Zelda: The Wind Waker BLOWS

[kisrael]

Did you actually PLAY Wind Waker?  First you claimed that Ganandorf takes tons of hits... when in reality it only takes me ONE hit.  (Yes, I can kill him in one hit.  I'd record the final battle and mail it to you to prove it, but I already sold the game.)  

Whatever. The princess wouldn't wake up after about 10-15 minute of running around. If you were more willing to run run around just to prove a point, more power to you.

NOW, you're saying Miyamoto doesn't use energy bars.

 

FLAW: Every non-boss enemy has an energy bar (wear the golden mask and you'll see them).  Don't tell me you didn't know that?  How can you accurately judge a game when you are so obviously *uninformed* about the basics?

Ok, I had heard about that, but got through the game without getting the item. Mea culpa.

 

I still don't think it an energy meter would have added a lot to the fight, I think it was a fun battle the way it was. And over all, Wind Waker is a very good game.

[JankenTheGreat]

 

Sadly' date=' graphics and sound do NOT make a good game... just as filling a Hollywood movie with lots of pretty special effects does not make a good movie. Wind Waker is a BAD, BAD game.

 

.[/quote']

 

 

*Standing ovation!*

[Jasoco]

I've been waiting for a Zelda WW thread.

 

I was gonna start one, but I'll speak here.

 

I got it last Saturday. I played it maybe about 20-30 hours all together. I beat it Friday.

 

BUT, I would have NEVER figured it out if I hadn't bought a players guide with it.

 

I usually like to try to beat the game myself (The guide comes cheaper if you get it with the game, and I like to have them around.) but I got stumped so many times. If it weren't for the guide which I used only a little bit. But I would still be stuck.

 

To think, I beat Ocarina in one day more than Wind Waker.

 

I agree, the Gannon Battle left a bit to be desired. He was way harder in the Ocarina one. I was hoping for a MUCH harder Gannon.

 

SPOILERS BELOW!!! SPOILERS BELOW!!! DON'T LOOK!!!

.

.

.

.

.

.

Also, the bosses were really easy.. Once I looked at the book to see how to beat them. I would have never known to swing from the dragon's tail, or pick up the ghost boss after making him visible, or using the hook shot to grab the sand snake's tail. Sure, most of these are obvious to most people, but I am not normal people. I would have been stuck on the first dungeon.

 

But I was disappointed that there weren't separate dungeons for each Triforce piece. Just a stupid puzzle or maze before getting to the map. THEN you have to go FIND the thing and HOPE you grab it easilly from the ocean because the stupid rings disappear 20 feet before you get to them. In the case of the Triforce pieces they disappear WAY sooner.

 

I wanted WAY more battles. More bosses. More dungeons.

 

But I love the game. And am now gonna find everything then try it again with the Alternate quest.

 

Let's hope whatever sequel they make in a few years has more stuff and is way much more harderer...

[kisrael]

SPOILERS BELOW!!! SPOILERS BELOW!!! DON'T LOOK!!!

.

.

.

.

.

.

Also, the bosses were really easy.. Once I looked at the book to see how to beat them. I would have never known to swing from the dragon's tail, or pick up the ghost boss after making him visible, or using the hook shot to grab the sand snake's tail. Sure, most of these are obvious to most people, but I am not normal people. I would have been stuck on the first dungeon.

This is a valid critcisim I think, especially the dragon's tail. (The ghost was close enough to some other things I've seen that I think I woulda gotten that on my own.)

 

Though I think a lot of that same stuff was handled in Ocarina by Navi, she'd drop the hint about what to do. It's odd that WW didn't want to totally give it up, periodically that stupid crystal would perform a very "Navi-like" bit of nudging, but overall, an in-game guide was really lacking.

 

But I was disappointed that there weren't separate dungeons for each Triforce piece. Just a stupid puzzle or maze before getting to the map. THEN you have to go FIND the thing and HOPE you grab it easilly from the ocean because the stupid rings disappear 20 feet before you get to them. In the case of the Triforce pieces they disappear WAY sooner.

I don't know about the treasure maps, but with the triforce maps, did you realize your ship was drawn directly on the minimap? That made it pretty easy to get your ship in exactly the right position.

 

I wanted WAY more battles. More bosses. More dungeons.

I can see that. Maybe not one for each triforce piece, but about 2 more significant dungeons woulda been about right.

But I love the game. And am now gonna find everything then try it again with the Alternate quest.

 

Let's hope whatever sequel they make in a few years has more stuff and is way much more harderer...

 

Jeez, people seem to think harder is a cure all...I for one think Nintendo's doing a good job balancing.

 

And be careful what you wish for it, or at least how you wish for it; you wouldn't want them to make it harder in that "can't figure out how to beat a boss without a guide" kind of way...

[kisrael]

 

Sadly' date=' graphics and sound do NOT make a good game... just as filling a Hollywood movie with lots of pretty special effects does not make a good movie. Wind Waker is a BAD, BAD game.[/quote']

*Standing ovation!*

God, I hate "me too" posts. (especially for opinions I think are ridiculous to begin with...to say Wind Waker is a "BAD, BAD game"? Come on, even if you're not crazy about it, or think they did the ending and many other things "wrong", "BAD, BAD" seems to be really overstating a game that cleary has such huge production values, and that so many people think of so highly, and does so many things well. I mean, I might avoid touching a game like "Madden" with a ten foot pool, thinking people who buy it each year are nincompoops with more money than sense, and that it offers me maybe 1/5 the fun of "Blitz"...but I recognize it is a "good" game, probably much better than Blitz on a reasonable objective scale.

