AniHawk said:
well it's the puzzles that were better than anything in ocarina of time. a lot of oot's puzzles require block-pushing, and shooting projectiles. there wasn't anything quite as clever as equipping iron boots while hanging from the ceiling to open a grate below you.
i agree about the cleverness of tp's puzzles. there wasn't a single instance of block pushing until the temple of time, which was naturally a send-up to zelda's past, which was brilliant on its own. the meaningful themes of the dungeons and the creativity of the puzzles were the best part.
however, i take much issue with their linearity. that's what i mean by not holding many keys. for instance, i'm playing link's awakening for the first time lately, and i'm in the sixth dungeon and i was lost. stumbling around in a silent rage. tempted to go to gamefaqs. then i remembered, that's what it's like playing zelda. even tho the puzzles were just as basic as OoT's and LttP's, you get a feeling of real exploration when you can either find out what's behind door number 1, or door number 2, or door number 3.
i'm not a big okami fan either, but its substitute for an inventory system was pretty clever. not sure i'd want that for a zelda game, especially since the combat system was awful and kamiya should stick to just action games, but it made for good pacing in the final two dungeons.
i never made it to the final dungeons. i can't relate to you the amount of boredom i felt... it was... it was... :'(
a menu is better, imo. it's kinda like that old p&c adventure game, loom, replacing verbs and inventory with songs on the magic stick. different, but irritating, an extra "magical" step to do something essentially practical. i hated the magic brush in okami because it's like a metafiction twist, and every time you used it, it screamed, hey i'm a video game! that, and you had to use it every time you had to kill an enemy, wtf
i agree about kamiya sticking to action games. weird how okami's combat wasn't up to snuff.
it still beats ocarina's world, if you're looking to explore. although ocarina beats tww if you're looking to just beat the game.
sure, if you're talking strictly the hyrule field. but if you include kokiri forest, death mountain, gerudo valley, etc., then surely not.
when i saw the open sea for the first time in tww, i was amazed. i couldn't wait to explore. it looked so damn enticing. when i found out that you end up seeing everything worth seeing before you get into the third dungeon, it was a punch in the gut.
Amir0x said:
superior superior superior superior SUPERIOR SUPERIOR SUPERIOR SUPERISURLUAFAOJJ
yeah yeah we get it ;-_-
There is a sense of history, yes, but infinitely superior sense of spacial awareness, lateral thinking and all around more complex, intelligent design.
i wonder what you mean...
In particular, the Forbidden Woods, The Tower of the Gods and the Wind Temple showcase many many elements which are
ah, more vertical then. well why didn't you say so
i won't concede that tww/tp are more complex than oot and past zeldae simply because they've got a few tall rooms and more architecture. now it's definitely a boost, and of course tww/tp are good games, but their insane linearity and handholding leaves them... quite inferior
Okami is better in many many ways
*giggle*
nah. it's a pain in the ass to roam around slowly (probably has to do with having four legs) and while zooming around at top speed is fun, you inevitably run into something. i especially love running into flags and a battle screen pops up like a #@%&ing jrpg.
nah. look above ^_^
even some dungeons are superior
:lol
And yes, in its gorgeous visuals
except it's not gorgeous. something like ico or jet grind radio or even silent hill is gorgeous. games with a design
sense. okami throws everything except the kitchen sink into its graphics. at times, it does look like ancient japanese wall scrolls. most of the time, however, it's color rape. it's an absolute assault on the eyes.
in its astoundingly expansive soundtrack
true...
I understand your attempt to try to discredit visuals as an important distinguisher but as always visuals are one of the most important aspects of games and, as a general rule, is a huge part of defining what is superior
i understand they're called "video" games, but they're certainly not a huge factor in whatever strange darwinian video game contest you have going. take for instance ninja five-o on the gameboy advance. it looks absolutely atrocious. honestly one of the ugliest games i've ever seen. however, it's one of the best games ever. compare bionic commando on the nes and bionic commando rearmed. in the end, the old bionic commando is better because it plays better. things like control, level design, other things relating to the gameplay, that's what's important. things like the graphics, story, and music are not. they enhance the experience when they're good, but they don't break the game when they're not.
(regarding GC zelda) Link feels better to control
no he doesn't. like i stated earlier, N64 link turns left, GC link
animates left. that's a big difference. while one would think the controls are no good on the N64 because of the horrifying analog stick, N64 link feels quite nice with a gamecube controller.
lock-on has been improved substantially
actually, no it hasn't. it got rid of those strange crosshairs, which was appreciated, but the camera ended up being less immersive in return. it was pulled up, while it used to be near foot level. the camera greeted enemies personally, while the lock-on in GC zelda is just simply a lock-on.
on that matter, combat was better in the old games too. most enemies have their own way to beat em. enemies in twilight princess, with a few exceptions, have just the one way to beat em, hack and slash your ass off.