people imbue onto games and movies and what not. The Star Wars movies are another example. The first Trilogy was by in large, a hoaky set of blast em ups. But they were very fun and very different. They spend 20 years marinating in peoples mind's and being over analyzed and blah blah blah. Then Eps I-III come out and get some shit because they aren't necessarily sweeping tragedies and emotional epics. Problem is, Eps IV-VI weren't either. They just seemed that way because the legacy became bigger than the films really were.
Sonic was a franchise with a legacy for the 1st part of the 16 bit age, many placing it above Mario. But, reviewers didn't accept it when the games got bad. Tomb Raider was very similar as well, but reviewers didnt cut it slack when it got bad. Many a franchise has taken a tumble due to one sub-par game.
The bottom line is, is that Zelda is a damn good game any way you look at it. It may have received a bump from reviewers via nostaligia. But I'd argue that just as many reviewers over scrutinized it just because it was Zelda. Trust me when Halo 3 hits, it will be the same. Some people will bust one because it's Halo. Some people will nitpick over the smallest shit, precisely because it is Halo. Legacy is earned.
Think about how Halo 2 both gathered great acclaim, and also took a lot of shit over changes and new stuff that wasn't in Halo. If Halo 2 was released by someone other than Bungie for Xbox, and it was called Battle or the Ring starring Sergeant Tuff. It would have gotten better reviews than Halo 2. Why? Because Sgt. Tuff didn't have to live up to Master Chief and Bungie's legacy.
The monster franchises that have a legacy of greatness didn't dupe reviewer's and gamers into buying them because of their name. They had to start somewhere. And that legacy lives or dies based on how they live up to that legacy. Nintendo by and large is the best at keeping their legacy spotless. Granted there is a mythic quality that people imbue onto games and movies and what not. The Star Wars movies are another example. The first Trilogy was by in large, a hoaky set of blast em ups. But they were very fun and very different. They spend 20 years marinating in peoples mind's and being over analyzed and blah blah blah. Then Eps I-III come out and get some shit because they aren't necessarily sweeping tragedies and emotional epics. Problem is, Eps IV-VI weren't either. They just seemed that way because the legacy became bigger than the films really were.
Sonic was a franchise with a legacy for the 1st part of the 16 bit age, many placing it above Mario. But, reviewers didn't accept it when the games got bad. Tomb Raider was very similar as well, but reviewers didnt cut it slack when it got bad. Many a franchise has taken a tumble due to one sub-par game.
The bottom line is, is that Zelda is a damn good game any way you look at it. It may have received a bump from reviewers via nostaligia. But I'd argue that just as many reviewers over scrutinized it just because it was Zelda. Trust me when Halo 3 hits, it will be the same. Some people will bust one because it's Halo. Some people will nitpick over the smallest shit, precisely because it is Halo. Legacy is earned.
Any of you guys read Aeropause?
http://www.aeropause.com/archives/2007/01/the_legend_of_f_1.php
http://www.aeropause.com/archives/2007/01/the_legend_of_f_1.php
I have been a long time listener, however I have never registered on your forum, as I seldom get any European deals (and even less Norwegian ones), and such never saw any need.
However, your last episodes comment on Zelda VS Oblivion made it rather urgent that I give my internet opinion about your show. (Yes, I know its worth a lot)
When talking about Zelda, you compare this game to Oblivion as well as older versions of itself. However, I did not hear anything about Oblivion compared to its former incarnations.
Why is does Zelda have to stand up to all it’s older games and outperform them, while Oblivion gets the free slip and does not have to compete with it’s older versions? (The Elder Scroll series) Should we not ask why Oblivion is better then Daggerfall, Morrowind or Arena rather then why it is better then Zelda? Since, if you have played all these games (and I have) Oblivion is clearly a letdown gameplay wise against Morrowind, and size and grandeur it’s lacking against Daggerfall.
Zelda on the other hand, many agree that they have made the “perfect Zelda” (not the perfect game I might add, but the perfect version of Ocarina of Time’esk Zelda)
So in your “gameranking” talk you should keep a consistent idea on how to rate these games. Should they be rated against other of the same general genre, or should they be ranked up against there former incarnations? Having one set of rules for Zelda, and then another for Oblivion is just wrong.
Other then this minor point where I thought you where way of base on both my favourite series of games I did really enjoy the show. Wombat sounded more up-to-date and added a lot more to the show then he usually does. Your latest show was a double team supreme rather then “host and co-host” setup that I usually get from you guys. Keep it up.
However, your last episodes comment on Zelda VS Oblivion made it rather urgent that I give my internet opinion about your show. (Yes, I know its worth a lot)
When talking about Zelda, you compare this game to Oblivion as well as older versions of itself. However, I did not hear anything about Oblivion compared to its former incarnations.
