Dolphin, the GameCube and Wii emulator - Forums

(12-10-2012, 05:54 AM)Garteal Wrote: [ -> ]Even then, only familiar villages, like Kakariko Village, etc, were taken and reconstructed in other titles.
They didn't feel the same, even if they have the same name.

They're familiar to gamers in the same sense that Link and Zelda are. They change throughout many of the games, but you can consider them to be sort of "staples" that you'll see over and over. Wind Waker broke away from those staples (again, except for Hyrule at the end + Link & Zelda); it created Zelda world that was largely unrecognizable in comparison to others that had come before it.

(12-10-2012, 05:54 AM)Garteal Wrote: [ -> ]Termina was only in Majora's Mask and was also a 'brand' new, if you will.

Yes, I'm aware of that. I mentioned it because it is one of the more distinct lands from the LoZ universe (like Holodrum and Labrynna) that shares a connection with Hyrule, and hence maintains some familiarity to the player. Terminia is really considered by most as a parallel world for Hyrule at any rate.

(12-10-2012, 05:54 AM)Garteal Wrote: [ -> ]Every Zelda game feels massive and seamless.

The overworld has almost always been large for every Zelda game, but far from seamless imo. For the 2D Zelda games, you only have a specific chunk of the screen you can view at one time. To go to the next, you go to one of the ends of the of the screen at the top, bottom, right, or left. The whole game is designed in squares, and it's stitched together. That's not what I mean by seamless; it's more than just visual design and aesthetic. It'd be a different case if the games scrolled along dynamically. You're constant having to jump from screen to screen. Note: I have never played Zelda II, so I cannot speak about that. A Link to The Past got closer to a truly seamless world by allowing Link to explore areas larger than the actual screen before transitioning to the next segment.

OoT and Majora's Mask handled this a lot better since the jump into 3D allowed for more expansive environments. You could see a lot more of the world before the game made any kind of transition to another area. Still both games segmented different areas. For example, in Hyrule Field, going to Death Mountain, the Zora's Domain, or the Gerudo Valley required the game to make a new transition. The same applies for Terminia Field whenever Link goes to one of the four surrounding regions. Each of these regions in both games is similarly divided into smaller sections requiring more transitions.

TP improved even more on the seamlessness of it's world, and Skyward Sword went a step further (the maps for a single area in that game are huge). But Wind Waker really took it to a different level. You just get in your boat, and nearly every inch of the ocean is accessible to you (with all of the right items of course). You can go from one island to the next. You walk around Outset Island, stop by Windfall Island, investigate any number of islands in between that, and then go to the Forsaken Fortress all without doing any scene transitions. That's seamless. You really only make scene changes where it's pretty much required, e.g. going into dungeons or into certain locations. The whole world feels more connected and open in that way.

Quote:They're familiar to gamers in the same sense that Link and Zelda are. They change throughout many of the games, but you can consider them to be sort of "staples" that you'll see over and over. Wind Waker broke away from those staples (again, except for Hyrule at the end + Link & Zelda); it created Zelda world that was largely unrecognizable in comparison to others that had come before it.

I know what you're trying to say, but I still stand by my point that thus far, every Zelda world has been unrecognizable.
From Ocarina of Time, to Majora's Mask, to Wind Waker, to Twilight Princess and now Skyward Sword. Not even one time I've felt that I've seen something before.
They were all unique experiences.

Ah, so you meant seamless in that way.
The transition between locations/maps have never been long enough to bring me out of the games. They were pretty quick if you ask me.

And yes, you're right about Wind Waker, it was for the major part seamless, which truly stood out and I too really appreciated that.
I'm sure you also know why it was possible to only do it in Wind Waker.

>no four sword adventures

What the hell am I supposed to choose? None of these are my favorite. Four sword adventures was the only zelda title on the GC/Wii that I actually want to replay.

Quote:I'm sure if this was Reddit, someone would have sent me all the disks by now.

Sorry I had to. Not that 4chan is any better.

