64 replies to this topic

[Shane]

Hyrule Field:

 

I remember when Hyrule Field was the most epic thing during my childhood, that first time traveling it I'd never forget. Visually, it's empty, but it did have stuff. Trees, rivers, mountain slopes, stone walls, bushes. A field with trees only works better with 2D environments. It isn't the best thing today, but it is certainly is good for it's time.

 

Menu Navigation:

 

The iron boots/hover boots were the only tedious thing for me when it came to the menu. But if you know the way throughout the temple(s) you don't have to use them that much. While OoT3D did improve the menu and fixed the iron boots issue, the original menu wasn't that bad and the well-known iron boots issue wasn't that much of a problem as people made it out to be.

 

Bland Characters:

 

Okay, that was a bit of a problem, but most NPCs weren't part of the main storyline so I guess Nintendo didn't really want to put much effort into character. But that's not to say, the fact that no one was really concerned over the Deku Tree's death besides Link, Navi and Mido wasn't stupid. Because it kinda was. At least the owl had some character and we weren't force to listen to a robot bird.

 

Underused/Outclassed Items:

 

If you're expecting Nintendo to fully use all equipment well... you obviously don't know Nintendo.

 

Difficulty:

 

Remember Nintendo makes causal games for all ages, not hardcore ones. When I first played it I had a hell of a time beating things like Wolfos, Stalfos and Iron Knuckles, heck I still do get some challenge. And they did create Master Quest for a reason, Koh.

 

Overall, this is my favorite Zelda and I personally believe it is a legendary game for it's time. If it was created in this day and age... it wouldn't have been that great.

[Sheik]

Problem #5:  Difficulty

Stalfos.

 

Okay, so in general, the game's not difficult... to us. Some elements still present a challenge the first time through, and younger players will likely have their struggles with it as well; I know I did. To be fair, it's also far from the easiest Zelda. Maybe it started a bad trend, but it still was acceptable difficulty. Some things could be harder, yes, but I don't really complain about the difficulty.

Also, all die-hard Zelda fans as most of us probably are will complain about the difficulty of the games. But you have to keep in mind that many of us have played almost all the games in the series to great length. Of course it's easy for us because we know exactly what to do and how to do it. That's not true for every gamer out there and I am sure that there are many players that don't play much Zelda and would find it too frustrating/challenging if it was harder.

Edited by Sheik, 20 May 2013 - 01:49 AM.

[SpikeReynolds]

To me, difficulty was the biggest pitfall, but I came straight off of LttP into that. I get why they did it though. People had never played a 3D Zelda, and the guys at Nintendo probably realized that. Same reason TP was stupid easy with the whole moving to the Wii thing.

[Koh]

For those mentioning the time period...I want to quote PrettyNier from Spriter's Resource in regards to that...I think what he's saying is actually fairly accurate in regards to that:

 

 

that doesn't matter. the "tools" were perfectly competent; the issue is not what those tools were, but how the artist chose to utilize them and what they chose to create. super metroid came out 8 years prior and very clearly understood everything it was doing. it is the fault of the creators that they weren't able to design a quality game that worked around the utilized technology. 

further, what is the point in saying "DUDE IT CAME OUT IN 1998"? that's nothing but misguided apologetics. it doesn't accomplish anything. its an admittance of poor quality trying to simultaneously pass itself off as a defense of said quality? seriously guys

You know, now that I've thought more on it, I pretty much agree with PrettyNier on everything, even regarding games of their time.  If the developers actually took more time to get to know the system before trying to just pop something out, they would've realized the full potential (or at least close to it) before they even started development on the game.  Let's use the NES as an example.  The first Legend of Zelda, since this is a Zelda-based thread.  It's plain for the most part; the only areas of interest really are the labyrinths, but even those are pretty bland.  This time, I AM referring to the quality of the graphics.  If you look at a game that came out a few years later on the same system, such as Crystalis (known as GodSlayer in Japan) or Batman, you can clearly see the NES was capable of making the worlds more colorful and detailed back then.  If they had taken the time to actually experiment with the limits of the system, the first Zelda could have been just as beautiful as those games....but it's not, because there's hardly any ground detail.  Hyrule looks like a giant desert with trees and rocks.

