ZP: XBLA Double Bill
#32
Posted 24 September 2008 - 11:29 PM
I agree...sticking new weird and wonderful features into a game can be cool, but it doesn't neccesarily make it more fun.
Agreed...beautiful graphics are nice, but as long as they show you what everything is, then you can worry about playing the game, not admiring the artwork.
Don't suppose anyone has played the Exile/Avernum games...the later Exile games had good 2d graphics, but then they remade them with bad 3d graphics, and a bunch of new annoying features.
Oh, for that matter...does anyone remember those games about the guy named after a hat and the ghosts or something? They had basic graphics, and simple music, but I thought it worked...
#33
Posted 25 September 2008 - 12:02 AM
Nah, doesn't ring any bells. Although I recently developed an unexplained fear of welders and as well as paranoia connected to creepy old pictures of dead people.
#34
Posted 25 September 2008 - 12:20 AM
I haven't played Twilight Princess, but it looks like a very similar game with just some neat new gadgets and bosses to match.
Very good point Thaluikhain.
Chaotic Good
#35
Posted 25 September 2008 - 04:07 AM
Isn't that the case with most Zelda games? It's mainly down to which does the best job with a very similar formula.
It's a pretty good formula though, explaining why I'm happy to play through most of them.
League Of Villains
#36
Posted 25 September 2008 - 05:11 AM
Yes, because having a younger audience necessarily means it has to be easier, when you're peddling to a group of people who have nothing better to do with their time than to play these games and learn hand-eye coordination.
I actually DID play it when I was "younger", and still found it boring. (for the record, 3rd year university, still not legal drinking age in Canada). It just isn't fun. I would've much preferred bosses and dungeons ala The Adventures of Link. Instead of stupid mini-puzzle sequences to hit each boss you could've engaged in some kind of actual combat where it appeared much more necessary to apply a give and take mindset. And I really didn't like how simple the dungeons were. AoL made some very simple dungeons, but before you managed to map them they seemed pretty complex because they split off and joined up and dead-ended so much. OoT is more or less, here's 2 passages. Follow both of them, but they're both linear. And then they meet up/one dead ends, end of dungeon. Did it not occur to them that the architecture itself could be part of the puzzles? That block-pushing maze room in the forest temple coud've been much more amazing with multiple exits hidden behind blocks or jumping up different ways, such that only one or two doors could be uncovered at one time. But no, here's a linear progression, jumpa level, find an exit, uncover all exits without having to be clever. Heck, that dungeon had potential. The block-maze room as the centre room with gravity flipping, you end the dungeon by pushing a block and dropping into the picture chamber. Tell me that wouldn't have been awesome.
This post has been edited by FFreak3: 25 September 2008 - 05:11 AM
#37
Posted 25 September 2008 - 06:34 AM
Played the last two Exile games, tried with their 3D games, but you're right, it never really worked.
Might go back and install Exile 3 again, that kicked royal arse.
Less Is More v4
Now resigned to a readership of me, my cat and some fish
#39
Posted 25 September 2008 - 07:26 AM
Neatest epic fail of Twilight Princess, dual hookshots not being what I thought it would be.
Edit: I really don't need the full quote.
This post has been edited by Patch: 25 September 2008 - 07:27 AM
Chaotic Good
#40
Posted 25 September 2008 - 08:37 AM
Puzzles aren't necessarily good. Fanciness in puzzles is usually extremely bad . . . the simplest, (hard), puzzles are the most fun.
And if you'll recall the picture chamber, it had an elevator to go down to the boss door after you filled the portraits with ghosts.
#41
Posted 25 September 2008 - 01:36 PM
The real challenge is non-linearity that is designed such that all the ways of tackling a solution are really good. An example of this would be in the game Shinobido. The levels are all reused for about 10 different types of mission but all of them work well because they're very sensibly designed.
Well most of them. But you can't win em all eh?
League Of Villains
#42
Posted 25 September 2008 - 05:52 PM
Puzzles aren't necessarily good. Fanciness in puzzles is usually extremely bad . . . the simplest, (hard), puzzles are the most fun.
And if you'll recall the picture chamber, it had an elevator to go down to the boss door after you filled the portraits with ghosts.
My god, you really need to play master quest. They reshuffled the room order and in some cases have changed the rooms (to an extent). Provided you have played the original OoT, Master Quest isn't hugely hard, it just requires more thought.
Am I the only one whos played Master Quest?
Chaotic Good
#43
Posted 26 September 2008 - 12:39 PM
Then that didn't happen, and I gave Master Quest back. For me the 3d Zelda's all have the same issue: The dungeons are great, but the bits in between, not so much. ( I haven't played more than an hour of Majoras Mask so I can't really comment on that one).
With the 2d ones however, much more thought seemed to go into making the overworld aside from just thinking 'let's make it big'.
League Of Villains
#44
Posted 26 September 2008 - 01:24 PM
With the 2d ones, there was a much better way to budget secrets, events, and stuff on the overworld.
The whole map section thing had a lot of sub-structure attached to it. In Zelda 1, for example, only one thing occurred in each square. One cave, one staircase, one rock to push, one cave to bomb open, etc. Never more than one.
Then, it's also implicit in any 2d map that certain structures will form. For example, if I walk in a U shape around a wall, I know that I have to approach the centre from the fourth direction. To avoid making things too easy or too linear, a lot of additional implicit structure had to be built, which makes it more fun to figure out.
In a 3d open environment, implicit structures aren't required and secrets often seem altogether too random. (OoT and bombing the ground for rupee caves, anyone?)
You need to see a free-floating structure to know that you cannot enter it, and the areas between interesting landmarks and boring nowheres are completely ignored. They aren't interesting, and they aren't in the middle of nowehere, why put anything there?
I believe that a 3d environment can be much better than a 2d environment, but it takes a real visionary and lots of elbow grease to bring that about. They will also never be the same fun as 2d environments are.
#45
Posted 27 September 2008 - 08:57 AM
Regarding graphics in games: Frankly, I couldn't give two fucks. Is Super Mario Brothers less of a good game nowadays, just because it doesn't look like Gears of War? Is the HHGttG text adventure less cool now that we can literally explore the entire galaxy in Spore? Did Broken Sword get better as the graphics advanced?
The answer is a resounding no.
In fact, If I took a load of random screenies from a collection of upcoming FPSs and asked you to name them, I bet there's very few people who'd get them all right. I find there's very little character to games visuals nowadays - whereas you look back fifteen years at Super Mario World and Sonic: Two very distinct styles that are immediately recognisable even now. Do you think in fifteen years people are going to recognise Crysis' lens flare or antialiasing?
You know what, I've just thought. Broken Sword 2.5 might be out. Screw this.
-The League Against Tedium