Quote:Until I was ~9 the only games I played pirated PC games my dad got off his boss, then it was DS games, and I only bought things I saw other people playing, and no one I knew played any Zelda games on DS, so I never saw them, so never bought them. I then had a really old and broken PS2, which a friend had told me I could keep if I could get it to turn on. PS2 never had any Zelda games (I think). Eventually when I got a Wii, I'd only have games that I'd either played at someone else's house, or that my parents decided looked good based on the fact that they were discounted because no one wanted them, and for more or less the same reasons as the DS, I never got any Zelda games. Basically, I had about no knowledge of the series' existence for years.

I feel sorry for you. You missed out on so many good games. Need a hug?

Quote:I'm 16 (and ~11.4 months).

This explains a lot.

Quote:TP is overrated imo.

How can it be overrated when the zelda fanbase generally disliked it?

Quote:Zant was a weak villain, even if he is just a front for Ganon.

I disagree. Zant was one of the few decent villans in the zelda franchise with motives and a plan that were actually semi-explained and made sense.

The ending annoyed me. SURPRISE SURPRISE GANNON IS BACK AGAIN! Come on nintendo, you've done this in almost every game. It's so predictable, cliche, and stupid. They're so creative when it comes to things like level design and mechanics but their stories are never creative and they just keep reusing the same tired old story over and over again that was originally designed to appeal to children.

Quote: Midna's baby-talk is simply annoying, and playing as Wolf Link to find those little light bugs always felt too much like a chore.

Yes and yes.

Quote:Wind Waker was much more exciting for me. The world was so different from past Zelda games (no more Hyrule or any other big place), yet the sea was so big and explorable. Every square on the map chart had something to offer. The striking visuals also helped form my favorable opinion.

My biggest problem with wind waker was the overworld. It felt like I spent most of the game sailing over a big empty ocean bored out of my skull backtracking from one tiny island to the next (they were spread out all over the place). The grid design just felt wrong. I had no drive to explore. Everything felt so stretched out and empty. Sure it was big but separating the overworld into clearly marked x/y grid coordinates with massive stretches of nothingness inbetween them is just bad design. And fast travel is annoying. The overworlds in other games where just covered with awesome stuff to find everywhere and there was no grid to tell you where things would be. Traveling was actually enjoyable.

This video encapsulates why it didn't click with me better than I ever could

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNpXnQH6n9Q

Quote:Skyward Sword is #2. Good gameplay, good controls, nice dungeons; the only thing that kinda bothered me was Fi, but my sister and I just made fun of her the whole time, so it wasn't even annoying. The real reason it's in 2nd place: no lefty mode.

Yeah fi was easily the most annoying sidekick in the history of annoying sidekicks.

Quote:The little bugs were indeed a chore. Shouldn't have stretched it throughout the whole game.

Agreed.

Quote:The world has been different for every Zelda game. I think you meant to say that you were excited by the fact that this is the first Zelda that takes place on sea.

It wasn't just the setting. The overall design was completely different.

Quote:Ofcourse. To each their own. I think Midna was actually one of the least 'annoying' sidekicks. Compared to Navi and Fi atleast. (Tatl was alright imo)

Indeed. Every single sidekick in every zelda game is annoying and makes me feel like the developer thinks I'm a 6 year old incapable of figuring anything out on my own. They should just remove this crappy mechanic already. Most of the "zelda formula" that they follow with every game is comprised of good gameplay design decisions but it's not a perfect formula, and this is one of the imperfections. I really wish there were some more mature 3D zelda titles. The only zelda games that don't handhold you are the 2D titles, but I prefer 3D games for some reason so I wish I could have both.

At its heart this series is still aimed at children, even if it is still amazing. I just wish they made some games aimed at the people who grew up with zelda rather than the people who haven't experienced it yet. This could happen if they licensed the franchise to some good developers like retro. I would make so many human offerings to get retro to make a zelda game.

' Wrote:I know what you're trying to say, but I still stand by my point that thus far, every Zelda world has been unrecognizable.
From Ocarina of Time, to Majora's Mask, to Wind Waker, to Twilight Princess and now Skyward Sword. Not even one time I've felt that I've seen something before.
They were all unique experiences.

This may be an aftereffect of my having literally been born and raised on LoZ and Super Mario games. I've played (nearly) all of the Zelda games numerous times. I can pick out elements that remind me of other games and I can connect a lot of the design choices together across the Zelda universe. I'd probably make for a good Zelda theorist if I didn't hate that sort of "hobby".

Imo, there's nothing wrong with the way past Zelda games handled their worlds. The screen-by-screen overworld was probably a technical limitation (or just easier for the programmers) and it really didn't detract from the games at all. I'm just saying the way WW handled it was striking and completely different at the time. They probably could have done something similar with Skyward Sword, but the game focuses more on the land below than the sky.

' Wrote:How can it be overrated when the zelda fanbase generally disliked it?

That was actually directed at the four people who voted for it :p

' Wrote:My biggest problem with wind waker was the overworld. It felt like I spent most of the game sailing over a big empty ocean bored out of my skull backtracking from one tiny island to the next (they were spread out all over the place). The grid design just felt wrong. I had no drive to explore. Everything felt so stretched out and empty. Sure it was big but separating the overworld into clearly marked x/y grid coordinates with massive stretches of nothingness inbetween them is just bad design. And fast travel is annoying. The overworlds in other games where just covered with awesome stuff to find everywhere and there was no grid to tell you where things would be. Traveling was actually enjoyable.

Guess I'm the opposite. I felt a need to see what was in every square of the sea; that's just my need to complete things and make sure I'm not missing out. I don't think it would have made a difference at all to me whether the map was grid based or not, as long as there were things to explore. They tried to put something in every square, but I agree, either the overworld could have been smaller (for shorter distances) or they could have crammed in more things. I would have preferred the latter myself. Traveling back and forth didn't annoy me, probably because I guess I'm someone who can enjoy doing nothing, even if it's in a video game. Those are still valid complaints against the WW overworld (plenty of reviews have hit on that), but they just don't bother me all that much.

I can understand why Lord Vador left out those other two Zelda games. Link's Crossbow Training is not a real Zelda adventure. Not that it's a bad game, but it's more of a gimmicky title to make use of the IR pointer. Four Swords is a SNES Zelda clone and is not worthy of being included with today's 3D titles.

(12-10-2012, 08:15 AM)Starscream Wrote: [ -> ]I can understand why Lord Vador left out those other two Zelda games. ... Four Swords is a SNES Zelda clone and is not worthy of being included with today's 3D titles.

What does the perceived quality of a game have to do with the completeness of the poll? It was a Zelda game released for the GC, so it should technically be an option. It's not like FSA isn't anyone's favorite (NV even has it in his profile).

(12-10-2012, 08:22 AM)Shonumi Wrote: [ -> ]What does the perceived quality of a game have to do with the completeness of the poll?

Because in my opinion, anyone would be nuts to vote for Four Swords over much better 3D Zelda adventures. There is nothing wrong with it, but it doesn't belong in the same category as the rest.

(12-10-2012, 08:25 AM)Starscream Wrote: [ -> ]Because in my opinion, anyone would be nuts to vote for Four Swords over much better 3D Zelda adventures. It doesn't belong in the same category as the rest.

And that's all it is. The poll called for favorite Zelda game released on the GC and Wii. LoZ:FSA qualifies regardless of how good or bad the game is in anyone's eyes. Including it in the poll would only really highlight its popularity (or lack thereof) if people shared similar opinions to you, since it would get the fewest votes.

Fwiw, Link's Crossbow Training was just a joke on my part :p Not so much on FSA.

Quote: Link's Crossbow Training was just a joke on my part

Don't say that. Without that game, I can't be included!

Quote:Four Swords is a SNES Zelda clone

It may be 2D but it's nothing like a link to the past that's for sure.

Quote: and is not worthy of being included with today's 3D titles.

Quote:Because in my opinion, anyone would be nuts to vote for Four Swords over much better 3D Zelda adventures. There is nothing wrong with it, but it doesn't belong in the same category as the rest.

That's a good joke SS. It may not have had pretty 3D graphics but it was more fun, engaging, and creative than any of the other three.