• Welcome to ZD Forums! You must create an account and log in to see and participate in the Shoutbox chat on this main index page.

Ripping Off Hyrule

Link 2 the past

Slashy Slashy
Joined
Sep 5, 2008
Location
Harrogate, England
Ahhh. Now I see what you mean. And... you're right. I fully agree with you now. Sure, every new game world's got to start somewhere... but it had no connections Hyrule's lore in the first place... and then it severed all of it's own backstory and ties at the end (killing the main baddie, the lokomo disappearing etc. as you said). And that annoyed me too (it's worst in the european version), the "Snow Land", "Fire Land" and "Forest Land" thing. Whatever happened to Snowpeak, or Death Mountain, or even the Lost Woods for crying out loud. The village you start off in is called "Outset Village", so why not name other places after other landmarks from other games... or even just give them an actual name.

Maybe Nintendo listened a bit too much to their gamers here, people cried out for change, for them to stop using the same elements over and over, but they took that to the extreme here- that's what you were saying, I get you now. I guess we can only hope that ST is a "bridge game" of sorts, between the Wind Waker era and the next big one, before they start creating some actual lore and start fleshing out "New Hyrule", to make us care again *sigh* Still, I enjoyed it all the same xDDD (*is a sucker*)

Yeah this is one of thoughs, what you might call "safe games" for Nintendo.

Surely you understand by now that main street audiences hate anything diffrent from what there used to. Remeber when WW or MM came out, everyone was like "Gasp! this is diffrent from what I'm used to, I can't deal with this!". We even got a little bit of that with this game with the train.

ST was just there to hold us over till the Wii game comes out. But I still think, for what it is, it's an great game even by Zelda standards.
 
G

geromyre

Guest
I wrote this earlier, and the browser ate my post, so now I will try to reconstruct it. Let's hope I don't screw it up:

First of all, I'm thoroughly annoyed by everyone who decided to nit-pick a ridiculously small detail in the major argument here. When TVT said the boss was a pig, he was generalizing. Trying to pin down the specifics of the final boss form is woefully inane. Please stop.

Anyway.
Now, I don't have a problem with the basis of the argument: that the Zelda games are increasingly unimaginative (not that I necessarily agree, but I see the point). The problem I have here is that the argument seems to focus solely on Spirit Tracks, and that seems inaccurate. The argument posed lists the following as massive flaws in this game, and, as it may be inferred, this game particularly: unoriginal and redundant content, lack of plot, and a disinvolved world. The point I wish to bring to contest this opinion is that these are all flaws commonly found in many games, notably almost all of the Zelda sequels.

Let's face it, almost every Zelda game has MacGuffins. Be they Triforces, Sages, Amulets, Force Gems, Maps, etc. These all have no importance whatsoever other than to drag us to the next dungeon/temple/labyrinth and beat up another boss.

Speaking of dungeons, I don't know how many times I've been in discussions about the difficulty of the Water temple in Ocarina (which I will refer to as TOOT, because I find it amusing) versus the Water Temple in Majora versus the Water temple in Twilight Princess. The elemental dungeons are part and parcel of any Zelda game, much like the MacGuffins. These are staples, and this is what usually occurs in sequels of an established franchise.

Now I could use other Nintendo games as examples, but that would be too easy. Take Megaman for instance. Inheriting weapons from bosses, death traps, shooting lots of things, and jumping puzzles. How about Halo? Shooting aliens with guns, reoccurring hero, vehicles, and big battles. When you boil these games down to their absolute basics, they're essentially all the same as their original games. While this is an annoyance, as this can be seen, at best, as repetition, and, at worst, as utter unoriginality, it's unfair to single out Spirit Tracks as the sole culprit.

Let's look at the statement made earlier that the previous Zelda games were more plot driven. Did the plot seriously have that much of an impact in any Zelda game? What was the plot for the first game? Defeat evil, save kingdom, free princess. What was the plot for the second game? Defeat evil, save kingdom, uncurse princess. Repeat adnauseum. Saying that the plot was a serious driving force for any Zelda game is a fairly weak point as they're all very basic and very linear.

The so called rich history and background of the Zelda universe is, let's be honest, totally unimportant to the game unless it directly influences Link's ability to reach whatever MacGuffin he is currently running after. Do any of the Zelda games offer ways to manipulate the plot? No. Do the games ever make you face societal issues? No. Do they ever challenge your ethical and moral standings? No. Link fights the evil and saves whomever simply for the sake of defeating evil. He's not doing it for money or fame. Some may say that he's doing it to get a shot at Zelda, but I'll not address that issue, and save it mostly for the cartoon from the Super Mario Brothers Super Show. (Some people may think this makes Link an extremely flat character. I actually really appreciate that characteristic, interpreting his actions as stoic and indicative of his unswerving moral compass.)

As for not having an explorable and immersive world, there are two things that must be addressed. Firstly, never have the Zelda games had a world which was truly fleshed out. So many aspects of Hyrule are ignored. There are a race of rock people and fish people, both of which have extremely different cultures, from each other, and the Hylians. Because of their extremely different cultures, there would be massive amounts of racism between the three. Why is there always only one, maybe two, representatives of the royal families? They're families. Wouldn't there be cousins, aunts, uncles, multiple generations? There would be huge quantities of political intrigue, both in the families and between the different kingdoms. Their economies could be amazingly complicated, and terrifying fragile. What about the less abundant races, like the Kokiri? These could all be plot enhancers, or even plots themselves, but the best we ever get are creation myths and legends, and an overbearing evil that will destroy everything as we know it. That's not deep, that's the basis for a better story. Instead, we get a world just substantial enough to run around and stab octoroks in.

Secondly, the limitation to have a non-immersive world is a matter of hardware. Spirit Tracks was directly compared to TOOT, Majora's Mask, Wind Waker, Twilight Princess, and Link to the Past. Do you see a common denominator amongst those games? They're all for console. Now a DS can handle anything an N64 can dish out, but that's not the point. Those five games were all designed with your living room (or something similar) in mind. They're meant to be played on big TVs (for their time), preferably with a good sound system, and with you on a comfortable couch.

Spirit Tracks is a portable game. Sure, I play the game at home, but I also play it while on the subway, during my lunch break, waiting for the elevator, etc. I can't get absorbed into the Hylian world when I'm standing in line for a sandwich. Especially not when I always have a stylus interrupting my vision in some way or form. These are all details that will pull you out of the gaming experience, some more than others. With that in mind, you cannot honestly create a game that you can lose yourself in, and Nintendo understands this, and avoids it completely.