 

And to give that, or almost any, kind of opinion a "standing ovation" is just dorky, especially without adding any real comments to support the negative view.)

[Jasoco]

SPOILERS BELOW!!! SPOILERS BELOW!!! DON'T LOOK!!!

Also' date=' the bosses were really easy.. Once I looked at the book to see how to beat them. I would have never known to swing from the dragon's tail, or pick up the ghost boss after making him visible, or using the hook shot to grab the sand snake's tail. Sure, most of these are obvious to most people, but I am not normal people. I would have been stuck on the first dungeon.

[/quote']

This is a valid critcisim I think, especially the dragon's tail. (The ghost was close enough to some other things I've seen that I think I woulda gotten that on my own.)

The ghost for some reason I didn't put two and two together. I was surprised. And when I finally gave up and looked it was like "D'OH! IT WAS SO OBVIOUS!"

 

But I was disappointed that there weren't separate dungeons for each Triforce piece. Just a stupid puzzle or maze before getting to the map. THEN you have to go FIND the thing and HOPE you grab it easilly from the ocean because the stupid rings disappear 20 feet before you get to them. In the case of the Triforce pieces they disappear WAY sooner.

I don't know about the treasure maps, but with the triforce maps, did you realize your ship was drawn directly on the minimap? That made it pretty easy to get your ship in exactly the right position.

Yeah, but surprise surprise, I didn't realize this until the last two pieces. I just thought the X was put on the map. Didn't know about the ship marker until after I had gotten 6 pieces.

 

I wanted WAY more battles. More bosses. More dungeons.

I can see that. Maybe not one for each triforce piece, but about 2 more significant dungeons woulda been about right.

At LEAST.

 

I wanted a longer game. I beat Ocarina in a week using a guide. This one was waaaay shorter. Ocarina had a lot more dungeons. As did Link to the Past. In fact, this one had less dungeons than ALL the Zelda games. I was disappointed. 7 is the standard. This was not 7.

 

But I love the game. And am now gonna find everything then try it again with the Alternate quest.

 

Let's hope whatever sequel they make in a few years has more stuff and is way much more harderer...

 

Jeez, people seem to think harder is a cure all...I for one think Nintendo's doing a good job balancing.

 

And be careful what you wish for it, or at least how you wish for it; you wouldn't want them to make it harder in that "can't figure out how to beat a boss without a guide" kind of way...

 

I need a harder game. A challenge. The guide doesn't do a thing if the bos is so hard you can't beat him until you die a few times. The book can say "Okay, do this" but I want it to be much harder to actually do that. Challenge me. The bosses had so little hit points this time. Once you got the shell off, or the flower open or the tounge pulled in (The ghost was longer because there were more pieces to kill.) it was only about 5 - 10 hits and he's dead. A few times I got him the first time I had him exposed. He didn't have time to recoil and go back to attack mode.

 

Oh, I forgot one boss. The bird. THAT one I forgot how to destroy too. FOr some reason I didn't realize the Hammer was what to use. I didn't realize he had a mask on his head.

 

But the bird reminded me of a boss from Links Awakening. Remember the bird at the top of the tower? THAT was a hard boss. I fell off the tower about 50 times before I finally beat him. This Zelda didn't provide a way to fall off the field. THere was a border around Gannon's tower. There were walls in the other rooms. YOu couldn't accidentally fall off. Remove the walls and make the game harder.

 

Gannon himself was easy, but the Puppet Gannon was more of the actual boss of the game, it seems. The only hard part about the puppet was trying to aim correctly to hit the snakes tail. If you hit him he would slow down only for a second then start again. It took me longer to defeat the snake than the actual Gannon.

 

I died maybe 3 times all together. 6 if oyu count the times a fairy revived me. That's not enough.

 

This game was easy.. period. (Once you look at the book to see what to do. )

[kisrael]

SPOILERS BELOW!!! SPOILERS BELOW!!! DON'T LOOK!!!

 

I wanted WAY more battles. More bosses. More dungeons.

I can see that. Maybe not one for each triforce piece, but about 2 more significant dungeons woulda been about right.

At LEAST.

 

I wanted a longer game. I beat Ocarina in a week using a guide. This one was waaaay shorter. Ocarina had a lot more dungeons. As did Link to the Past. In fact, this one had less dungeons than ALL the Zelda games. I was disappointed. 7 is the standard. This was not 7.

7, huh? I'm trying to remember the ones it had:

Forsaken Fortress, does that count?

Dragon Roost

Forbidden Woods

Water World, or whatever it is

Earth Temple

Wind Temple

 

So it had 5 or 6. 2 more woulda rounded it out better. Though I guess the islands provided a bit more variety than the overworld in Ocarina? Still.

Jeez, people seem to think harder is a cure all...I for one think Nintendo's doing a good job balancing.

 

And be careful what you wish for it, or at least how you wish for it; you wouldn't want them to make it harder in that "can't figure out how to beat a boss without a guide" kind of way...

 

I need a harder game. A challenge.

Anyway, I didn't find the snake to be that hard--a lot easier than the pig-puppet, actually. (And I really grooved on finding the "trick" for the spider.)

 

But I died 3 or 4 times as well, plus a few more fairies saves. With a guide. But I don't see that as a problem, I see it as being about right. Pointless deathage just doesn't interest me that much, doesn't show me anything new about the game.

