First Person Aiming with the bow....Cygnus X-1 said:FP aiming?
First Person Aiming with the bow....Cygnus X-1 said:FP aiming?
upandaway said:WW had the most potential to be like the original Zelda, I think. All you needed is a quick optional raft at the start and obviously improvements to the content and pacing.
You can go anywhere, you can do everything in whichever order you want - which order for the first 3 crystals then which order for the 3 temples to awaken the sword, and finally, the order where you found pieces of the one Triforce Chart that leads to the triforce of courage (I also hated fishing the shards out but finding the maps was great). The overworld filled with a bunch of varied islands holding sidequests and side puzzles (that chain together).
That's my idea of what WW could have been if it was given, say, a couple more years, and a good slap to the head.
Zoramon089 said:You realize how insanely difficult that would be to create? Not saying it wouldn't be awesome but the fact that dungeons are so heavily linked to specific items to allow progression, the way you'd have it, it would end up with people finding dungeons, realizing they can't progress and backtracking and repeating until they find the item necessary to go on.
I can't really think of a way for them to allow you to explore dungeons in any order without their being massive backtracking. And let's say they simply made any dungeon able to be progressed through with any combination of items, what would be the point of them? To simply make it easier? There'd have to be some sort of significant incentive to get the item as opposed to just going through the dungeon. And then, let's not forget the bosses. How would they allow them to be beaten without you having the correct item?
The answer is combat. Enemies. All you need is the sword and everything else is extra.Zoramon089 said:I can't really think of a way for them to allow you to explore dungeons in any order without their being massive backtracking.
The dungeon should require the item that's in it. I don't know, maybe that's just me.There'd have to be some sort of significant incentive to get the item as opposed to just going through the dungeon.
The less items used during bosses, the better. Skullord is the only exception, but that's only because the Spinner is really really fun.And then, let's not forget the bosses. How would they allow them to be beaten without you having the correct item?
silverbullet1080 said:E3 2010 can't come soon enough.
If you play Ocarina of Time nowadays, you notice that it's not that good. Sometimes it doesn't move as fast as it should, graphics aren't as beautiful as they should be; there are some confusing parts... Any present Zelda is technically superior. Everything goes faster, more fluid...
Parl said:Yeah, I've played it recently, and it's still a great game. The pacing isn't fast, but the pacing for both Zelda's and stuff like Final Fantasys and other late 90s stuff slowed down a lot once they reached the late 90s. OoT and FFVII both slowed down a lot, though I liked the slow pace in OoT because I was playing most of it, as opposed to reading or watching something.
That's why it still holds up well, but he's going to look at it from a developer perspective, and it IS a good idea to increase the pace and to have fresher experiences now, as playing a game you haven't played before is often better than playing a better game you've already played.
Rash said:People are going to lambaste you for that statement.
But honestly? I don't disagree, really. Playing the Subspace Emissary in Brawl, as Link, made me think "why not?" in terms of a new Zelda game with sidescrolling action. Same goes for the "from the side" segments in games like Link's Awakening.
Zelda II is severely underrated, and I think a new game that follows its general model would not be bad at all.
luka said:He's right. I'd rather play WW than OoT any day of the week, despite how amazing and revolutionary it was. It's simply a better game (unless you absolutely hate sailing).
Or Link's Awakening! God..... what a terrific game.luka said:He's right. I'd rather play WW than OoT any day of the week, despite how amazing and revolutionary it was. It's simply a better game (unless you absolutely hate sailing).
I disagree here, I played the Gamecube port for a bit and while the resolution and frame rate were nice, it didn't help the blurry textures and set pieces at all. The largely empty overworld was a turnoff for me too and I kind of wish the graphics artists had gone for a bolder, more saturated color scheme instead of all the olive greens and browns. While I thought the first dungeon was extremely strong and everything a first dungeon could hope to be, I was really underwhelmed when I got to explore Hyrule Field and the rest of the areas that are accessible to you after beating the first dungeon. I guess this game and me simply aren't meant to be. One thing I really can't complain about is the controls which still feel smooth and responsive today whereas I've always felt Mario in SM64 handles a bit like a tank when you're moving slowly as I've fallen off quite a number of small platforms while trying to turn into another direction.blame space said:Nearly unplayable in whatever buttfuck resolution/framerate the N64 put out, but it's still pretty amazing in 720p/60fps.
Why For? said:I played OoT not that long ago and it holds up perfectly fine.
The whole time I was playing TP, I kept thinking how similar the games feel. There's nothing wrong with Ocarina.
Like with all older games, our memories will ALWAYS put a bit of extra shine on them, but that's all relative to how old we were when we played the game, and what was around at the time.
In it's day, Ocarina made us go 'Wow' even more than Uncharted 2 has done today. I still remember how many people I knew went out and bought Ocarina, and the 64 didn't have a very big install base at all, and it still sold pretty damn well.
jett said:Aonuma is the greatest and I agree with everything he said.
Of course, ninthings will be ninthings.
Dr. Strangelove said:I agree. Ocarina isn't that good today. It's ugly as fuck and runs like shit. LTTP has aged gracefully, OoT has aged horribly.
Vinci said:2D games don't age. What the hell are you people talking about?
Speevy said:They kinda do, since their major problem is one you can only mask through emulation filters. Resolution.
upandaway said:The answer is combat. Enemies. All you need is the sword and everything else is extra.
I didn't mention the original Zelda for nothing (this sentence goes for this whole post).
The dungeon should require the item that's in it. I don't know, maybe that's just me.
The meat of the dungeon's puzzles comes from puzzles that are built around your navigation (items are only an extension of this (unless they're items to assist combat), and if anything, they only make the puzzles easier both for the developer and the player).
The less items used during bosses, the better. Skullord is the only exception, but that's only because the Spinner is really really fun.
Oblivion said:I think you should probably read what he said again. And by 'again', I mean 'actually read' it.
I do not think that everyone is actually looking at it from this perspective. There definitely seems to be at least a few people blinded by childhood nostalgia who praise OoT because they seem to think that we should be making games exactly like OoT again, which I really disagree with. It's way too soon to go back to that. The ideas of OoT still need to settle a lot more before they can be reinvented.140.85 said:When people (rightly) venerate it to astronomical levels it's because they're considering it from the viewpoint of when it came out. Very few games have had such a permanent impact on game design that shows up everywhere still today.
Cool then we agreecartman414 said:I've been advocating going back that far.
jett said:I read the entire original spanish interview. So kindly fuck off.
DeBurgo said:I do not think that everyone is actually looking at it from this perspective. There definitely seems to be at least a few people blinded by childhood nostalgia who praise OoT because they seem to think that we should be making games exactly like OoT again, which I really disagree with. It's way too soon to go back to that. The ideas of OoT still need to settle a lot more before they can be reinvented.
If we're going to go back to old game design ideas, there's actually a lot of interesting game design from even further back (8-bit era, early 16-bit era) that I believe needs to be looked at more thoroughly.
edit: to be fair though I don't really see anyone in this particular thread expressing the opinion I'm complaining about
140.85 said:Of course OoT doesn't impress as much now. There's nothing new about it anymore and the visuals are dated. Why is this a revelation for some of you?
When people (rightly) venerate it to astronomical levels it's because they're considering it from the viewpoint of when it came out. Very few games have had such a permanent impact on game design that shows up everywhere still today.
This is really all he's getting at IMO. LOL @ OoT haters trying to pull some told-ya-so with this.
LOL @ OoT fanboys who are butthurt because Aonuma is on our side.140.85 said:LOL @ OoT haters trying to pull some told-ya-so with this.
igotnewsuper8 systemWRONG! said:LOL @ OoT fanboys who are butthurt because Aonuma is on our side.
amtentori said:OOT is the best game I have played. Nothing I have played has made me feel the way OOT did when it first came out.The game is still playable and enjoyable. I must have played this game over 10 times. I don't understand how people can call OOT unplayable by today's standarsds and praise something like say Sotc. I always fest Sotc, framerate was terrible even when the game came out. (it is still one of my favorite games)
Aunuma at least understands that zelda needs to change. the problem is he always tries to use a gimmick or hook instead of making a tight new core experience.
OOT is extremely cohesive, something that the more refined TP lacks.
Kaijima said:None of what Aonuma says gives me confidence that he understands the damage OoT really did to Zelda: removing the arcade game mechanics and challenge from the overworld map, removing the sense of danger from Link's explorations, and making the overworld simplistic and monotonous.
Oblivion said:ATTENTION OOT HATERS PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING BEFORE BECOMING TOO HAPPY
I'm pretty darn sure 99.9999% of people aren't going to read the actual quote and just go from the thread title, but Aonuma's referring to the technical aspects. Which he is correct about, since all its sequels (shockingly enough!) are on more powerful systems.
Gomu Gomu said:How come this thread reached 4 pages when we have /thread right here?
leroidys said:You realize that TECHNICALLY =/= GRAPHICALLY right? He explicitly mentions pacing problems, confusing sequences, etc. This has nothing to do with the power of the system.
andymcc said:well, it came out around the time i got a dreamcast, it was hard for me to play it alongside my DC games. :lol
High-Five, me too! What I would love is link to the past combined with Minish Cap's huge number of addictive secrets in the overworld.TheCardPlayer said:Holy fucking shit, there's another like me! Hail, brother!