Finally, there is one more detail in Nintendo's marketing strategy that rarely is discussed.

Some background information before I continue: Who here knows about the Gamer Drift phenomenon? A few years ago, there was a period of time where people in Japan weren't buying games. Not just your average person, we're talking about specific people who fall into the demographic of gamers, on whom the game industry depend on to make money. For reasons that are still unclear, they were just not buying games like they used to. This period of time shortly followed the release of Wind Waker, which did not do as well as Nintendo would have hoped, largely do to the game being unfinished and rushed (think about it: only two dungeons, and then dredging for treasure for the next few hours? As much as I loved WW, I couldn't argue against that.).

Nintendo, then, was worried, and understandably so. They did not want to invest into a new game which may not be bought by their regular customers. So they thought, "Well, the Japanese aren't buying, but the American market is still going strong. Weren't they upset with the new cel-shaded direction? Didn't they want that more realistic look we hinted at years ago?" Thus, they began work, and subsequently put out, Twilight Princess. A game made specifically for America.

However, during TP's production, the Gamer Drift ended (many attribute this uptrend to the DS, which was released shortly before the end of the Drift). Every Zelda game since (not counting TP, which was already under production), has harkened back to the Wind Waker visual style. Why? Because the Japanese market wants it as such.

And that's the whole point of that long tangent. The ugly truth is that Nintendo (and any major Japanese game developer) doesn't care about the American market even remotely as much as they do their home market. Take a look at Spirit Tracks. For those who don't know, the Japanese love trains, and it runs deep in their cultural consciousness. During a trip to Japan, I played an arcade game in which you drive a train. That's _all_ you do. The better you are, the more time you get. It's like a really boring version of Crazy Taxi. So when I saw Spirit Tracks, I laughed, thinking, "Wow, they really made this one Japanese, didn't they?" Then when I played the game, and saw the speed controls, I laughed harder, thinking back to that arcade game, flying past the first stop and finally coming to a halt between the second and third stops, losing miserably.

Take a look at Wind Waker, Phantom Hourglass, and Spirit Tracks. What are the main modes of transportation? Sailing and trains, both of which are strongly part of Japanese culture. Did Japan want a more realistic looking Hyrule? No. Even the mailboxes look like Japanese mailboxes. What this means is that Japan wants their Zelda games to be as they are: mildly repetitive and light on plot. They want little creative puzzles to solve and a light, happy universe.

They want more Toon Zelda. I totally support them on this decision.

Personally, I love this game. I have already beaten it, and am going for total completion by acquiring everything in the game. That is something I haven't done in a long time. I like the non-immersion: it helps me not miss my subway stop or the end of my lunch break. Heck, I use it as a mild learning tool for my nephew, who loves trains. ("Who do you have to talk to to ride the train?" "PRINCESS!") I also believe this is one of the most challenging Zelda games I've played, rather than being more obnoxious than hard (oh, Majora and your time reverting crap), or not so much hard as unplayably bad (...I'm sorry. To all of the hardcore nerds reading this: I really tried to not bring in Wand of Gamelon, because that's cheating, but I couldn't resist. Yes, I have played it. My friend owns a CDI just for that game.).

Hopefully this sheds some light on the situation, and maybe quells a bit of the nerd rage that is consuming you.

[Finished proof reading. Whew! How is that for my second post?]
 

TVTMaster

Guy What's Angry Now
Joined
May 15, 2009
Location
It's a secret to everybody.
I wrote this earlier, and the browser ate my post, so now I will try to reconstruct it. Let's hope I don't screw it up:

First of all, I'm thoroughly annoyed by everyone who decided to nit-pick a ridiculously small detail in the major argument here. When TVT said the boss was a pig, he was generalizing. Trying to pin down the specifics of the final boss form is woefully inane. Please stop.

Okay, yes, it's not necessarily a pig, but really, he does kind of look like a combo of LttP Ganon and TP Beast Ganon, plus spiky hair and that thing on his back. I'm just saying his design isn't very original, not that he's necessarily a pig or what have you.

Anyway.
Now, I don't have a problem with the basis of the argument: that the Zelda games are increasingly unimaginative (not that I necessarily agree, but I see the point). The problem I have here is that the argument seems to focus solely on Spirit Tracks, and that seems inaccurate. The argument posed lists the following as massive flaws in this game, and, as it may be inferred, this game particularly: unoriginal and redundant content, lack of plot, and a disinvolved world. The point I wish to bring to contest this opinion is that these are all flaws commonly found in many games, notably almost all of the Zelda sequels.

Well, for one, thing, I'd like to point out that yes, these are minor flaws in the game- I acknowledge that from a design standpoint, Spirit Tracks is a fantastic video game that serves its purpose as a handheld admirably. This doesn't mean that the minor flaws aren't annoying, though, and yes, I blew them out of proportion for the sake of comedy. (If you didn't guess from the Nostalgia Critic pic that the thread was meant to be primarily humorous... well, it says something, but I'm not sure what.)

Let's face it, almost every Zelda game has MacGuffins. Be they Triforces, Sages, Amulets, Force Gems, Maps, etc. These all have no importance whatsoever other than to drag us to the next dungeon/temple/labyrinth and beat up another boss.

Well, yes, there are always macguffins and they do serve similar purposes frequently. However, I would contend that it's not true that they're always unimportant to the story. Again, the answer is world-building: if the Spiritual Stones in OoT, for example, were, say, identical magic keys, then yes, they'd be stunningly unimportant to anything but the immediate plot. However, the Spiritual Stones were not just keys, but crystalline artifacts that allowed Link to gain access to the Master Sword, held by races that were intended to embody/represent the three virtues of the Triforce- much like LttP's Pendants of Virtue. This brings up a number of questions regarding their nature and connection to previously seen Macguffins. And this goes for other things, such as the Seven Maidens/Seven Sages/Ancient Sages, and the Triforce, its position during the games, and its relation to the recurring Sacred Realm/Dark World, which has become crucial to determining timeline placement.

The reason I'm peeved at Force Gems, however, is that they're not tied to anything- for the Toon Link games, Miyamoto has as good as confirmed that the old Hyrule is gone and buried, so now they're giving us these new thingies. Except, what are they? In FSA they counted as currency, in PH they unlocked doors, and in ST they created train tracks, opened warp gates, and even served as like candy or something in the multiplayer (which probably isn't canon, but still...). And they do all this without any point of reference, no explicit purpose or origin or bearing on the world in any relevant way. They're never important to anything but gameplay, because they could so easily be substituted for anything else and lose none of their relevance.