Why is does Zelda have to stand up to all it’s older games and outperform them, while Oblivion gets the free slip and does not have to compete with it’s older versions? (The Elder Scroll series) Should we not ask why Oblivion is better then Daggerfall, Morrowind or Arena rather then why it is better then Zelda? Since, if you have played all these games (and I have) Oblivion is clearly a letdown gameplay wise against Morrowind, and size and grandeur it’s lacking against Daggerfall.
Zelda on the other hand, many agree that they have made the “perfect Zelda” (not the perfect game I might add, but the perfect version of Ocarina of Time’esk Zelda)
So in your “gameranking” talk you should keep a consistent idea on how to rate these games. Should they be rated against other of the same general genre, or should they be ranked up against there former incarnations? Having one set of rules for Zelda, and then another for Oblivion is just wrong.
Other then this minor point where I thought you where way of base on both my favourite series of games I did really enjoy the show. Wombat sounded more up-to-date and added a lot more to the show then he usually does. Your latest show was a double team supreme rather then “host and co-host” setup that I usually get from you guys. Keep it up.
It looks like this "Legend of Frank" discussion has gotten us a handful of new registers.
I had no idea there were actual listeners to the CAGcast besides CAGers. I guess it just goes to show you how popular the show is becoming.
Good job, Cheapy and Wombat.
I had no idea there were actual listeners to the CAGcast besides CAGers. I guess it just goes to show you how popular the show is becoming.
Good job, Cheapy and Wombat.
dadeisvenm
CAGiversary!
Wow Cheapy... your sounding either a little blonde or old. Wombat caught you on the CAG BAG and that was funny.
Um.. a few things.
I do love your show and I have to write up a iTunes review.
You are right about the current state of "game reviews". I'll take it further and say that there really needs to be an accountabilty for reviews in the sense that games should be graded on their framework. I remember play Mario 64 and saying, "Wow this game is great, but I played this already in JumpingFlash! pr the PS1." and when Mario Sunshine came out "Wow... this is like Mario 64... oh well." Reviewers often write blank checks for franchises like Mario, Madden, NBA Live (no longer the best NBA game), and Zelda. If the Framework is basically the same (Metroid Prime 2, LoZTP, Ghost Recon, Ranbow Six, Metal Gear, etc...) the only factor for warranting a higher score is gameplay. If nothing new is brought to the table, then the score declines and gameplay also declines.
Wombat... awsome as usual. I was tihnking, "Wow. That would be awsome to be working for THE CAG Wombat", but then I realized "I guess we can't be talking about games all day." bummer.
Cool cast. Keep it up.
Wombat caught you on the CAG BAG and that was funny. Um.. a few things.
I do love your show and I have to write up a iTunes review.
You are right about the current state of "game reviews". I'll take it further and say that there really needs to be an accountabilty for reviews in the sense that games should be graded on their framework. I remember play Mario 64 and saying, "Wow this game is great, but I played this already in JumpingFlash! pr the PS1." and when Mario Sunshine came out "Wow... this is like Mario 64... oh well." Reviewers often write blank checks for franchises like Mario, Madden, NBA Live (no longer the best NBA game), and Zelda. If the Framework is basically the same (Metroid Prime 2, LoZTP, Ghost Recon, Ranbow Six, Metal Gear, etc...) the only factor for warranting a higher score is gameplay. If nothing new is brought to the table, then the score declines and gameplay also declines.
Wombat... awsome as usual. I was tihnking, "Wow. That would be awsome to be working for THE CAG Wombat", but then I realized "I guess we can't be talking about games all day." bummer.
Cool cast. Keep it up.
THANK YOU CHEAPY, I have always hated how much praise zelda gets for just being a zelda game, the bottom line is if the games didnt have link in them they would be cast aside very quickly due to be a completely subpar series all together, It's difficult to knock a series like that simply because your dealing with a doublebladed sword, for every honest criticizim you bring out about zelda your infuriating a massive fanbase who drinks nintendos mediocrity.
[quote name='usickenme']Now we know the real reason for the discussion about Zelda.[/quote]My guess is that you are kidding, but the reality is that this discussion came about while Mrs. Cheapy and I were playing Oblivion during her New Year's break. In our quest to finish the game (and get my remaining nerd points), I asked her if she thought it would be tough to go back to playing Zelda when we were done.
The conversation went on from there and I added it to the show's outline so I wouldn't forget.
But seeing how sucessful this topic was, look forward to next week's discussions:
1) Why Mario games are overrated
2) Why the Wii will fail
3) Metal Gear Solid is garbage
4) Resistance is better than Halo
5) Everything sucks
The conversation went on from there and I added it to the show's outline so I wouldn't forget.