 

And I liked that 50 level fight for the triforce, as well as the invasion of the temple of time...

[Jasoco]

SPOILERS BELOW!!! SPOILERS BELOW!!! DON'T LOOK!!!

 

I wanted WAY more battles. More bosses. More dungeons.

I can see that. Maybe not one for each triforce piece, but about 2 more significant dungeons woulda been about right.

At LEAST.

 

I wanted a longer game. I beat Ocarina in a week using a guide. This one was waaaay shorter. Ocarina had a lot more dungeons. As did Link to the Past. In fact, this one had less dungeons than ALL the Zelda games. I was disappointed. 7 is the standard. This was not 7.

7, huh? I'm trying to remember the ones it had:

Forsaken Fortress, does that count?

Dragon Roost

Forbidden Woods

Water World, or whatever it is

Earth Temple

Wind Temple

 

So it had 5 or 6. 2 more woulda rounded it out better. Though I guess the islands provided a bit more variety than the overworld in Ocarina? Still.

 

Dragon Roost with the Gohma.

1. The Forbidden Woods with the Kalle Demos.

2. The Temple of the Gods (Which I ALSO forgot about) with the Gohdan. (Which is a lot like the rock hand enemy in Mario 64. Remember punching the hands eyes?)

3. The Forsaken Fortress with Phantom Ganon (Not a boss) first then the Helmaroc King bird.

4. Earth Temple with Jalhalla. (The fat ghost.)

5. Wind Temple with Molgera (The snake with the tounge).

Then you go to Gannons Tower and fight a bunch of Phantom Gannons (Not real bosses) and a Puppet Gannon which is more of a boss than Gannon himself. Then Gannon which was too easy.

 

So, it's only 6 or 7 bosses.

 

I liked Link to the Past. There was a Dungeon for the three pendants then 7 more for each of the trapped girls. Plus Aghanihm at the beginning and Gannon at the end.

 

Links Awakening had 7 dungeons and the Wind Fish at the end.

 

The first Zelda had 8 dungeons as well plus a second quest which was completely different from the first. 16 dungeons!

 

Wind Waker just has the first quest then a changed text/images second one which is just the first one with different talking and clothing.

 

Ocarina of Time has 10 dungeons as well.

 

Even Ocarina has that special Japanese version with the same game but different dungeons. (Which BTW, I didn't get with mine because I didn't pre-order, but my brother later pointed out they had them in the case with the game.

 

And I liked that 50 level fight for the triforce

What? Where? Huh?

[Artlover]

Ditto to the original post.

 

Sound and animation are excelent, but it's too easy & simple. Not to mention tedious at times. I've only been playing it a little, and am up to the lame triforce search part. I really have no doubt that I'll be able to finish this fairly easy.

 

Ocarina of Time was harder.

[shep]

Everone is entitled to their own opinion. Niether is wrong, niether is right, there is no need to bash one another because you disagree...

[Mock]

[kisrael]

SPOILERS BELOW!!! SPOILERS BELOW!!! DON'T LOOK!!!

 

I wanted a longer game. I beat Ocarina in a week using a guide. This one was waaaay shorter. Ocarina had a lot more dungeons. As did Link to the Past. In fact, this one had less dungeons than ALL the Zelda games. I was disappointed. 7 is the standard. This was not 7.

7, huh? I'm trying to remember the ones it had:

*snip*

So it had 5 or 6. 2 more woulda rounded it out better. Though I guess the islands provided a bit more variety than the overworld in Ocarina? Still.

 

Dragon Roost with the Gohma.

1. The Forbidden Woods with the Kalle Demos.

2. The Temple of the Gods (Which I ALSO forgot about) with the Gohdan. (Which is a lot like the rock hand enemy in Mario 64. Remember punching the hands eyes?)

3. The Forsaken Fortress with Phantom Ganon (Not a boss) first then the Helmaroc King bird.

4. Earth Temple with Jalhalla. (The fat ghost.)

5. Wind Temple with Molgera (The snake with the tounge).

Then you go to Gannons Tower and fight a bunch of Phantom Gannons (Not real bosses) and a Puppet Gannon which is more of a boss than Gannon himself. Then Gannon which was too easy.

I think the puppets are pretty much real bosses. But why didn't Dragon Roost get a number there?

*snip past zelda dungeon and boss counts*

I thouhgt you said 7 was the standard?

And I liked that 50 level fight for the triforce

What? Where? Huh?

For the triforce piece map, I guess I shoulda said. On Outset Island, under the headstone, where you have to descend through 50 levels of enemy. I think it's around 50.

[theaveng]

The purpose of having tough bosses is to provide replayability. I have replayed Ocarina's Ganandorf battle, Banjo-Kazooie's final battle, and Metroid Prime's final battle *countless* times. Reason: Because even though I know how to beat the bosses, it's still a challenge, and that makes those final battles a hell of a lot of FUN! They are worth replaying over-and-over-and-over.

 

Wind Waker's final Ganandorf battle is so ridiculously easy, that it's not even fun. There's no replayability there... which is why the game immediately went on ebay.

 

Remember what Atari's CEO once said: A game should be easy to learn... hard to master. The same is still true today.

 

 

 

"BAD, BAD" seems to be really overstating a game that cleary has such huge production values

 

Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979) had huge production values and outstanding special effects that wond awards.

 

But the movie still sucked, because it was soooo boring! (And most people agree with that assessment.) The exact same analysis applies to Zelda: The Wind Waker.