Speaking of dungeons, I don't know how many times I've been in discussions about the difficulty of the Water temple in Ocarina (which I will refer to as TOOT, because I find it amusing) versus the Water Temple in Majora versus the Water temple in Twilight Princess. The elemental dungeons are part and parcel of any Zelda game, much like the MacGuffins. These are staples, and this is what usually occurs in sequels of an established franchise.

Yes, okay. I'm not complaining about elemental dungeons, I'm just complaining that that's pretty much all we have. An empty field covered in tracks and elemental dungeons. There's some races living in the mountains and such, but they pretty much don't do anything but open gate X, and you never see them in any sort of relation to anything else in the world.

Now I could use other Nintendo games as examples, but that would be too easy. Take Megaman for instance. Inheriting weapons from bosses, death traps, shooting lots of things, and jumping puzzles. How about Halo? Shooting aliens with guns, reoccurring hero, vehicles, and big battles. When you boil these games down to their absolute basics, they're essentially all the same as their original games. While this is an annoyance, as this can be seen, at best, as repetition, and, at worst, as utter unoriginality, it's unfair to single out Spirit Tracks as the sole culprit.

What I'm saying about Spirit Tracks isn't that it's essentially the same, but that it's essentially the same, except that there are explicitly no ties to Hyrule, there's absolutely nothing new to care about and what is new gets killed off at the end of the game. While, for example, the Wind Waker was "Get three elemental Macguffins to go to a dungeon and then get the master sword and do more dungeons to kill Ganon", it was more than that, giving us interesting locales, beautifully placed connections to other Zeldas (the sage windows, the Tower of the Gods/Hyrule Castle, the scattered ToC from the HoT's departure, etc.), while ST had the same kind of design elements, but devoid of any context and shoved into an empty world for absolutely no reason.

Let's look at the statement made earlier that the previous Zelda games were more plot driven. Did the plot seriously have that much of an impact in any Zelda game? What was the plot for the first game? Defeat evil, save kingdom, free princess. What was the plot for the second game? Defeat evil, save kingdom, uncurse princess. Repeat adnauseum. Saying that the plot was a serious driving force for any Zelda game is a fairly weak point as they're all very basic and very linear.

Again, as I told NorthApple and a link 2 the past, I never said Zelda games were very story driven, but rather were driven by their world and their blend of exploration and progression. In other Zeldas, there was a genuinely interesting world (even in handheld games like LA, OoX, and MC, as I'll address later) that you, the player, actively discovered through exploration. However, in the DS games, you're essentially put on rails (and I want to make a train joke here), and the places you "discover" are just places the game took you next, rather than any exploration of your part. Even Twilight Princess had shades of this, but at the very least there WERE optional places to go and actual reasons to do any backtracking. While, yes, the plot is usually basic and linear, that doesn't mean the actual game has to be.

The so called rich history and background of the Zelda universe is, let's be honest, totally unimportant to the game unless it directly influences Link's ability to reach whatever MacGuffin he is currently running after. Do any of the Zelda games offer ways to manipulate the plot? No. Do the games ever make you face societal issues? No. Do they ever challenge your ethical and moral standings? No. Link fights the evil and saves whomever simply for the sake of defeating evil. He's not doing it for money or fame. Some may say that he's doing it to get a shot at Zelda, but I'll not address that issue, and save it mostly for the cartoon from the Super Mario Brothers Super Show. (Some people may think this makes Link an extremely flat character. I actually really appreciate that characteristic, interpreting his actions as stoic and indicative of his unswerving moral compass.)

Again, you're just blowing off a crucial element of the series as "totally unimportant". While, yes, it's unimportant to the gameplay and what you actually do, it is nonetheless an enjoyable part of playing a Zelda game, and when it's totally removed, it has a detrimental effect on the game. I admit this is less important to new players, but the more Zelda you play, the more noticeable it is when it's gone.

As for not having an explorable and immersive world, there are two things that must be addressed. Firstly, never have the Zelda games had a world which was truly fleshed out. So many aspects of Hyrule are ignored. There are a race of rock people and fish people, both of which have extremely different cultures, from each other, and the Hylians. Because of their extremely different cultures, there would be massive amounts of racism between the three. Why is there always only one, maybe two, representatives of the royal families? They're families. Wouldn't there be cousins, aunts, uncles, multiple generations? There would be huge quantities of political intrigue, both in the families and between the different kingdoms. Their economies could be amazingly complicated, and terrifying fragile. What about the less abundant races, like the Kokiri? These could all be plot enhancers, or even plots themselves, but the best we ever get are creation myths and legends, and an overbearing evil that will destroy everything as we know it. That's not deep, that's the basis for a better story. Instead, we get a world just substantial enough to run around and stab octoroks in.

Again, you're assuming it can only be relevant to either the gameplay or the specific plot. Yes, there are issues with certain elements, (although TP tells us in no uncertain terms that yes, Hylians are racist against Zora, and Gorons don't care much for humans they don't know personally or aren't selling anything to, and the Royal Family could easily just be a very small family by tradition, and Zelda games typically don't put things like the Kokiri into the specific story simply because the specific story is intentionally minimal), but on the whole there are still plenty of discoveries to be made about the different races. Hyrule is by no means a realistic place, but it is an interesting place, and quite honestly the developers usually care more about the land itself than its politics.

Secondly, the limitation to have a non-immersive world is a matter of hardware. Spirit Tracks was directly compared to TOOT, Majora's Mask, Wind Waker, Twilight Princess, and Link to the Past. Do you see a common denominator amongst those games? They're all for console. Now a DS can handle anything an N64 can dish out, but that's not the point. Those five games were all designed with your living room (or something similar) in mind. They're meant to be played on big TVs (for their time), preferably with a good sound system, and with you on a comfortable couch.

Spirit Tracks is a portable game. Sure, I play the game at home, but I also play it while on the subway, during my lunch break, waiting for the elevator, etc. I can't get absorbed into the Hylian world when I'm standing in line for a sandwich. Especially not when I always have a stylus interrupting my vision in some way or form. These are all details that will pull you out of the gaming experience, some more than others. With that in mind, you cannot honestly create a game that you can lose yourself in, and Nintendo understands this, and avoids it completely.