 

 

there is no such thing as "good game for its time": that is nothing but a misguided notion. the fundamental principles related to quality, that is, things that are good or bad, are universal in the sense that they're not contingent upon genre, mode, or dimension. the only thing affected by the aforementioned factors are the specific execution of those principles... that time or era can be regarded as a factor on that level (execution) means more that the designers did not take into account their own limitations or understanding of the hardware* than anything about Good Games For The Time suddenly becoming Bad Games Overall (because thats a really silly idea: quality is constant, it is merely theperception of quality that varies). 

the issue with ocarina of time is that it violates those principles, not just in execution, but in principle itself;
hyrule field is meandering filler, the duck roll serves little function other than to prevent walking from becoming monotonous (this is deceptively shallow game design), a good portion of the items serve as nothing more than keys and provide little use outside of their specific intended "locks", much of the game is essentially just a series of elongated fetch-quests... its faults are numerous and they're not contingent upon it being "early 3D" because they were misguided to begin with.


*this is assuming, of course, that with better hardware ocarina of time would have magically fixed some of its problems. i find that idea incredibly suspect, given that these issues have only become exacerbated over time, culminating in monstrosities like twilight princess.

Edited by Koh, 20 May 2013 - 07:04 AM.

[Shane]

it is the fault of the creators that they weren't able to design a quality game that worked around the utilized technology.

But OoT did work around the utilized technology at the time, that's why it's so popular. Hyrule Field being empty had nothing to do with it. Lack of trees =/= Not working around the utilized technology. Also deserts have grass. Mind blown.

 

 

 

there is no such thing as "good game for its time"

I think the problem here is that if you're going to compare the graphics of FF XIII to OoT of course there's a obvious outcome with which is best. But think about it; why? Because gaming and consoles advanced. It's not the game's fault that OoT graphics are like that nor is it Nintendo's. It's just the graphical limits at the time. And that argument is just saying "age = makes the game bad" which is completely false. Hopefully you're not comparing a aged game with aged bread, just because the bread is stale doesn't mean the game is.

Edited by Shane, 20 May 2013 - 07:18 AM.

[Koh]

But OoT did work around the utilized technology at the time, that's why it's so popular. Hyrule Field being empty had nothing to do with it. Lack of trees =/= Not working around the utilized technology.

 

 

 

I think the problem here is that if you're going to compare the graphics of FF XIII to OoT of course there's a obvious outcome with which is best. And that argument is just saying "age = makes the game bad" which is completely false. Hopefully you're not comparing a aged game with aged bread, just because the bread is stale doesn't mean the game is.

 

That's not what his point was.  He's not comparing Ocarina of Time to something made in today like Modern Warfare or anything.  What he was saying was that the quality of a game is consistent, regardless of time period, and that the developers needed to take the time to know the hardware better before working with it, and used Super Metroid as an example, a game that came out 8 years PRIOR to Ocarina of Time on the SNES.  It knew its limits well and worked all around it to create beautiful worlds and what not.  Ocarina of Time was a near launch title if I'm not mistaken, so instead of either delaying the release of the console and/or game while they figured out what the system was actually capable of, it was "rushed" in a sense that they just worked with the new hardware right away, and learned as they went.  So when you compare Ocarina of Time to its sequel, for example, which is on the SAME SYSTEM, you'll discover how much more quality it has in comparison in regards to detail and engine, since the developers learned more by that point.  Ocarina of Time could have easily had the same if they had taken the time to learn such BEFORE making the game. 

Edited by Koh, 20 May 2013 - 07:20 AM.

[LinktheMaster]

That's not what his point was.  He's not comparing Ocarina of Time to something made in today like Modern Warfare or anything.  What he was saying was that the quality of a game is consistent, regardless of time period, and that the developers needed to take the time to know the hardware better before working with it, and used Super Metroid as an example, a game that came out 8 years PRIOR to Ocarina of Time on the SNES.  It knew its limits well and worked all around it to create beautiful worlds and what not.  Ocarina of Time was a near launch title if I'm not mistaken, so instead of either delaying the release of the console and/or game while they figured out what the system was actually capable of, it was "rushed" in a sense that they just worked with the new hardware right away, and learned as they went.  So when you compare Ocarina of Time to its sequel, for example, which is on the SAME SYSTEM, you'll discover how much more quality it has in comparison in regards to detail and engine, since the developers learned more by that point.  Ocarina of Time could have easily had the same if they had taken the time to learn such BEFORE making the game. 

Something to keep in mind is that Majora's Mask actually needed the expansion pack upgrade on the N64.  It would have been impossible to do without that due to memory constraints.

[Shane]

That's not what his point was.  He's not comparing Ocarina of Time to something made in today like Modern Warfare or anything.  What he was saying was that the quality of a game is consistent, regardless of time period, and that the developers needed to take the time to know the hardware better before working with it, and used Super Metroid as an example, a game that came out 8 years PRIOR to Ocarina of Time on the SNES.  It knew its limits well and worked all around it to create beautiful worlds and what not.  Ocarina of Time was a near launch title if I'm not mistaken, so instead of either delaying the release of the console and/or game while they figured out what the system was actually capable of, it was "rushed" in a sense that they just worked with the new hardware right away, and learned as they went.  So when you compare Ocarina of Time to its sequel, for example, which is on the SAME SYSTEM, you'll discover how much more quality it has in comparison in regards to detail and engine, since the developers learned more by that point.  Ocarina of Time could have easily had the same if they had taken the time to learn such BEFORE making the game. 