 

Now, I grant you that the above is just my opinion, but I DID back up my opinion with facts:

- Bosses too easy

- Puzzles too easy

- Triforce map search as tedious as my job

- Not enough dungeons

- Story almost non-existent (compared to Ocarina)

- Ganandorf battle pathetic (a couple boomerang deflections and one final sword strike)

- I never died. Not even once. Where's the challenge in that?!?!?

 

I didn't just offer up my opinion. I offered up my opinion backed with factual evidence. (Just like writing book reports in school.)

.

.

.

BTW, Shigeru says he will be making his future games EASIER not harder. I guess he's now aiming for the 2-yr-old demographic. I also guess I'll be spending a lot more time on the older, more challenging S-NES and N64 games.

[kisrael]

The purpose of having tough bosses is to provide replayability. I have replayed Ocarina's Ganandorf battle' date=' Banjo-Kazooie's final battle, and Metroid Prime's final battle *countless* times. Reason: Because even though I know how to beat the bosses, it's still a challenge, and that makes those final battles a hell of a lot of FUN! They are worth replaying over-and-over-and-over.[/quote']

See what happens when we talk without accusing each other of being banshees? You just made a good coherent point with examples.

"BAD' date=' BAD" seems to be really overstating a game that cleary has such huge production values[/quote']

 

Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979) had huge production values and outstanding special effects that wond awards.

 

But the movie still sucked, because it was soooo boring! (And most people agree with that assessment.) The exact same analysis applies to Zelda: The Wind Waker.

You could also say the same thing about 2001. And while WW is no 2001 (Ocarina might be a better canidate, actually) I think it's closer to that end of the spectrum than ST:TMP.

 

2001 is not the most watchable flick. I don't think WW is nearly the artistic statement that WW is, and a game needs to be playable to be great more than a movie needs to be watchable, but still.

 

(Heh, actually, I'd put Ocarina as 2001, and WW as 2010.)

 

Now, I grant you that the above is just my opinion, but I DID back up my opinion with facts:

- Bosses too easy

- Puzzles too easy

- Triforce map search as tedious as my job

- Not enough dungeons

- Story almost non-existent (compared to Ocarina)

- Ganandorf battle pathetic (a couple boomerang deflections and one final sword strike)

- I never died. Not even once. Where's the challenge in that?!?!?

 

I didn't just offer up my opinion. I offered up my opinion backed with factual evidence. (Just like writing book reports in school.)

Well, none of those are actual facts except that you didn't die once, but they are details about your opinion that aid your argument. (Unfortunately I can't argue on equal terms on all of the "too easy" as well as the "search tedious"; I (sparingly) used a guide and it all seemed about right to me.) I don't remember the Ocarina story much, but I did like the WW story; especially at the end, with the meaningful reference of what wind means to a desert people as opposed to one in a more comfortable clime.

 

BTW, Shigeru says he will be making his future games EASIER not harder. I guess he's now aiming for the 2-yr-old demographic. I also guess I'll be spending a lot more time on the older, more challenging S-NES and N64 games.

 

Dude, it's not THAT easy.

My 12-13 yr old cousin couldn't get thorugh Ocarina, even with a guide. And he's not a bad gamer. He can kick my ass in any sports game, and for a while in Smash Bros. he was untouchable. But he got really frustrated with Ocarina, and that led to losing interest. We'll see how he does in WW, which he's borrowing now.

 

Miyamoto seems to be trying to make games more accesible, to be playable outside a fanboy base. I remember reading about that in interviews re: Mario Sunshine, he wanted a game that would appeal to someone who hadn't played games in ten years. Being in some ways easier, letting a casual gamer see an ending of a game might be part of that (btw, have you done WW 100%? I sure didn't, and I think it's a strength when a game offers enough that the story doesn't consume all there is to do in the world)

 

It's interesting, because mainstreaming games is also one of the stated goals of Rockstar, making gaming as common as moviegoing. And I given their sales and Sony's placement, I think they may be doing a better job of it than Miyamoto, but by creating gameplay experience that Miyamoto probably finds deeply distasteful and disturbing.

 

Hopefully, Nintendo will get better at making some of the core story of the game more accessible, but figuring out ways of keeping in interesting and rewarding challenges for people who want to play harder. (It's hard to do that; like one way to reward a player for doing well is to give them weapons or other things that make the game...wait for it...easier, Catch 22.)

[Yar]

Wind Waker was not a bad game. YOU just didn't like it. There is a difference.

 

Ok, I know. I agree. I didn't like the fact that I did not die once, and I didn't like the lack of challenge in the bosses, dungeons, and battles, and the Triforce Quest, as well as Ocean Travel in general, was somewhat boring.

 

And that's without a guide...BUT!

 

It was fun. It was no Ocarina, but it was a damn fun game to play and you know it. And no story? It had more story than any other Zelda game. All of the various hints and clues finally wrapped up the plotholes in the Zelda series.

 

 

 

By the way, did any of you catch the thing with the pearls?

[Jasoco]

SPOILERS BELOW!!! SPOILERS BELOW!!! DON'T LOOK!!!

 

I wanted a longer game. I beat Ocarina in a week using a guide. This one was waaaay shorter. Ocarina had a lot more dungeons. As did Link to the Past. In fact, this one had less dungeons than ALL the Zelda games. I was disappointed. 7 is the standard. This was not 7.

7, huh? I'm trying to remember the ones it had:

*snip*

So it had 5 or 6. 2 more woulda rounded it out better. Though I guess the islands provided a bit more variety than the overworld in Ocarina? Still.