See: Link's Awakening, Oracle of Seasons/Ages, The Minish Cap. Even without much happening in these worlds (which I contend would not have hurt the games), they still present a place that you can actually explore, which is more than I can say for Spirit Tracks. Except for a few optional areas that shout "HEY! HERE'S A PLACE! COME EXPLORE THIS PLACE! FOR ALL OF FIVE MINUTES!", there's not much in ST you don't see as a consequence of the plot. The problem with ST is that, even with practically nothing in it, they don't even let you explore whatever it is freely! Zelda games, in my opinion, are about exploring a world while saving it. ST, quite simply, didn't have exploring. Like, at all. Handheld games, yes, do need to focus on gameplay, but Spirit Tracks didn't have Zelda gameplay, it had Toon Link gameplay- it brings you to a puzzle and you solve it.

Finally, there is one more detail in Nintendo's marketing strategy that rarely is discussed.

Some background information before I continue: Who here knows about the Gamer Drift phenomenon? A few years ago, there was a period of time where people in Japan weren't buying games. Not just your average person, we're talking about specific people who fall into the demographic of gamers, on whom the game industry depend on to make money. For reasons that are still unclear, they were just not buying games like they used to. This period of time shortly followed the release of Wind Waker, which did not do as well as Nintendo would have hoped, largely do to the game being unfinished and rushed (think about it: only two dungeons, and then dredging for treasure for the next few hours? As much as I loved WW, I couldn't argue against that.).

Nintendo, then, was worried, and understandably so. They did not want to invest into a new game which may not be bought by their regular customers. So they thought, "Well, the Japanese aren't buying, but the American market is still going strong. Weren't they upset with the new cel-shaded direction? Didn't they want that more realistic look we hinted at years ago?" Thus, they began work, and subsequently put out, Twilight Princess. A game made specifically for America.

However, during TP's production, the Gamer Drift ended (many attribute this uptrend to the DS, which was released shortly before the end of the Drift). Every Zelda game since (not counting TP, which was already under production), has harkened back to the Wind Waker visual style. Why? Because the Japanese market wants it as such.

And that's the whole point of that long tangent. The ugly truth is that Nintendo (and any major Japanese game developer) doesn't care about the American market even remotely as much as they do their home market. Take a look at Spirit Tracks. For those who don't know, the Japanese love trains, and it runs deep in their cultural consciousness. During a trip to Japan, I played an arcade game in which you drive a train. That's _all_ you do. The better you are, the more time you get. It's like a really boring version of Crazy Taxi. So when I saw Spirit Tracks, I laughed, thinking, "Wow, they really made this one Japanese, didn't they?" Then when I played the game, and saw the speed controls, I laughed harder, thinking back to that arcade game, flying past the first stop and finally coming to a halt between the second and third stops, losing miserably.

Take a look at Wind Waker, Phantom Hourglass, and Spirit Tracks. What are the main modes of transportation? Sailing and trains, both of which are strongly part of Japanese culture. Did Japan want a more realistic looking Hyrule? No. Even the mailboxes look like Japanese mailboxes. What this means is that Japan wants their Zelda games to be as they are: mildly repetitive and light on plot. They want little creative puzzles to solve and a light, happy universe.

They want more Toon Zelda. I totally support them on this decision.

...okay, so Japan likes Toon Zelda. And? To be honest, Zelda had never been about little, creative puzzles and a light, happy universe. It's about exploring a world full of puzzles and a compelling, interesting universe. From what I gather, you're saying Japan likes this new direction, and so they're going to keep doing it. Does that make me have to like it?
...
(The answer is actually no.)

Personally, I love this game. I have already beaten it, and am going for total completion by acquiring everything in the game. That is something I haven't done in a long time. I like the non-immersion: it helps me not miss my subway stop or the end of my lunch break. Heck, I use it as a mild learning tool for my nephew, who loves trains. ("Who do you have to talk to to ride the train?" "PRINCESS!") I also believe this is one of the most challenging Zelda games I've played, rather than being more obnoxious than hard (oh, Majora and your time reverting crap), or not so much hard as unplayably bad (...I'm sorry. To all of the hardcore nerds reading this: I really tried to not bring in Wand of Gamelon, because that's cheating, but I couldn't resist. Yes, I have played it. My friend owns a CDI just for that game.).

Okay, yes, Spirit Tracks is a fun game. It's a good video game and does what it does well. The problem is that what it does isn't what Zelda does, it's it's own new little thing. And when you want to try a new little thing, you don't convert a respected and immersive series known for exploring amazing settings into the new little thing- you create a new IP. I mean, yeah, that's hard and expensive, but isn't Nintendo rolling in dough these days? And don't they have a new market on which to push an IP with little creative puzzles? I don't know, but I don't like turning Zelda into this little thing.

A few more things- I have a hard time understanding liking non-immersion, but maybe it's why Japan is so fond of the new Toon direction. Also, I fully sympathize with your frustration towards MM- the fact that everything you do to help anyone is totally reset whenever you save, and the only thing that survives is anything in your inventory that you can't buy back, is one of the deal breakers for me (I still haven't beaten the darn thing.)
And really? Wand of Gamelon? Ouch.

Hopefully this sheds some light on the situation, and maybe quells a bit of the nerd rage that is consuming you.

[Finished proof reading. Whew! How is that for my second post?]

Well, yes, it has shed light, and again, the NERD RAGE was me blowing things comically out of proportion. It was really more like Nerd Severe Irritation, which has now become Nerd Depressing Bitter Disappointment. Anyway, thanks for the post- welcome to the forums.
 
G

geromyre

Guest
I was in the middle of posting a ridiculously long winded response again, but two things happened.
1) I just realized how little sleep I'm going to get if I don't get to bed.
2) I had a startling epiphany: The only, ONLY Zelda in which I really had fun exploring was TOOT. Wind Waker, as well, but to a slightly lesser degree. I was trying to argue about how, upon reflection, the overhead styled Zelda's never truly appealed to the explorer part of me when I thought to myself how amazingly small the world of Twilight Princess felt.

I was talking to a friend on how much I'm enjoying ST, and that I haven't tried for completion of a game (all power ups and such) for a long time, mostly because doing so began to feel like a chore, another job. And, looking at my discussion with him, and my realization just now, I think that the whole aspect that you're defending so valiantly, exploration and fleshing out of a world, I feel has become so rote with most games that I've become bored with it all. A lot of games now have things that appear to make a world more full on the surface, but, upon closer inspection, are just empty fluff. Having a town is neat, but why are there only 12 inhabitants that I ever see, and they say the same things over and over.