Of course MM is made to be better than OoT. It's because it's more newer than OoT, that makes a reason to buy MM. ZC 2.50 is better than 2.10, that's how advancement works. The ZC developers could of just released 2.50 and not 2.10 or lower but why not? I mean, why release 2.10 when 2.50 was possible? Because advancing leads to nowhere, nothing gets done. So just make something, then next time do better advance with each step, not on the same step.

Edited by Shane, 20 May 2013 - 07:38 AM.

[Moosh]

But if a console doesn't have any first party games early in its life because the developers are still learning how to best use the hardware, who would want to buy it?

Edited by Moosh, 20 May 2013 - 07:42 AM.

[Koh]

Something to keep in mind is that Majora's Mask actually needed the expansion pack upgrade on the N64.  It would have been impossible to do without that due to memory constraints.

However, if they toyed with the system before hand, they would have recognized that an expansion pack would be more fruitful to any future games they develop.  This is why you do your research before you write your paper.

 

 

Of course MM is made to be better than OoT. It's because it's more newer than OoT, that makes a reason to buy MM. ZC 2.50 is better than 2.10, that's how advancement works. The ZC developers could of just released 2.50 and not 2.10 or lower but why not? I mean, why release 2.10 when 2.50 was possible? Because advancing leads to nowhere, nothing gets done. So just make something, then next time do better advance with each step, not on the same step.

 

 

But if a console doesn't have any first party games early in its life because the developers are still learning how to best use the hardware, who would want to buy it?

And this is why you delay the console.  If they had worked with it, figured out it's limits, then made the highest quality launch games based on what they learned, they could've easily had the prettiest looking games with a console at that time, and trumped all the other competition.  But instead...why not jump into the race along with everyone else at the same time?  THAT'LL SHOW 'EM >=3!  As a result, early games on systems will be inferior to later games on the same system that happen to utilize it better in whatever regards, such as engine, graphics, sounds and music, content, or whatever else.

Edited by Koh, 20 May 2013 - 07:49 AM.

[Shane]

And this is why you delay the console.  If they had worked with it, figured out it's limits, then made the highest quality launch games based on what they learned, they could've easily had the prettiest looking games with a console at that time, and trumped all the other competition.  But instead...why not jump into the race along with everyone else at the same time?  THAT'LL SHOW 'EM >=3!  As a result, early games on systems will be inferior to later games on the same system that happen to utilize it better.

Koh, Nintendo need money to make their games. They don't wave fairy wands and say "abracadabra" and pull out a game in thin air.

[Nicholas Steel]

I kind of agree about OoT but I do enjoy the dungeons. Majora's Mask pretty much resolved every single issue you raised.

[Moosh]

And this is why you delay the console.  If they had worked with it, figured out it's limits, then made the highest quality launch games based on what they learned, they could've easily had the prettiest looking games with a console at that time, and trumped all the other competition.  But instead...why not jump into the race along with everyone else at the same time?  THAT'LL SHOW 'EM >=3!  As a result, early games on systems will be inferior to later games on the same system that happen to utilize it better.

I'm sure if they had delayed the N64's launch longer, Ocarina of Time would have been a much beter game and by extension Majora's mask would be a better game and so would every other first party N64 game. But is making the best game possible worth the dive in profits that would come as a result? Let's look at OoT's sales...Oh what do you know, it sold well; 2.5 million in the first 39 days.

Edited by Moosh, 20 May 2013 - 07:58 AM.

[LinktheMaster]

However, if they toyed with the system before hand, they would have recognized that an expansion pack would be more fruitful to any future games they develop.  This is why you do your research before you write your paper.

This would have resulted in a much more expensive console that would have been even more likely to flop.  These decisions are no where near as simple as you're acting.  Most games on the N64 obviously didn't need the expansion pack.  Only a handful did.  Adding in extra memory that was largely unneeded would have been risky and unfruitful.

[Hoff123]

I don't know what the big fuss is about. I wasn't very old back then(I was actually born in 96 lol), but I imagine playing Mario and Zelda in 3D for the first time most have felt awesome, even if OoT wasn't as filled with stuff as ALTTP was.

Edited by Hoff123, 20 May 2013 - 08:58 AM.