But seeing how sucessful this topic was, look forward to next week's discussions:
1) Why Mario games are overrated
2) Why the Wii will fail
3) Metal Gear Solid is garbage
4) Resistance is better than Halo
5) Everything sucks
MysteryMan2333
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
[quote name='CheapyD']
5) Everything sucks[/quote]
Can't wait to hear the argument for that one. Some thoughts on this episode:
1) Regarding the comments about being a cheap ass gamer, I think the fact that you're spending $40 for a $60 next gen game does qualify you as a cheap ass gamer. We're in the beginning of the next gen cycle. I think waiting for a good game to drop to $10 in price a year after the coming out is current gen mentaility. Oblivion has been out almost a year and hasn't even been reduced to $40 yet. So, Cheapy is still the OG when it comes to being a 'cheap ass gamer'... however, him spending $130 on a microphone proves that he is not a 'cheap ass'. If it were me, I'd say the current damn mic is fine.
2) I completely agree that Zelda would simply not be as highly regarded if it were called The Legend of Frank. I'm not really sure if people really 'anticipate' a review, but Zelda, Halo, Resident Evil, etc. are all reviews that I believe people tend to look forward to. You don't want to read that your favorite series of all time just received an 8.5. Of course that's a great score, but if that's your favorites series you'd probably feel like you got stabbed in the back. Therefore, I think reviewers definitely try to appeal to the audience. I'm sure Gamespot got plenty of hate mail saying they were fools for giving Zelda an 8.8... most reviewers probably don't want to deal with the insanity that is a fanboy.
However, I don't think that the series hasn't really developed is a valid point. As Wombat pointed out, if you like a game a certain way, you're perfectly content with it staying that way. People are creatures of habit. I fully expect there to be a bit of a backlash when I go to CheapAssGamer and find the sites main page completely changed. However, 95% of the time, after a month later I completely forget that a site was just revamped. Cheapy, are you planning on letting people see the new site before you modify it, to get their opinion? Or are you just going to spring it on people and shock the world?
3) I don't really have an opinion one way or the other regarding the Video remixes, but it sounds like it would be a lot of work to maintain.
5) Everything sucks[/quote]
Can't wait to hear the argument for that one. Some thoughts on this episode:
1) Regarding the comments about being a cheap ass gamer, I think the fact that you're spending $40 for a $60 next gen game does qualify you as a cheap ass gamer. We're in the beginning of the next gen cycle. I think waiting for a good game to drop to $10 in price a year after the coming out is current gen mentaility. Oblivion has been out almost a year and hasn't even been reduced to $40 yet. So, Cheapy is still the OG when it comes to being a 'cheap ass gamer'... however, him spending $130 on a microphone proves that he is not a 'cheap ass'. If it were me, I'd say the current damn mic is fine.
2) I completely agree that Zelda would simply not be as highly regarded if it were called The Legend of Frank. I'm not really sure if people really 'anticipate' a review, but Zelda, Halo, Resident Evil, etc. are all reviews that I believe people tend to look forward to. You don't want to read that your favorite series of all time just received an 8.5. Of course that's a great score, but if that's your favorites series you'd probably feel like you got stabbed in the back. Therefore, I think reviewers definitely try to appeal to the audience. I'm sure Gamespot got plenty of hate mail saying they were fools for giving Zelda an 8.8... most reviewers probably don't want to deal with the insanity that is a fanboy.
However, I don't think that the series hasn't really developed is a valid point. As Wombat pointed out, if you like a game a certain way, you're perfectly content with it staying that way. People are creatures of habit. I fully expect there to be a bit of a backlash when I go to CheapAssGamer and find the sites main page completely changed. However, 95% of the time, after a month later I completely forget that a site was just revamped. Cheapy, are you planning on letting people see the new site before you modify it, to get their opinion? Or are you just going to spring it on people and shock the world?
3) I don't really have an opinion one way or the other regarding the Video remixes, but it sounds like it would be a lot of work to maintain.
[quote name='CheapyD']My guess is that you are kidding, but the reality is that this discussion came about while Mrs. Cheapy and I were playing Oblivion during her New Year's break. In our quest to finish the game (and get my remaining nerd points), I asked her if she thought it would be tough to go back to playing Zelda when we were done.
The conversation went on from there and I added it to the show's outline so I wouldn't forget.
But seeing how sucessful this topic was, look forward to next week's discussions:
1) Why Mario games are overrated
2) Why the Wii will fail
3) Metal Gear Solid is garbage
4) Resistance is better than Halo
5) Everything sucks[/quote]
You forgot 6)PS3 > Xbox 360/Wii. :lol:
The conversation went on from there and I added it to the show's outline so I wouldn't forget.
But seeing how sucessful this topic was, look forward to next week's discussions:
1) Why Mario games are overrated
2) Why the Wii will fail
3) Metal Gear Solid is garbage
4) Resistance is better than Halo
5) Everything sucks[/quote]
You forgot 6)PS3 > Xbox 360/Wii. :lol:
[quote name='CheapyD']My guess is that you are kidding, but the reality is that this discussion came about while Mrs. Cheapy and I were playing Oblivion during her New Year's break. In our quest to finish the game (and get my remaining nerd points), I asked her if she thought it would be tough to go back to playing Zelda when we were done.
The conversation went on from there and I added it to the show's outline so I wouldn't forget.