I feel galvanized, confused, and unsettled. In some weird way, my past experiences with Zelda games suddenly feel more hollow, and it's a terrible feeling. I think I've become utterly jaded, and I need some time to really evaluate my stance on gaming in general. I'm going to sleep on this, and hopefully I'll have something more meaningful to post.
 

Sparky

Crawfish Prime
Joined
Jul 8, 2009
Location
New Zealand
Okay, yes, it's not necessarily a pig, but really, he does kind of look like a combo of LttP Ganon and TP Beast Ganon, plus spiky hair and that thing on his back. I'm just saying his design isn't very original, not that he's necessarily a pig or what have you.
He looks entirely like a lion to me. More so than a pig. He stands on four legs, his hair resembles a mane, he's blue due to that being the colour of what looked like his true form, and the only reason he has horns is due to his vessel. And of all the final bosses that people think resemble pigs this is the one i'd say resembles one the least.



Well, yes, there are always macguffins and they do serve similar purposes frequently. However, I would contend that it's not true that they're always unimportant to the story. Again, the answer is world-building: if the Spiritual Stones in OoT, for example, were, say, identical magic keys, then yes, they'd be stunningly unimportant to anything but the immediate plot. However, the Spiritual Stones were not just keys, but crystalline artifacts that allowed Link to gain access to the Master Sword, held by races that were intended to embody/represent the three virtues of the Triforce- much like LttP's Pendants of Virtue. This brings up a number of questions regarding their nature and connection to previously seen Macguffins. And this goes for other things, such as the Seven Maidens/Seven Sages/Ancient Sages, and the Triforce, its position during the games, and its relation to the recurring Sacred Realm/Dark World, which has become crucial to determining timeline placement.

The reason I'm peeved at Force Gems, however, is that they're not tied to anything- for the Toon Link games, Miyamoto has as good as confirmed that the old Hyrule is gone and buried, so now they're giving us these new thingies. Except, what are they? In FSA they counted as currency, in PH they unlocked doors, and in ST they created train tracks, opened warp gates, and even served as like candy or something in the multiplayer (which probably isn't canon, but still...). And they do all this without any point of reference, no explicit purpose or origin or bearing on the world in any relevant way. They're never important to anything but gameplay, because they could so easily be substituted for anything else and lose none of their relevance.
Uh....no. In FSA they counted as energy to power up the four sword to be able to destroy the evil barrier that was randomly at the end of every non boss level, and that drained said four sword upon destruction.

Also, you can take a multiplayer minigame with as canon about as much as you could take the manga canon, if not less. So that's irrelevant.

Now to do some of my own WMG here, if I was to interpret Force gems, i'd imagine they were the physical embodiment of energy or some form of magic. Every time they are in a game they either power something up, be it the Force gates or the Spirit Tracks themself, extending them in the process in ST, powering up the four sword in FSA or opening doors in PH.



Yes, okay. I'm not complaining about elemental dungeons, I'm just complaining that that's pretty much all we have. An empty field covered in tracks and elemental dungeons. There's some races living in the mountains and such, but they pretty much don't do anything but open gate X, and you never see them in any sort of relation to anything else in the world.
???

You have trees, mountainous slopes, caves, forests, oceans, fields of snows, far more rocks and barrels than anyone would ever really need, a dessert and so on. If all you see is an empty land with tracks and dungeons, you're surely driving blind.

And also, besides mandatory plots, when else in a Zelda game has anyone ever done anything outside of one simple task to aide you, if that. You'd be lucky if you had a handful in any of the games that left their designated location for some reason or another.



What I'm saying about Spirit Tracks isn't that it's essentially the same, but that it's essentially the same, except that there are explicitly no ties to Hyrule, there's absolutely nothing new to care about and what is new gets killed off at the end of the game. While, for example, the Wind Waker was "Get three elemental Macguffins to go to a dungeon and then get the master sword and do more dungeons to kill Ganon", it was more than that, giving us interesting locales, beautifully placed connections to other Zeldas (the sage windows, the Tower of the Gods/Hyrule Castle, the scattered ToC from the HoT's departure, etc.), while ST had the same kind of design elements, but devoid of any context and shoved into an empty world for absolutely no reason.
What?

We have to deal with:
A) Must take place in a new land. No Hyrule for you.
:cool: Ganondorf is on the bench for this one, due to lethal wounds and turning to stone.
C) No Master Sword, it's on the bench with Ganondorf, at the bottom of the Great Sea.
D) No Phantom Sword, as that was lost in the ending due to reverting back into an Hourglass.
E) Only Link and Tetra.....and to a lesser relevant extent Linebeck knew the details of Phantom Hourglass.
F) All 3 are dead, or MIA anyways....

So really, with the fact they need a new plot and these points together, it's not that crazy they don't have said shout backs to past games.


Again, as I told NorthApple and a link 2 the past, I never said Zelda games were very story driven, but rather were driven by their world and their blend of exploration and progression. In other Zeldas, there was a genuinely interesting world (even in handheld games like LA, OoX, and MC, as I'll address later) that you, the player, actively discovered through exploration. However, in the DS games, you're essentially put on rails (and I want to make a train joke here), and the places you "discover" are just places the game took you next, rather than any exploration of your part. Even Twilight Princess had shades of this, but at the very least there WERE optional places to go and actual reasons to do any backtracking. While, yes, the plot is usually basic and linear, that doesn't mean the actual game has to be.
Whilst i'm not an open fan of the "On a boat/train unless you're at an island/town/random station/end boss area" system, I will say that ST was an improvement for exploration over PH. You don't have to travel the non plot related track you unlock, but you're missing a few places if you don't.



Again, you're just blowing off a crucial element of the series as "totally unimportant". While, yes, it's unimportant to the gameplay and what you actually do, it is nonetheless an enjoyable part of playing a Zelda game, and when it's totally removed, it has a detrimental effect on the game. I admit this is less important to new players, but the more Zelda you play, the more noticeable it is when it's gone.
As described above. Due to the conditions in which this game has to take place, I feel they've done rather well with their shout outs to earlier games. What with nearly no one knowing of the times when OOT occurred and the main characters setting out for a new land thats not Hyrule, even if it is just New Hyrule, they could only really do shout outs to TWW and PH. If there wasn't the whole hundreds of years gap thing between the events of OOT and TWW, then the 100 year gap between TWW/PH and ST, i'd be agreeing with you.