 

Dragon Roost with the Gohma.

1. The Forbidden Woods with the Kalle Demos.

2. The Temple of the Gods (Which I ALSO forgot about) with the Gohdan. (Which is a lot like the rock hand enemy in Mario 64. Remember punching the hands eyes?)

3. The Forsaken Fortress with Phantom Ganon (Not a boss) first then the Helmaroc King bird.

4. Earth Temple with Jalhalla. (The fat ghost.)

5. Wind Temple with Molgera (The snake with the tounge).

Then you go to Gannons Tower and fight a bunch of Phantom Gannons (Not real bosses) and a Puppet Gannon which is more of a boss than Gannon himself. Then Gannon which was too easy.

I think the puppets are pretty much real bosses. But why didn't Dragon Roost get a number there?

WHA? I can't believe I missed putting a number there.

 

*snip past zelda dungeon and boss counts*

I thouhgt you said 7 was the standard?

Forget I said that, I didn't count the previous bosses in other games first. Which still were way more than this game.

 

And I liked that 50 level fight for the triforce

What? Where? Huh?

For the triforce piece map, I guess I shoulda said. On Outset Island, under the headstone, where you have to descend through 50 levels of enemy. I think it's around 50.

It was 30 with a resting place every 10. So you really only fought 27 levels and had 3 levels of hearts and rupies and arrows, bombs, magic, etc.

 

That was my favorite because it was a big fight for the map. Rather than a maze. I'd rather take on hoards of enemies than get lost in a dark maze tunnel. I really like when you defeat an enemy and another comes out of nowhere and then another. Wave after wave is cool too. Makes you feel like you're actually fighting for something.

 

Edit: BTW, this quoting of quoting is getting so confusing to edit. LOL. I had to fix the code 5 times already to get it right.

[kisrael]

For the triforce piece map, I guess I shoulda said. On Outset Island, under the headstone, where you have to descend through 50 levels of enemy. I think it's around 50.

It was 30 with a resting place every 10. So you really only fought 27 levels and had 3 levels of hearts and rupies and arrows, bombs, magic, etc.

Edit: BTW, this quoting of quoting is getting so confusing to edit. LOL. I had to fix the code 5 times already to get it right.

Yeah, that's why it' good to trim early and often.

 

Only 30? Huh, I thought the guide said it was more. Anyway, it was fun.

[theaveng]

See what happens when we talk without accusing each other of being banshees?

I didn't say you were a banshee. I said "...even IF you scream like a banshee." It was a conditional statement, not a statement of fact. I was not accusing you of anything.

 

You could also say the same thing about 2001.  And while WW is no 2001 (Ocarina might be a better canidate, actually) I think it's closer to that end of the spectrum than ST:TMP.

Well we'll have to disagree on this one. 2001 starts slow but only for about 15 minutes, and then it's one problem after after. First there's a broken radio dish, then a guy gets murdered, and then the computer goes nuts. It stimulates your mind and keeps you wondering what's going to happen next. It keeps you on the edge of your seat.

 

In contrast, Wind Waker was so easy that I was actually leaning back in my recliner. It had virtually no story in the middle, and no challenge in gameplay. At no time did I feel the least bit interested in what was going on. It almost put me to sleep (like Star Trek: the Motion Picture).

 

 

 

 

Now, I grant you that the above is just my opinion, but I DID back up my opinion... with factual evidence.  (Just like writing book reports in school.)

Well, none of those are actual facts except that you didn't die once, but they are details about your opinion that aid your argument.

 

No, they're facts. It's a FACT that the puzzles/bosses were too easy for me. It's a FACT that I was mindlessly bored by the triforce search. It's an OPINION that such characteristics equal a poor game. (Some people might think easy puzzles/bosses and aimless wandering around finding treasure are fun.) So we have my *opinion* that the game sucked *backed by the fact* that it was too easy for me.

 

 

 

I don't remember the Ocarina story much, but I did like the WW story; especially at the end, with the meaningful reference of what wind means to a desert people as opposed to one in a more comfortable clime.

Oh that... how could I forget? When Ganandorf was trying to make us feel sorry I was thinking, "Oh pu-leeeze! You had it made!' Seriously. Ganandorf was a single man surrounded by hundreds of very beautiful women. He could literally have a different women every night of the year (or many at the same time!). Or... he could choose the exact perfect match and marry her. No competition from other men. He could choose the most beautiful, or the most funny, or whatever quality he liked best in a wife.

 

Ganandorf's life wasn't hellish... it was heaven on earth. Yes, living in a desert isn't the best climate, but there's no reason he couldn't vacation in greener Hyrule from time to time... or travel downriver to the nearby lake. For Ganandorf to say, "I was tired of the wind and that's why I made everyone's life miserable," was as lame as Hitler saying, "I was an artist and penniless and misunderstood as a child, and that's why I became Fuhrer and killed millions."

 

LAME. I can't believe it when I hear people saying, "I felt sorry for Ganandorf." Come on! Ganandorf is Satan Incarnate. There's no excuse for what he did, and he should die die die as quickly as possible.

 

 

STORY: Ocarina has a better story with more details explaining where the triforces came from, showed Ganandorf turning happy Hyrule into a dreadful, dreary place filled with zombies, and a longer more detailed ending.

 

 

 

 

Miyamoto seems to be trying to make games more accesible, to be playable outside a fanboy base.  I remember reading about that in interviews re: Mario Sunshine, he wanted a game that would appeal to someone who hadn't played games in ten years.  