But seeing how sucessful this topic was, look forward to next week's discussions:
1) Why Mario games are overrated
2) Why the Wii will fail
3) Metal Gear Solid is garbage
4) Resistance is better than Halo
5) Everything sucks[/quote]
You forgot #6
6) Cheapy and Wombat are bigger than Jesus.
The conversation went on from there and I added it to the show's outline so I wouldn't forget.
But seeing how sucessful this topic was, look forward to next week's discussions:
1) Why Mario games are overrated
2) Why the Wii will fail
3) Metal Gear Solid is garbage
4) Resistance is better than Halo
5) Everything sucks[/quote]
You forgot #6
6) Cheapy and Wombat are bigger than Jesus.
variablesunknown
CAGiversary!
Cheapy,
I think you totally hit the nail on the head with your Zelda argument. Six months ago my 360 crapped out right in the midst of my major Oblivion addiction. I played Windwaker while I waited for a new 360 and the whole time I kept thinking, "this game is good in its own way but it just cannot compare to Oblivion!" Comparing Zelda to Oblivion, in my opionion, is like comparing playing in a small fenced in playground vs. playing in Central park (Oblivion even has muggers and drug addicts!) Once you have experienced how limitless and beautiful Oblivion is it is hard to take Zelda seriously. I aplogize for any flamebait, just one man's opionion.
I think you totally hit the nail on the head with your Zelda argument. Six months ago my 360 crapped out right in the midst of my major Oblivion addiction. I played Windwaker while I waited for a new 360 and the whole time I kept thinking, "this game is good in its own way but it just cannot compare to Oblivion!" Comparing Zelda to Oblivion, in my opionion, is like comparing playing in a small fenced in playground vs. playing in Central park (Oblivion even has muggers and drug addicts!) Once you have experienced how limitless and beautiful Oblivion is it is hard to take Zelda seriously. I aplogize for any flamebait, just one man's opionion.
usickenme
CAGiversary!
[quote name='CheapyD']My guess is that you are kidding, but the reality is that this discussion came about while Mrs. Cheapy and I were playing Oblivion during her New Year's break. In our quest to finish the game (and get my remaining nerd points), I asked her if she thought it would be tough to go back to playing Zelda when we were done. [/QUOTE]
You would be correct sir. While other websites stoop to such mechanics to enhance traffic, I'm sure you are just 2 gamers talking.
Since you were documenting the conversation...what was her answer?
I will say this about the 2 games. When, I hit an enemy in Zelda, it feels like I am hitting an enemy.
You would be correct sir. While other websites stoop to such mechanics to enhance traffic, I'm sure you are just 2 gamers talking.
Since you were documenting the conversation...what was her answer?
I will say this about the 2 games. When, I hit an enemy in Zelda, it feels like I am hitting an enemy.
[quote name='CheapyD']But seeing how sucessful this topic was, look forward to next week's discussions:
1) Why Mario games are overrated
2) Why the Wii will fail
3) Metal Gear Solid is garbage
4) Resistance is better than Halo
5) Everything sucks[/QUOTE]
It sounds like Dennis D Fat is getting a creative credit for the next CagCast.
But, if I may be frank, I'm glad you had the courage to confront the Zelda political machine. Not that this free pass isn't given to every established, overrated franchise, but with Zelda, speaking ill of it in mixed company is like desecrating a sacred gaming shrine, even if the game really does suck. Most shy away from controversy by unconcious choice, claiming they simply don't like Zelda games. Glad you had the danglies to take a stand on this average game that never fails to obscure it's mediocrity with it's own built-in hype wagon.
Many have rightly compared it to all other previous Zeldas, but while playing in the first few hours of TP, I came to realize I had already played this game at the Gamecube's launch. It was called Star Fox Adventures. It looks like they may have even used the same graphics engine. Both are good looking and semi-entertaining games, yet Fox gets the shaft becuase his name isn't Zelda. You were spot on in your analysis.
I also like the idea of a video CagCast with CAG made flash videos, or just some sort of feature on the site. I also think you should open up the content requirements to anything videogame related, not just based on audio from previous CAGCasts.
1) Why Mario games are overrated
2) Why the Wii will fail
3) Metal Gear Solid is garbage
4) Resistance is better than Halo
5) Everything sucks[/QUOTE]
It sounds like Dennis D Fat is getting a creative credit for the next CagCast.
But, if I may be frank, I'm glad you had the courage to confront the Zelda political machine. Not that this free pass isn't given to every established, overrated franchise, but with Zelda, speaking ill of it in mixed company is like desecrating a sacred gaming shrine, even if the game really does suck. Most shy away from controversy by unconcious choice, claiming they simply don't like Zelda games. Glad you had the danglies to take a stand on this average game that never fails to obscure it's mediocrity with it's own built-in hype wagon.
Many have rightly compared it to all other previous Zeldas, but while playing in the first few hours of TP, I came to realize I had already played this game at the Gamecube's launch. It was called Star Fox Adventures. It looks like they may have even used the same graphics engine. Both are good looking and semi-entertaining games, yet Fox gets the shaft becuase his name isn't Zelda. You were spot on in your analysis.