Again, you're assuming it can only be relevant to either the gameplay or the specific plot. Yes, there are issues with certain elements, (although TP tells us in no uncertain terms that yes, Hylians are racist against Zora, and Gorons don't care much for humans they don't know personally or aren't selling anything to, and the Royal Family could easily just be a very small family by tradition, and Zelda games typically don't put things like the Kokiri into the specific story simply because the specific story is intentionally minimal), but on the whole there are still plenty of discoveries to be made about the different races. Hyrule is by no means a realistic place, but it is an interesting place, and quite honestly the developers usually care more about the land itself than its politics.
But, they have Goron and Anouki. The Koroks stayed back at the great sea, the Zora evolved or died out, the Rito stayed in the Great Sea or at least didn't go to New Hyrule. Plus, the Hylians were racist to Zoras in the TP frame of time and the Gorons were anti human/hylians in the OOT/TP frame of time. I'd feel a flood nearly eliminating you're land, and the discovery and growth of a new land would put these anti trusting and racism issues in the back seat over survival and said growth.



...okay, so Japan likes Toon Zelda. And? To be honest, Zelda had never been about little, creative puzzles and a light, happy universe. It's about exploring a world full of puzzles and a compelling, interesting universe. From what I gather, you're saying Japan likes this new direction, and so they're going to keep doing it. Does that make me have to like it?
...
(The answer is actually no.)
So basically this is all a "This game is UnZelda like because I don't think it is AND THAT MAKES IT THE TRUTH and some random opinions I have" rant. Awesome.



Okay, yes, Spirit Tracks is a fun game. It's a good video game and does what it does well. The problem is that what it does isn't what Zelda does, it's it's own new little thing. And when you want to try a new little thing, you don't convert a respected and immersive series known for exploring amazing settings into the new little thing- you create a new IP. I mean, yeah, that's hard and expensive, but isn't Nintendo rolling in dough these days? And don't they have a new market on which to push an IP with little creative puzzles? I don't know, but I don't like turning Zelda into this little thing.

A few more things- I have a hard time understanding liking non-immersion, but maybe it's why Japan is so fond of the new Toon direction. Also, I fully sympathize with your frustration towards MM- the fact that everything you do to help anyone is totally reset whenever you save, and the only thing that survives is anything in your inventory that you can't buy back, is one of the deal breakers for me (I still haven't beaten the darn thing.)
And really? Wand of Gamelon? Ouch.
And again, more "I don't feel it's Zeldaish so it's not. I'm fine if you don't like a game. I'm fine if you don't like the system in a game. I AM NOT fine if you feel it's okay to call a game not so much part of the series because you did not like the system or the game, and for non relevant opinions.

This is not as such a flame post as it is a complete disagreement in opinions, but I can't really stop you from reporting it, so do with it whatever you will.
 

TVTMaster

Guy What's Angry Now
Joined
May 15, 2009
Location
It's a secret to everybody.
He looks entirely like a lion to me. More so than a pig. He stands on four legs, his hair resembles a mane, he's blue due to that being the colour of what looked like his true form, and the only reason he has horns is due to his vessel. And of all the final bosses that people think resemble pigs this is the one i'd say resembles one the least.

He's a lion/pig/beast thing who looks like a blue Toon version of TP's Beast Ganon. Just because there are reasons for his appearance doesn't mean that his design is a knock off of previous incarnations of Ganon. I'm saying his design is not very original, not insisting that he must be a pig.

Uh....no. In FSA they counted as energy to power up the four sword to be able to destroy the evil barrier that was randomly at the end of every non boss level, and that drained said four sword upon destruction.
Also, you can take a multiplayer minigame with as canon about as much as you could take the manga canon, if not less. So that's irrelevant.
Now to do some of my own WMG here, if I was to interpret Force gems, i'd imagine they were the physical embodiment of energy or some form of magic. Every time they are in a game they either power something up, be it the Force gates or the Spirit Tracks themself, extending them in the process in ST, powering up the four sword in FSA or opening doors in PH.

You can also use them as money for that fortune teller in the Kakariko knock-off, and ok the minigame is stupid. Either way, Force Gems are really arbitrary Macguffins, and according to what you're saying, they're like magic batteries. Even that isn't a good idea, because they're not even masking the fact that "yes, they just have a lot of power". They theoretically could be replaced with anything else that had power and it would make exactly as much sense. They're boring magic things that never have any significance beyond unspecific power to do entirely arbitrary things.

You have trees, mountainous slopes, caves, forests, oceans, fields of snows, far more rocks and barrels than anyone would ever really need, a dessert and so on. If all you see is an empty land with tracks and dungeons, you're surely driving blind.
And also, besides mandatory plots, when else in a Zelda game has anyone ever done anything outside of one simple task to aide you, if that. You'd be lucky if you had a handful in any of the games that left their designated location for some reason or another.

You have trees with nothing in or near them, you have mountainous slopes with nothing on them, caves devoid of anything but monsters, forests that have nothing in them but enemies, oceans with nothing but blue (and of course enemies), fields of snow with nothing to find, and an absurd amount of rocks and barrels that serve no purpose whatsoever. Gameplay-wise, the land is, in fact, entirely empty. There are enemies, sure, but they're basically target practice full of rupees. You'll never be able to run into a secret cave for a heart piece or visit a hidden fairy fountain for an upgrade to your quiver or... anything in the overworld. It's scenery and enemies, and nothing else. No treasure, secrets, or puzzles, which are integral parts of a Zelda overworld.
And, ok, the races is Zelda rarely help beyond their specific domain, but there are plenty of examples where they do, and Spirit Tracks doesn't have any, so that's an issue.


What?

We have to deal with:
A) Must take place in a new land. No Hyrule for you.
:cool: Ganondorf is on the bench for this one, due to lethal wounds and turning to stone.
C) No Master Sword, it's on the bench with Ganondorf, at the bottom of the Great Sea.
D) No Phantom Sword, as that was lost in the ending due to reverting back into an Hourglass.
E) Only Link and Tetra.....and to a lesser relevant extent Linebeck knew the details of Phantom Hourglass.
F) All 3 are dead, or MIA anyways....

So really, with the fact they need a new plot and these points together, it's not that crazy they don't have said shout backs to past games.