In the days of Atari/Commodore this was done by having multiple difficulty levels: slower/faster monsters... more/less hearts... and other settings that could be varied. I don't understand why modern programmers of RPGS/Adventures can't do the same. They have a LOT more memory (millions of kilobytes) than the old Atari/Commodore programmers (2-64 kilobytes), and so they could easily include multiple difficulties. BUT NO, they'd rather dumb down the overall experience.

 

If I was programming a game, I'd have these simple settings:

Child - all monsters/bosses have 0.5x the life enegy

Easy - all monsters/boxxes have 1x the life energy

Medium - all monsters/bosses have 2x the life energy

Hard - all monsters/bosses have 3x the life energy

 

That's the quick and easy way for programmers to make the game accessible to casual gamers, but still keep hardcore gamers challenged. In fact, it's been done before with Final Fantasy 4 Easy and Final Fantasy 4 Hard. FF4 Easy was the "normal" difficulty and FF4 Hard was the same game but with all monsters/bosses energy multiplied by ~2. Shigeru should go with the multiple difficulties per game, rather than dumbing it down and ruining the experience for the dedicated gamers. Otherwise he'll alienate his most loyal audience (like Star Trek did).

 

 

 

 

Being in some ways easier, letting a casual gamer see an ending of a game might be part of that (btw, have you done WW 100%? I sure didn't, and I think it's a strength when a game offers enough that the story doesn't consume all there is to do in the world)

Are you joking??? By the time I reached the Triforce Map search, I was ready to hit the disc with a hammer. I wouldn't waste my time on the sidequests even if you paid me. I did try some of them (to get heart pieces), but found them to be mind-numbingly boring... and pointless... and just abandoned the whole idea.

 

As it turned out, I didn't need the heart pieces. I only had half as many hearts as Ocarina, and still beat WW's Ganandorf without dying.

[Jasoco]

I enjoyed the story of WW. It made sense.

 

It takes place 100 years after the Hero of Time sealed Gannon away. Then Hyrule gets covered by water and all that's left is a bunch of islands sticking through the ocean. I believe the land the new Link and Tetra were living in was once the land of Hyrule.

 

Gannon gets set free accidentally, once again by Zelda and comes back to wreak havoc. The new Link discovers he's a decendant of the Hero of Time and Tetra discovers she's Zelda. They join forces again and defeat Gannon again. Will it be the final time? Or will he come back again? I think he'll come back. SOMEONE is gonna remove that sword and he'll be back. Let's hope in a better, more challenging game.

 

When the next sequel does come out, I hope it uses the same Cel Shading technique. I really like it more than the Ocarina look.

 

One question in my mind lately is about the Fairy Queen. You know, the little girl fairy. Anyone notice her music was Super Mario Bros 3 Map 3? You know, the Water world.

[kisrael]

See what happens when we talk without accusing each other of being banshees?

I didn't say you were a banshee. I said "...even IF you scream like a banshee." It was a conditional statement' date=' not a statement of fact. I was not accusing you of anything.[/quote']

C'mon' date=' it's hard not to read that as at least an accusation of sounding like a banshee. (Not neccesarily being one. That was poetic license on my part.)

You could also say the same thing about 2001. And while WW is no 2001 (Ocarina might be a better canidate' date=' actually) I think it's closer to that end of the spectrum than ST:TMP. [/quote']

Well we'll have to disagree on this one. 2001 starts slow but only for about 15 minutes, and then it's one problem after after.

 

There's an old joke about the 2001 drinking game: take a drink every time any character says something. At the end of the movie, you're still sober.

 

Anyway, non-sci-fi friends of mine find the whole hippy dippy enter the monolith sequence unwatchablly random and not interesting. In fact I think I only like it because I read the novel.

 

First there's a broken radio dish, then a guy gets murdered, and then the computer goes nuts. It stimulates your mind and keeps you wondering what's going to happen next. It keeps you on the edge of your seat.

It's also paced like molasses in January. If you get into the feel of it, understand that it's kind of an artistic point that space travel is rather dull and methodical (and that humans in space are kind of like a fish out of water) then it works, but depending on what you like to get out of a movie, it's not going to work for many people.

 

Well, none of those are actual facts except that you didn't die once, but they are details about your opinion that aid your argument.

 

No, they're facts. It's a FACT that the puzzles/bosses were too easy for me. It's a FACT that I was mindlessly bored by the triforce search.

Yeah, except you said "too easy" and left out the "for me" part, and still claimed you were talking facts.

 

 

Ganandorf's life wasn't hellish... it was heaven on earth. Yes, living in a desert isn't the best climate, but there's no reason he couldn't vacation in greener Hyrule from time to time... or travel downriver to the nearby lake. For Ganandorf to say, "I was tired of the wind and that's why I made everyone's life miserable," was as lame as Hitler saying, "I was an artist and penniless and misunderstood as a child, and that's why I became Fuhrer and killed millions."

 

LAME. I can't believe it when I hear people saying, "I felt sorry for Ganandorf." Come on! Ganandorf is Satan Incarnate. There's no excuse for what he did, and he should die die die as quickly as possible.

I thought it added an interesting level of perspective. Frankly, I end up not remembering what Ganondorf did that was so awful, just capturing Zelda and wanting all the triforce for the power it welds.

 

STORY: Ocarina has a better story with more details explaining where the triforces came from, showed Ganandorf turning happy Hyrule into a dreadful, dreary place filled with zombies, and a longer more detailed ending.