I also like the idea of a video CagCast with CAG made flash videos, or just some sort of feature on the site. I also think you should open up the content requirements to anything videogame related, not just based on audio from previous CAGCasts.
joeljermon
CAGiversary!
Starfox Adventures is a bland collectathon (vintage Rare) with mediocre level design and sloppy combat (Zelda's combat isn't deep, but it controls well and has a visceral feel to it). And the game had a good amount of hype leading up to it, too - it was one of the first large single-player games for Gamecube, it had great graphics for its time (still impressive today), and Starfox was still a popular and respected franchise back then. Not Zelda-level hype, but you can't act as if it didn't have any hype to ride on. People just didn't think it was that great a game.
Twilight Princess had a lot of hype, and while it isn't the absolute best game ever like some people thought it would be, it IS a very good game that does a lot of things right and has relatively few flaws for a game of its scope, and I think it's rude and abrasive to basically say "Zelda is just a mediocre ball of hype, and everyone who likes TP is wrong. I'm tired of people wimping out and saying that they merely don't like Zelda, CheapyD is one of the few people telling the truth." I don't like Halo 2 much, but at least I don't spit on the preferences of those who do.
For a recent example of a game from a huge series where the name didn't save it, I'd like to point to FFIII DS. It's under 80% on Gamerankings, and the general gamer reaction is "eh, it's alright." FF is nearly as big a franchise as Zelda (maybe even bigger!), and while FF3 wasn't hyped as much as XII (which is awesome, BTW), a lot of people were still excited about getting the elusive "lost FF" that never made it to America. Going way back, even Daikatana is a good example that massive hype doesn't equal a free ticket to success. Daikatana had massive hype, fanboys saying it would be the best game ever, and while it was not an established franchise, John Romero's (one of the big minds behind Doom and Wolfenstein, and the rockstar of the industry at the time) association with it was almost as good hypewise. The game is now recognized as one of the biggest flops of all time. Hype and name can help a game, but it's not going to guarantee review success or even always sale success.
Twilight Princess had a lot of hype, and while it isn't the absolute best game ever like some people thought it would be, it IS a very good game that does a lot of things right and has relatively few flaws for a game of its scope, and I think it's rude and abrasive to basically say "Zelda is just a mediocre ball of hype, and everyone who likes TP is wrong. I'm tired of people wimping out and saying that they merely don't like Zelda, CheapyD is one of the few people telling the truth." I don't like Halo 2 much, but at least I don't spit on the preferences of those who do.
For a recent example of a game from a huge series where the name didn't save it, I'd like to point to FFIII DS. It's under 80% on Gamerankings, and the general gamer reaction is "eh, it's alright." FF is nearly as big a franchise as Zelda (maybe even bigger!), and while FF3 wasn't hyped as much as XII (which is awesome, BTW), a lot of people were still excited about getting the elusive "lost FF" that never made it to America. Going way back, even Daikatana is a good example that massive hype doesn't equal a free ticket to success. Daikatana had massive hype, fanboys saying it would be the best game ever, and while it was not an established franchise, John Romero's (one of the big minds behind Doom and Wolfenstein, and the rockstar of the industry at the time) association with it was almost as good hypewise. The game is now recognized as one of the biggest flops of all time. Hype and name can help a game, but it's not going to guarantee review success or even always sale success.
FriskyTanuki
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 36 (100%)
[quote name='bmulligan']Many have rightly compared it to all other previous Zeldas, but while playing in the first few hours of TP, I came to realize I had already played this game at the Gamecube's launch. It was called Star Fox Adventures. It looks like they may have even used the same graphics engine. Both are good looking and semi-entertaining games, yet Fox gets the shaft becuase his name isn't Zelda. You were spot on in your analysis.[/quote]
s I didn't know the GC launched in Sept. of 2002. The more you know.
s I didn't know the GC launched in Sept. of 2002. The more you know.
[quote name='FriskyTanuki']s I didn't know the GC launched in Sept. of 2002. The more you know.[/QUOTE]
That's when I bought my Cube and I thought it was a launch game, or close to it. Whatever the case, the gameplay is almost identical to a four year old game, as are the graphics, with tacked on Wii controls.
I had high expectations for this game and keep wondering what the extra year and a half development time was used for. Nintendo had a chance to break the franchise from it's gated community, but I guess it's easier to paint a fence than to build a new one.
I can't wait for them to reissue Mario Cart, Mario Baseball, and Mario Tennis with tacked on Wii controls for $50 a pop. They've got a good scam going. It's almost as arrogant as Sony's belief that 40 million gamers would pay $600 for any new Sony game console.
s I didn't know the GC launched in Sept. of 2002. The more you know.[/QUOTE]That's when I bought my Cube and I thought it was a launch game, or close to it. Whatever the case, the gameplay is almost identical to a four year old game, as are the graphics, with tacked on Wii controls.
I had high expectations for this game and keep wondering what the extra year and a half development time was used for. Nintendo had a chance to break the franchise from it's gated community, but I guess it's easier to paint a fence than to build a new one.
I can't wait for them to reissue Mario Cart, Mario Baseball, and Mario Tennis with tacked on Wii controls for $50 a pop. They've got a good scam going. It's almost as arrogant as Sony's belief that 40 million gamers would pay $600 for any new Sony game console.
futhamucka
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 24 (100%)
[quote name='bmulligan']I can't wait for them to reissue Mario Cart, Mario Baseball, and Mario Tennis with tacked on Wii controls for $50 a pop. They've got a good scam going. It's almost as arrogant as Sony's belief that 40 million gamers would pay $600 for any new Sony game console.[/quote]
The main difference here is that all the Nintendo games you mentioned were excellent titles. Sony is charging $600 for a console that plays the same games you can play on a 360, which costs much less. Of course they will bring out a killer app, though I have yet to see anything that makes buying a PS3 make sense.
I don't have a Wii, and I've been playing Zelda on the Gamecube. I've really enjoyed it so far (i'm at the water temple). I do think that the zelda name does automatically raise scores, but it also raises the comfort level with the game. you know how a zelda game is going to work when you start playing, and then it's just up to the story to draw you in. No zelda game is beyond criticism, the Wind Waker (which I thought was fantastic) was given a hard time by a lot of Zelda fans, and the timed game system in Majora's Mask was very frustrating.
The main difference here is that all the Nintendo games you mentioned were excellent titles. Sony is charging $600 for a console that plays the same games you can play on a 360, which costs much less. Of course they will bring out a killer app, though I have yet to see anything that makes buying a PS3 make sense.
I don't have a Wii, and I've been playing Zelda on the Gamecube. I've really enjoyed it so far (i'm at the water temple). I do think that the zelda name does automatically raise scores, but it also raises the comfort level with the game. you know how a zelda game is going to work when you start playing, and then it's just up to the story to draw you in. No zelda game is beyond criticism, the Wind Waker (which I thought was fantastic) was given a hard time by a lot of Zelda fans, and the timed game system in Majora's Mask was very frustrating.
I think Zelda may suffer from the Tony Hawk syndrome. Zelda was such a strong franchise to begin with that living up to itself with each new game gets harder and harder. When you go in a different direction with the franchise Zelda II or Wind Waker you get people complaining that it isn't what Zelda should be. I think even from the beginning of Twilight Princess's development they mentioned how it was the next Zelda that gamers were asking for. This was basically a new Ocarina Of Time, the favorite Zelda game to many.
As for the Sphinx argument it does somewhat rely on the characters and the worlds they reside in. I think Link and Hyrule look a little more appealing than the world and characters created for Sphinx. I think when people look at a Zelda title next to Sphinx they would go with Zelda. It's not to say that the game is bad at all but I do think its obvious people gravitate towards the Solid Snakes, the Marcus Fenixs, and the Dante's quicker than a fairly generic character. I think some really good games could get passed on but hey we know better right?
Personally I don't like first person games so I can't comment on Oblivion or the greatness it contains but as for Zelda I really like the game. I was among the people who thought the Wii controls would be annoying as hell. After playing the game for awhile there was a point where everything started to really click and I found myself more immersed in this game then I have with Zelda in awhile. Although the story is minimal it did draw me in more as well. I am currently on the 6th dungeon and as of right now my score would be somehwere in the 9-10 range. I think if anything people feel let down because they know what to expect. I think a good question that is similar to the Frank one.....would be to ask if no other Zelda title ever existed then how would you feel about Twilight Princess?
As for the Sphinx argument it does somewhat rely on the characters and the worlds they reside in. I think Link and Hyrule look a little more appealing than the world and characters created for Sphinx. I think when people look at a Zelda title next to Sphinx they would go with Zelda. It's not to say that the game is bad at all but I do think its obvious people gravitate towards the Solid Snakes, the Marcus Fenixs, and the Dante's quicker than a fairly generic character. I think some really good games could get passed on but hey we know better right?
Personally I don't like first person games so I can't comment on Oblivion or the greatness it contains but as for Zelda I really like the game. I was among the people who thought the Wii controls would be annoying as hell. After playing the game for awhile there was a point where everything started to really click and I found myself more immersed in this game then I have with Zelda in awhile. Although the story is minimal it did draw me in more as well. I am currently on the 6th dungeon and as of right now my score would be somehwere in the 9-10 range. I think if anything people feel let down because they know what to expect. I think a good question that is similar to the Frank one.....would be to ask if no other Zelda title ever existed then how would you feel about Twilight Princess?
mriswyth
CAGiversary!
I’m not a huge Zelda fan. I’ve played “The Legend of Zelda”, “Link to the Past”, “Ocarina of Time”, “Wind Waker”, and “Twilight Princess.” Right now (about 45 hours in), this is probably my favorite Zelda. Usually by the time that I get 15 hours into a game I’m beginning to think that it better wrap up soon or I’m not going to make it to the end.
To me, this game is a 10.
I haven’t played Oblivion, but I did try Morrowind and couldn’t really take it. It is too big for my time and my life anymore. (I should say that I played Elder Scrolls: Arena when I was in High School and back then I loved it). I’m the guy who has cut every single blade of grass in Zelda. I must have and do everything in the game, and if getting and doing everything becomes too repetitive to me I lose interest very quickly. Morrowind was a 2 or 3 in my mind, because I couldn’t deal with it.
CheapyD’s point about similar unknown games getting the raw deal is applicable, however. My wife is a Zelda fanatic. She has played everything except the CD-I games and most of them multiple times. She also LOVED Sphinx, Beyond Good and Evil, Fable, Jade Empire, and Azurik from the last generation. She also played most of these games more than once. Some of these games got blasted in reviews, but she thinks they were just as good. If the comment above about “Star Fox Adventures” is true, I would love to pick this up for her. Anyone else agree with that statement?
"More of the same" isn't always bad. My preference is First/Third Person shooters, and I think most people would agree that online is usually what makes those games stand out and last, but has anything really changed since I first connected with my friend's modem to play Doom?
Are the scores just “fanboy pandering”? Maybe, or maybe many of the reviewers were like me and just really thought this was finally the Zelda game that got everything right.
In this one, I’ve just finished “Arbiter’s Grounds” and I feel like I have played the most unique dungeon ever.
I haven’t played Oblivion, but I did try Morrowind and couldn’t really take it. It is too big for my time and my life anymore. (I should say that I played Elder Scrolls: Arena when I was in High School and back then I loved it). I’m the guy who has cut every single blade of grass in Zelda. I must have and do everything in the game, and if getting and doing everything becomes too repetitive to me I lose interest very quickly. Morrowind was a 2 or 3 in my mind, because I couldn’t deal with it.
CheapyD’s point about similar unknown games getting the raw deal is applicable, however. My wife is a Zelda fanatic. She has played everything except the CD-I games and most of them multiple times. She also LOVED Sphinx, Beyond Good and Evil, Fable, Jade Empire, and Azurik from the last generation. She also played most of these games more than once. Some of these games got blasted in reviews, but she thinks they were just as good. If the comment above about “Star Fox Adventures” is true, I would love to pick this up for her. Anyone else agree with that statement?
"More of the same" isn't always bad. My preference is First/Third Person shooters, and I think most people would agree that online is usually what makes those games stand out and last, but has anything really changed since I first connected with my friend's modem to play Doom?
Are the scores just “fanboy pandering”? Maybe, or maybe many of the reviewers were like me and just really thought this was finally the Zelda game that got everything right.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='bmulligan']But, if I may be frank, I'm glad you had the courage to confront the Zelda political machine.[/QUOTE]
I think you meant the "Zelda-Industrial-Complex."
I agree with your overall points, of course - but I must applaud Nintendo's brilliance with the release schedule of Twilight Princess. When it was announced that the GC version would be coming out several weeks after the Wii, people were aghast. Now, it's painfully obvious that it was strategically done to avoid accusations that TP is no different than many of the upcoming Ubisoft games that are treated with disdain for being "an old game with tacked on controls."
It's regarded as a "Wii launch title" for the very reason that it came out on Wii first, regardless of the fact that the *identical game* can be played on last generation's hardware. I've often suggested that Sony should have had Square-Enix make Final Fantasy XII a PS3 launch title, but keep the same graphics. It may be a cynical take on TP, but I think it's an accurate one.
While arguing that Zelda gets a free bonus on reviews (anywhere from 1-4 points, as a general guess), it's interesting to see how few people want to acknowledge that TP is an *old* game used to sell them *new* hardware. Is it fun? In my opinion, very much so. That doesn't change the nature of their marketing approach, of course.
I think you meant the "Zelda-Industrial-Complex."I agree with your overall points, of course - but I must applaud Nintendo's brilliance with the release schedule of Twilight Princess. When it was announced that the GC version would be coming out several weeks after the Wii, people were aghast. Now, it's painfully obvious that it was strategically done to avoid accusations that TP is no different than many of the upcoming Ubisoft games that are treated with disdain for being "an old game with tacked on controls."
It's regarded as a "Wii launch title" for the very reason that it came out on Wii first, regardless of the fact that the *identical game* can be played on last generation's hardware. I've often suggested that Sony should have had Square-Enix make Final Fantasy XII a PS3 launch title, but keep the same graphics. It may be a cynical take on TP, but I think it's an accurate one.
While arguing that Zelda gets a free bonus on reviews (anywhere from 1-4 points, as a general guess), it's interesting to see how few people want to acknowledge that TP is an *old* game used to sell them *new* hardware. Is it fun? In my opinion, very much so. That doesn't change the nature of their marketing approach, of course.
As you yourself mentioned earlier on the podcast before the Zelda discussion - people like different things. MOST REVIEWERS like Zelda. Most EVERYBODY I've spoken to - consumers, not reviewers - like Zelda. You happen to not like it as much, and that's unfortunate for you.
As another note, some people DON'T like open-ended games. Some people like having their goals set out for them. There are quite a few people - and mind you, not ones who slobber all over Zelda - that strongly hate Oblivion and would rather play Final Fantasy X.
I challenge you to discuss whether or not Halo is overrated, and whether or not Halo 3 would sell well if it was called "Ring Planet". If I played Legend of "Frank", with the same amount of craft and care, or Super Japanese Story (Final Fantasy) or Gritty Shooting Game (Gears of War, without all the hype), I would give these the same accolades. If reviewers are guilty of piling on points for favorites, you're pretty much vulnerable to the same thing. Wombat with Marvel, for instance. And that's the way things go.
Just my two cents.
As another note, some people DON'T like open-ended games. Some people like having their goals set out for them. There are quite a few people - and mind you, not ones who slobber all over Zelda - that strongly hate Oblivion and would rather play Final Fantasy X.
I challenge you to discuss whether or not Halo is overrated, and whether or not Halo 3 would sell well if it was called "Ring Planet". If I played Legend of "Frank", with the same amount of craft and care, or Super Japanese Story (Final Fantasy) or Gritty Shooting Game (Gears of War, without all the hype), I would give these the same accolades. If reviewers are guilty of piling on points for favorites, you're pretty much vulnerable to the same thing. Wombat with Marvel, for instance. And that's the way things go.
Just my two cents.
blandstalker
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 21 (100%)
[quote name='bmulligan']
Many have rightly compared it to all other previous Zeldas, but while playing in the first few hours of TP, I came to realize I had already played this game at the Gamecube's launch. It was called Star Fox Adventures. It looks like they may have even used the same graphics engine. Both are good looking and semi-entertaining games, yet Fox gets the shaft becuase his name isn't Zelda. [/quote]
Um, no.
I was one of the first in this thread to say that I think Zelda is overrated and why. I'm saying that so you don't think I'm some Zelda fanboy. But Star Fox Adentures is just bad. Really bad.
The core game of Zelda is not bad. Tired, maybe, and limited, but not bad. The core game of Zelda is also polished and appealing and fun. Star Fox Adventures is none of these things, except perhaps tired. It's pretty, I'll give it that. But the game is horrid and boring.
Though in one way, you're right to bring up Star Fox Adventures. Rare developed plenty of non-licensed things before. Why did this one require Star Fox wallpaper? The game is such a turd that they realized the only way anyone would buy or recommend it is that it had Fox and company on the box.
Interestingly, at the time, the game reviewed well. But it's been my impression that it's quite despised now. Partially because "It's Not Starfox", but also because it's bad. Really bad.
The Wikipedia entry for it has an interesting note:
73% is generous in my book, but closer to what the game deserves than the typical glowing reviews it got. But look at the reaction it got. People expected the game to be great, and when someone said it wasn't, they complained. Too bad: they could have been warned.
[quote name='mriswyth']
If the comment above about “Star Fox Adventures” is true, I would love to pick this up for her. Anyone else agree with that statement?
[/quote]
No. If you love your wife, you'll buy her something else.
Many have rightly compared it to all other previous Zeldas, but while playing in the first few hours of TP, I came to realize I had already played this game at the Gamecube's launch. It was called Star Fox Adventures. It looks like they may have even used the same graphics engine. Both are good looking and semi-entertaining games, yet Fox gets the shaft becuase his name isn't Zelda. [/quote]
Um, no.
I was one of the first in this thread to say that I think Zelda is overrated and why. I'm saying that so you don't think I'm some Zelda fanboy. But Star Fox Adentures is just bad. Really bad.
The core game of Zelda is not bad. Tired, maybe, and limited, but not bad. The core game of Zelda is also polished and appealing and fun. Star Fox Adventures is none of these things, except perhaps tired. It's pretty, I'll give it that. But the game is horrid and boring.
Though in one way, you're right to bring up Star Fox Adventures. Rare developed plenty of non-licensed things before. Why did this one require Star Fox wallpaper? The game is such a turd that they realized the only way anyone would buy or recommend it is that it had Fox and company on the box.
Interestingly, at the time, the game reviewed well. But it's been my impression that it's quite despised now. Partially because "It's Not Starfox", but also because it's bad. Really bad.
The Wikipedia entry for it has an interesting note:
73% is generous in my book, but closer to what the game deserves than the typical glowing reviews it got. But look at the reaction it got. People expected the game to be great, and when someone said it wasn't, they complained. Too bad: they could have been warned.
[quote name='mriswyth']
If the comment above about “Star Fox Adventures” is true, I would love to pick this up for her. Anyone else agree with that statement?
[/quote]
No. If you love your wife, you'll buy her something else.
bread's done