Again, just because there's justification for a flaw doesn't mean it's good. Either way, Hyrule isn't limited to just the landmarks, Ganondorf, and the Master Sword. There are tons of things that could have found their way to New Hyrule- the neglected Sheikah and Gerudo races, possibly the Zora, or the Oocca (whose city would be more accessible due to the added elevation from the flood), or any number of items and artifacts that could have been brought over from the Great Sea. Instead, all they give us is what's thematically linked to each area- and some places devoid of anything but the Lokomo and the monsters. The Anouki are back, but we don't really learn anything about them, and the Gorons are present, but they haven't been absent from a Zelda title since OoT, and again they do nothing they haven't before. They could have shown us the fate of the Gerudo in the Sand Realm, or of the Zora in the Ocean Realm, but nope. Just, um, monsters again.

Whilst i'm not an open fan of the "On a boat/train unless you're at an island/town/random station/end boss area" system, I will say that ST was an improvement for exploration over PH. You don't have to travel the non plot related track you unlock, but you're missing a few places if you don't.

Those few places are rarely of much importance- usually the equivalent of Dee Ess Island or nonsense like that. Yes, okay, there were more. But really, you weren't exploring them so much as deciding whether or not to spend your time on these areas- it's not like you noticed that maybe if you moved this boulder, you could jump down to that cave- no, there's big honking train tracks asking you if you want to go left or right.

As described above. Due to the conditions in which this game has to take place, I feel they've done rather well with their shout outs to earlier games. What with nearly no one knowing of the times when OOT occurred and the main characters setting out for a new land thats not Hyrule, even if it is just New Hyrule, they could only really do shout outs to TWW and PH. If there wasn't the whole hundreds of years gap thing between the events of OOT and TWW, then the 100 year gap between TWW/PH and ST, i'd be agreeing with you.

The shout outs were fairly minor, but even what they did have isn't exactly anything, again, that you'd care about. As I pointed out earlier, connections to earlier games don't have to come in the form of people who knew about it, but rather in things that are actually found in new Hyrule, such as races or objects that migrated from the Great Sea.

But, they have Goron and Anouki. The Koroks stayed back at the great sea, the Zora evolved or died out, the Rito stayed in the Great Sea or at least didn't go to New Hyrule. Plus, the Hylians were racist to Zoras in the TP frame of time and the Gorons were anti human/hylians in the OOT/TP frame of time. I'd feel a flood nearly eliminating you're land, and the discovery and growth of a new land would put these anti trusting and racism issues in the back seat over survival and said growth.

The Gorons being back is nice, but not entirely unexpected, as I said earlier, and, like the Anouki, we learn nothing about them and they did nothing of particular importance. The paragraph you're quoting is more of a dispute over whether Hyrule was a fleshed-out world previously, not saying that the same specific issues should have been in ST. In addition, we don't actually know what happened to the Zora, and ST's New Hyrule could have been the perfect opportunity to bring them back in, along with races like the Sheikah and Gerudo, whose fates were also left unknown. They also could have actually had their own races in ST (there's only like six or seven Lokomo and they're all sages who mostly sit around and play instruments, and are debatably just regular people on weird wheelchairs), and given them a real role and presence.

So basically this is all a "This game is UnZelda like because I don't think it is AND THAT MAKES IT THE TRUTH and some random opinions I have" rant. Awesome.
And again, more "I don't feel it's Zeldaish so it's not. I'm fine if you don't like a game. I'm fine if you don't like the system in a game. I AM NOT fine if you feel it's okay to call a game not so much part of the series because you did not like the system or the game, and for non relevant opinions.

I never claimed it wasn't a Zelda game, I just said that it left a number of the series' crucial elements behind. It's obviously canon, I'm just saying it's a step in the wrong direction. It's also kind of insulting when you ignore everything I'm actually saying and simplifying to "because I don't think it is", and similarly insulted when you call my opinions "non-relevant" without providing real reasons why.

This is not as such a flame post as it is a complete disagreement in opinions, but I can't really stop you from reporting it, so do with it whatever you will.

Why would I report it? You make a number of valid points (despite ignoring some significant details), and even though it's kind of angry in tone there's nothing even worth a rep down for. Anyway, I'm a go play Risk now. Uh, bye.
 

Octo Rocked

Dr. Octorokapus BLAAAAAH!
Joined
Dec 8, 2009
Location
The American Midwest
Holy overly long quote infested rants, Batman!

Anyway, TVT, you're making a huge deal over this and unfairly targeting Spirit Tracks. Really, this has happened before. Even Ocarina of Time, the "greatest game of all time," was pretty much just A Link to the Past...IN 3D!!! Sure, they made it into its own story in some ways, but they can both be sumarized thusly: boy must obtain 3 MacGuffins, at which point he goes into an alternate world corrupted by someone in power. In order to stop said powerful person, he needs to protect seven sages (okay, or descendants of said sages...still fits). There is a final confrontation, after which the person in power becomes Ganon. True, there are differences, but they are, in essence, the same story. Hell, the soundtrack that Ocarina of Time is so famous for actually had most of its tunes (including Zelda's Lullaby, Kakariko Village, the Master Sword theme, and others) originate from A Link to the Past.

Likewise, Phantom Hourglass takes a lot of elements from Link's Awakening. Link is at sea, but after an incident, ends up on the beach of an island. After he defeats what might possibly be a mental infliction (some have theorized that "Bellum" is short for cerebellum), he saves a giant whale, who transports him back into his own world. The whole thing appears to be all just a dream...except for the appearance of the most developed character from each game.

As you can see, Nintendo reusing plots is NOT a new thing. Nintendo reusing villains is also NOT a new thing. Zelda has been turned to stone twice. You can expect the plot to throw you a curveball sometime around the end of the third dungeon. Marin is basically Zelda; Malon is basically Marin; Illia is basically Malon. Characters turn up when they should chronologically not be (Impa appears both in what is commonly accepted as the first game (OoT) AND the last game (AoL)). And exacly how many times has Ganon/Ganondorf died again?. Spirit Tracks is actually fairly unique, as plots go. Sure, there are some elements that have been used before, excluding the prequels (Zelda's body being possessed in TP, An authority figure being behind an evil plot (ALttP, OoT, and probably others), Something resembling sages), but a lot of these things are given unique spins. Zelda's body being possessed is the plot, not just a surprising incident. There aren't seven "sages," there's six and a rogue apprentice.

Really, I enjoyed seeing Malladus's final form. An obvious reference to Ganon. Like all the other things, it was just a nice callback to the games we love so much, and possibly an attempt to make New Hyrule feel like home.
 

TVTMaster

Guy What's Angry Now
Joined
May 15, 2009
Location
It's a secret to everybody.
Holy overly long quote infested rants, Batman!