I thought the thing with all the goddesses was kind of stupid. It was to abstract and hippy dippy. At least with Ganondorf, I felt more connected to what he was about.

 

Miyamoto seems to be trying to make games more accesible, to be playable outside a fanboy base. I remember reading about that in interviews re: Mario Sunshine, he wanted a game that would appeal to someone who hadn't played games in ten years.

In the days of Atari/Commodore this was done by having multiple difficulty levels: slower/faster monsters... more/less hearts... and other settings that could be varied. I don't understand why modern programmers of RPGS/Adventures can't do the same. They have a LOT more memory (millions of kilobytes) than the old Atari/Commodore programmers (2-64 kilobytes), and so they could easily include multiple difficulties. BUT NO, they'd rather dumb down the overall experience.

 

Maybe your multiple difficulties could work (though it might be more to QA and test, especially in non hack and slash (or run and gun) games) I don't think its lack makes it a terrible game though.

[theaveng]

I don't think that sounds much easier.  And not a strategy that would naturally occur to someone who wasn't trying to make a point. Sounds like you found out a pure pacifist strategy doesn't do it, even if the distance boomerang attacks look ineffective.

C'mon Kisrael. Even though purely running around doesn't work (you need to hit Ganandorf with a boomerang to make Zelda wake up), my point was that I CAN kill Ganandorf with a single sword strike. That's still 100% true.

 

It's also 100% LAME. (my opinion.. but I hear a lot of other gamers agreeing)

 

At least with Ocarina's battle, it took some SKILL to survive. Ditto Banjo-Kazooie's final battle. Neither boss was a weakling pushover. Beating Ganandorf was like stealing candy from a baby... no challenge... no threat of dying... no point in wasting my time to play the damn thing.

 

 

 

There's an old joke about the 2001 drinking game: take a drink every time any character says something. At the end of the movie, you're still sober.

Does that mean you hate silent movies? (smirk)

 

 

 

It's also paced like molasses in January. If you get into the feel of it, understand that it's kind of an artistic point that space travel is rather dull and methodical (and that humans in space are kind of like a fish out of water) then it works, but depending on what you like to get out of a movie, it's not going to work for many people.

It worked well enough in 1969. It made plenty of money.

 

 

 

Maybe your multiple difficulties could work (though it might be more to QA and test, especially in non hack and slash (or run and gun) games) I don't think its lack makes it a terrible game though.

You sound like the kind of person who would enjoy that piece of sh:t game called Animal Crossing. Is that true? Are you the kind of gamer who enjoys just wandering around in virtual worlds?

 

I am not (you probably already figured that out). If I wander around, I do it in the REAL world with my car. Last summer I drove to Alaska. This summer I'm going to Japan. The REAL world is far more interesting to explore than any trash I could find inside Animal Crossing or Zelda.

 

Anyway back to topic:

 

If the game is so easy as to be boring, it WILL make a terrible game. Picture in your mind playing Zelda and not losing any hearts. Ever. Why? Because it's so damn easy (Shigeru aimed for the typical 5th grade-level adult... mass marketing). Would you enjoy playing such a game???

 

I sure as hell wouldn't. It would be the equivalent of playing Pac-Man with only one ghost. Pointless. The multiple difficulty levels I mentioned before would solve that problem. You can choose "normal" difficulty or "2x" difficulty or "3x" difficulty. It would appeal to casual adults or hardcore gamers... just vary the difficulty level.

 

Well whatever. I doubt I'll be buying another Zelda game. Shigeru/Nintendo just lost themselves some money with their stupid "make it easy" objective. They'll either learn from their mistakes and include multiple difficulties like other games are starting to do... or they'll lose their loyal gaming audience, lose a lot of money, and go bankrupt like Atari did 20 years ago.

[kisrael]

my point was that I CAN kill Ganandorf with a single sword strike.  That's still 100% true.

 

It's also 100% LAME.  (my opinion.. but I hear a lot of other gamers agreeing)

I see this board running about 2 to 1 in favor of WW being a good or very good game, though the idea that it's a bit on the too easy side is stronger than I expected.

traditionally, Zelda has 3 slots, and no real option to save in another spot.

That's a lame excuse. They could change the interface to have 100 slots if they felt like it. Then you could save multiple copies, one for each boss, just as you requested.

I'm not defending the practice...I've already explained why I think a boss select is better than having to jiggle your saves (unless you are able/want to put in a custom name for each slot, which is a pain on a console.)

It's also paced like molasses in January. If you get into the feel of it, understand that it's kind of an artistic point that space travel is rather dull and methodical (and that humans in space are kind of like a fish out of water) then it works, but depending on what you like to get out of a movie, it's not going to work for many people.

It worked well enough in 1969. It made plenty of money.

So did ST:TMP, according to IMDB.com.

 

Maybe your multiple difficulties could work (though it might be more to QA and test, especially in non hack and slash (or run and gun) games) I don't think its lack makes it a terrible game though.

You sound like the kind of person who would enjoy that piece of sh:t game called Animal Crossing. Is that true? Are you the kind of gamer who enjoys just wandering around in virtual worlds?

Nah. Though I like feeling that the story is taking place within a functioning world, like GTA3, and not like everything in the damn place was exactly laid out as a series of puzzles, like Metroid Prime. But I'm not into the care and feeding of things.

I am not (you probably already figured that out).  If I wander around, I do it in the REAL world with my car. Last summer I drove to Alaska.  This summer I'm going to Japan.  The REAL world is far more interesting to explore than any trash I could find inside Animal Crossing or Zelda.

But still, I think Animal Crossing is a good game, even though it holds little appeal for me. That's the thing; anything you don't like is trash. That's a stupid outlook.

Well whatever.  I doubt I'll be buying another Zelda game.  Shigeru/Nintendo just lost themselves some money with their stupid "make it easy" objective.  They'll either learn from their mistakes and include multiple difficulties like other games are starting to do... or they'll lose their loyal gaming audience, lose a lot of money, and go bankrupt like Atari did 20 years ago.

Atari didn't go bankrupt because of a loss of fanboys. They went backrupt because they lost the mass market. Nintendo may or may not be sufficiently concerned about their core base, but they're aiming for a wide appeal.

 

Your difficulty idea isn't a bad one. It worked pretty well in Doom. It does require a good combat system though, one where a skilled gamer can expect to do well.

[Jasoco]

Oh, that reminds me.

 

Apparently Nintendo knows they're losing people because they don't do enough.

 

According to the Pictograph Statue guy at the forrest islands (Under the big metal door on the northern island) Nintendo may be "Losing fans due to a lack of 'Gimmicky attractions'." but he says that "True fans know we're the coolest." (Even though he's referring to the Pictograph Club and not Nintendo directly, but you know he means Nintendo themselves.)

 

That's pretty funny to read. Zelda's programmers realize people go to the other systems because they have more stuff (DVD player anyone? Hard Drive? Better Online playing?), but the True Nintendo fans (read Fanboys) still know Nintendo's the coolest. I found that funny when I read it.

[theaveng]

..I've already explained why I think a boss select is better than having to jiggle your saves (unless you are able/want to put in a custom name for each slot, which is a pain on a console.)

You make it sound so complicated. In Final Fantasy 10, if I want to fight the boss in Zanarkand, I simply pick the savefile labeled Zanarkand. It's automatically labeled by the console. There's no "jiggling" involved.

 

From your comments, I'm starting to suspect you don't own a PS2, and therefore have no understanding of how its gamesaves work. Is that true?

 

 

 

2001 worked well enough in 1968.  It made plenty of money.

So did ST:TMP, according to IMDB.com.

So it did. When then, let's look at reader reviews:

5.7 Star Trek: TMP

8.3 2001

 

Clearly people enjoy 2001 for it to earn a 8.3. That negates your comment that 2001 doesn't appeal to audiences.

 

 

 

 

But still, I think Animal Crossing is a good game, even though it holds little appeal for me.  That's the thing; anything you don't like is trash.  That's a stupid outlook.

No. It's an opinion. I'm certainly entitled to hate games, even if the majority loves them. I don't have to bow to the tyranny of the majority.

 

Example: Most people think American Idol is brilliant. I think it's mindless trash. There's absolutely nothing "stupid" about me thinking that.

[kisrael]

..I've already explained why I think a boss select is better than having to jiggle your saves (unless you are able/want to put in a custom name for each slot, which is a pain on a console.)

You make it sound so complicated. In Final Fantasy 10, if I want to fight the boss in Zanarkand, I simply pick the savefile labeled Zanarkand. It's automatically labeled by the console. There's no "jiggling" involved.

 

From your comments, I'm starting to suspect you don't own a PS2, and therefore have no understanding of how its gamesaves work. Is that true?

Nope! I bought a PS2 at the end of last year, and so far the GTAs and lesser known Search + Destroy have been the only games I've found really worth while unique to it.

 

My comments on saving on the PS2 spring from the GTAs mostly, I think I said that. When you save, it has the label with the last mission you beat...which is relatively little help in knowing what missions are available there, so either you have to be super familiar with the order of missions, or memorize a number from 1 to 8. I'd really like a mission select, based on the name of missions available.

 

2001 worked well enough in 1968.  It made plenty of money.

So did ST:TMP, according to IMDB.com.

So it did. When then, let's look at reader reviews:

5.7 Star Trek: TMP

8.3 2001

 

Clearly people enjoy 2001 for it to earn a 8.3. That negates your comment that 2001 doesn't appeal to audiences.

Wrong on two counts: first of all, we were discussing how they did in their time periods. According to the box office numbers, ST:TMP held its own at the time.

 

And also, when you're talking about movies with the (deservedly) great reputation like 2001, much of the vote reflects the greatness of the movie, not how much people really like sitting and watching it. For the non-movie- or non-scifi-buff, it's not that watchable. I know from my experience with non-movie- and non-scifi-buffs.

 

But still, I think Animal Crossing is a good game, even though it holds little appeal for me.  That's the thing; anything you don't like is trash.  That's a stupid outlook.

No. It's an opinion. I'm certainly entitled to hate games, even if the majority loves them. I don't have to bow to the tyranny of the majority.

 

No, you called it Trash. People get annoyed when you so strongly attack games they like without framing it in terms of "this is my opinion". You might argue that "well of course, everything anyone writes has to be their opinion", but there's something to be said for recognizing a diversity of other opinions.

 

Example: Most people think American Idol is brilliant.  I think it's mindless trash.  There's absolutely nothing "stupid" about me thinking that.

I think most people above the age of 18 would say it's fun, but not "brilliant". A guilty pleasure. Kind of the opposite of 2001. (Or they think it's just annoying.)

 

It is kind of brilliant from a marketing/niche-finding perspective however, tapping in to the hopes of stardom of millions of teenyboppers.