Anyway, TVT, you're making a huge deal over this and unfairly targeting Spirit Tracks. Really, this has happened before. Even Ocarina of Time, the "greatest game of all time," was pretty much just A Link to the Past...IN 3D!!! Sure, they made it into its own story in some ways, but they can both be sumarized thusly: boy must obtain 3 MacGuffins, at which point he goes into an alternate world corrupted by someone in power. In order to stop said powerful person, he needs to protect seven sages (okay, or descendants of said sages...still fits). There is a final confrontation, after which the person in power becomes Ganon. True, there are differences, but they are, in essence, the same story. Hell, the soundtrack that Ocarina of Time is so famous for actually had most of its tunes (including Zelda's Lullaby, Kakariko Village, the Master Sword theme, and others) originate from A Link to the Past.
Yes, they are. Why? Because we have the same villain, going after the same power, in the same world. It's expected to be similar because the premise is similar. It's not a cop-out as much as the logical consequence of a man's obsession with a particular power, which is protected in much the same way over time. It actually makes sense that we'd have the same plot.

Likewise, Phantom Hourglass takes a lot of elements from Link's Awakening. Link is at sea, but after an incident, ends up on the beach of an island. After he defeats what might possibly be a mental infliction (some have theorized that "Bellum" is short for cerebellum), he saves a giant whale, who transports him back into his own world. The whole thing appears to be all just a dream...except for the appearance of the most developed character from each game.
I never said I liked PH- it was a rehash of LA's basic concept except with an empty world with little to no secrets and more aggravating characters. And here, again we have the potential to tell a new and interesting story in a new setting, but instead we have a recycled plot in a new setting. I never went out of my way to criticize PH because it was so bad that it would be redundant.

As you can see, Nintendo reusing plots is NOT a new thing. Nintendo reusing villains is also NOT a new thing. Zelda has been turned to stone twice. You can expect the plot to throw you a curveball sometime around the end of the third dungeon. Marin is basically Zelda; Malon is basically Marin; Illia is basically Malon. Characters turn up when they should chronologically not be (Impa appears both in what is commonly accepted as the first game (OoT) AND the last game (AoL)). And exacly how many times has Ganon/Ganondorf died again?. Spirit Tracks is actually fairly unique, as plots go. Sure, there are some elements that have been used before, excluding the prequels (Zelda's body being possessed in TP, An authority figure being behind an evil plot (ALttP, OoT, and probably others), Something resembling sages), but a lot of these things are given unique spins. Zelda's body being possessed is the plot, not just a surprising incident. There aren't seven "sages," there's six and a rogue apprentice.
Impa is likely either a catchall term for Zelda's guardian or is simply reincarnated in much the same way as Link and Zelda are, but that's not the point. The point is that they're making a big deal out of this being the new setting and the new epic plot, but instead what we have is the same plot that Ganon uses all the time, except with a villain that has no connection to Ganon and seems to be ripping off his style for no apparent reason. Every little plot twist is a slight variation on what we've seen before, but this time it isn't because it's the same world and the same characters (The Zelda/Marin/Malon/Ilia thing is something that bugs me, too), but because they're too lazy to actually give us anything new to care about. "Hooray, it's the sages again, and also the Demon King, and an authority figure who wants to revive the Demon King using Zelda, except this time, trust us, it's totally different!". It's okay when it happens in Hyrule, because that's what Ganon does. But now we have this new setting and new villain, but he's actually the same old thing in a coat of paint. And the same old thing can be fine- it's done well all the time in Zelda- but when they do the same thing but strip it of all its relevance to the series. When they're done, they throw it out the window by sending the Lokomo away and killing off the new big bad. It leaves you thinking "Well, what? Why?" It's not like you actually saved anyone but Zelda here- the bad guy is content to be Orcus on his Throne until the climax, and not because he actually has anything. The whole thing feels empty and pointless.

Really, I enjoyed seeing Malladus's final form. An obvious reference to Ganon. Like all the other things, it was just a nice callback to the games we love so much, and possibly an attempt to make New Hyrule feel like home.
Exactly- they tried to do that by making the new stuff as much like the old stuff as possible, and failed dismally.
 

Octo Rocked

Dr. Octorokapus BLAAAAAH!
Joined
Dec 8, 2009
Location
The American Midwest
Okay, most of this is all just a matter of opinion, but might I point out several things just near the end of your post:

Malladus was not just acting as Orcus on his Throne (might TVT stand for TV Tropes, by the way?) though the game. I don't know why Cole and Byrne waited so long with the resurrection, but Malladus himself has an excuse: he didn't do anything because...well, because he couldn't. He wasn't accustomed to Zelda's body.
Secondly, you're not just saving Zelda in the game. It's made quite obvious that Malludus is bent on destroying everything, and you and Zelda were merely stalling him at the end.

In all, I think that this whole thread is basically just you ranting about your opinions. If you are a troper, you'll understand what I mean by "it's the same now it sucks." Nobody else really seems to be going off like you are. No, I hate to come across as rude here, but this is all just opinion-based stuff, and you're really just complaining. You're not encouraging discussion, you're saying "Spirit Tracks sucks for doing this" and actively arguing against anyone who disagrees with you. You're just butthurt over the whole thing. I say "most of the plots are just rehashes of each other" and you say "yeah, but I liked it then, and this is different somehow." I say "I enjoyed what they did" and you say "I didn't, and I refuse to let you have your opinion." This thread isn't really contributing anything to the forums and should be closed.
 

LozzyKate

Ask Me Why I Love The Photoshops
Joined
Jan 30, 2010
I have said this more than once to several people. The game is not linked to any others, and is individual in it's own way. Also, Ganondorf is linked to the Demon King. He wants to destoy the world and watch crumble while he gets all the power. Ihope this helps you.
 

Link 2 the past

Slashy Slashy
Joined
Sep 5, 2008
Location
Harrogate, England
You're not encouraging discussion, you're saying "Spirit Tracks sucks for doing this" and actively arguing against anyone who disagrees with you. You're just butthurt over the whole thing. I say "most of the plots are just rehashes of each other" and you say "yeah, but I liked it then, and this is different somehow." I say "I enjoyed what they did" and you say "I didn't, and I refuse to let you have your opinion." This thread isn't really contributing anything to the forums and should be closed.

I don't think he dislikes the game as a whole, just the story he doesn't like. Personally the storyline to video games isn't something that bothers me, if the people who make video games were really that good at writing a story they'd be making movies or writing novels. But I don't you can deny that what he is basically saying "this is the same stuff as before" is true.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom