What The Hell Is Up With Wind Waker?

[Tempest]

WTF is going on with Legend of Zelda Wind Waker? The main part of the game is super easy and very VERY short, but getting many of the pieces of heart is almost impossible. Most of the heart quests are long, tedius, and just plain dumb. One requires you to hit a guy 500 times before he hits you 3 times, if you can actually do it it takes about 20 minutes! Another piece of heart requires you to go through 50 levels of very nasty moster filled rooms. FOR ONE LOUSY PIECE OF HEART! There are several other examples where you have to first find a treasure map and then find a fish to draw in your map, and the actually find the spot do grapple for a piece of heart...

What the hell? Beating the game takes about 5 hours but getting all the pieces of heart would take 30 hours! This game is seriously messed up!

Tempest

[Raedon]

Yep. All hype.

[Hamsnibit]

Hmm, let's say you take all the tedious side story stuff out of games like Final Fantasy 7? Then what do you have? I love Zelda, this is my type of game because I like getting everything, and don't mind playing through a lot of stuff to do it. Great game in my opinion, and in most others I've seen.

[Tempest]

Hmm, let's say you take all the tedious side story stuff out of games like Final Fantasy 7? Then what do you have?

Ok you can stop right there , it's not the same thing. I'm not talking about side story, I'm talking about pieces of freakin' heart! There's nothing that advances the story, nothing that sheads light on a characters background or even has anything to do with the rest of the game. These heart quests only involve increasing your life meter and that's it. Nintendo should have put more thought into the main story rather than how many hoops they can make you jump through for 1/4 of a heart!


I love Zelda, this is my type of game because I like getting everything, and don't mind playing through a lot of stuff to do it.

Normally I like getting everthing as well, but this time Nintendo seems to have gone out of their way to make things long tedius and boring. These "side quests" (if you can call them that) aren't 1/10th the fun as they were in OOT or even LTTP.


Great game in my opinion, and in most others I've seen.

I'm kinda dissapointed overall. Nintendo had 4 years to come up with a new Zelda and this was the best they could do? A game with questionable graphics and one that you can beat in 5 hours? Honestly, show me a positive review and I'll show you an equal amount of negitive reviews. The whole game seems sorta half-assed, like Nintendo was too busy with other things (like the superb Metroid). I was expecting much better.

Tempest

[zektor]

Well, Nintendo has stated that they wanted to make to game easy enough for younger people to beat, and this may be why you can beat it in 5 hours. Maybe they threw in those heart quests for the more advanced player...just to get them to feel happier that the game will take longer to truly complete by doing this. Bah..

[Charlie]

"One requires you to hit a guy 500 times before he hits you 3 times, if you can actually do it it takes about 20 minutes! Another piece of heart requires you to go through 50 levels of very nasty moster filled rooms. FOR ONE LOUSY PIECE OF HEART!"

Like I said, the battle with the 500 hit battle with the old man gave my carpal tunnel a serious run for it's money. However, I figured out had to do it. I got him stuck in a corner and kept the "Z Trigger (or R Trigger, whatever)" on him the entire battle. I didn't do the A button counter attacks... when he got ready to swing at me, I simply blocked it with my sheild instead of going for a counter attack. It didn't take me twenty minutes... it was about five minutes, but it was very painful to do.

On the other hand, I loved the 50 level pit of doom. That was one of my favorite parts of the game.

[BenT]

I agree with most of Tempest's WW opinions, although I'd definitely draw the line at calling the graphics questionable. They're one of the really well-executed parts of the game, IMO.

Anyway, after a weekend-long orgy of playing it (and mapping the whole damn sea), I turned the game off and haven't gone back since. That was over a month ago. Not a good sign, methinks!

[Lady Jaye]

As I've said before in here during a discussion of Wind Waker, maybe it's time for Nintendo (or someone else) to bring back the difficulty option switch. And when I mean difficulty, I mean diff A=easy, short game for kids, diff B=mid-range, not too long, not too short, average challenge level, diff C=pro level, tough challenge, the whole shebang.

If it were possible to do that in the past, why not in today's DVD format? Methink that there should be enough space on those disks to work this way, even if it means to eliminate some FMVs.

[Tempest]

Well, Nintendo has stated that they wanted to make to game easy enough for younger people to beat, and this may be why you can beat it in 5 hours. Maybe they threw in those heart quests for the more advanced player...

You may be right since it's pretty obvious that you don't need to get any extra hearts to beat the game (I only have 11). Did anyone else think Zelda was a kiddie series? I always thought it was aimed at older gamers, but maybe not. I just can't see why they would purposely shorten the game to the point where I feel gyped for paying full price.

Tempest

[Raedon]

As for the dificulty of Zelda, My female cousin beat Link to the Past when she was 10.. what's nintendo shooting for? players ages 3-6?

Nintendo is making the Lucas mistake.. taking their flagship title they had a hit with and created a fan base on 15 years ago, then making a sequel for a generation that doesn't care about the games past instead of for the fans they already had..

Nintendo has made a game for no audience.

Nintendo needs to realize the people who play Zelda are the people who had NES's and SNES's and are 21-30+. The kids who had N64's felt left out of all the fun.. I know, I've got plenty of cousins and nephews who are 5-16. They saw all the cool games on the PSX while they had an N64 where the games cost $60 while PSX games had GH titles for $19.99 like FF7 and Tomb Raider 2. These kids felt (and still do) gypt by Nintendo as there parents would only buy 1 $60 game a year and honestly there wasn't much there. Just Mario 64, a horribly easy yoshi game, mario cart, mario tennis and later Zelda.. (None of the parents I know got there kid goldeneye.)

all the kids I know own PS2's. Only people I know with GC's are adults.

[YoshiM]

I agree that the game is fairly easy and other than the side-quest/scavenger hunt deal they could have done more with that. OoT was more charasmatic in that approach, having you run errands and such for people. However the game itself is fun and I like the story on how it kinda ties with OoT. The dungeons, while fairly small in the scope of things, do throw a lot of puzzle elements at you in rapid succession. Rather than the standard "hit a switch and open a door on the other side of the level" type deal, the puzzles were more immediate and confined and to a point somewhat logical.

Nintendo, as well as Sony and others, are targeting the mainstream (casual) audience when it comes to difficulty (at least in my observation). Games one can just grab and play and be pretty good at without having the years of game experience behind them. This makes the games more accessable to a wider audience, but for legacy titles (like Zelda) this can put off the people that grew up with the series, especially from different eras.

Unfortunately, Wind Waker doesn't necessarily raise the gaming bar, except in the realm of graphics. It was basically OoT with some changes and extra fluff. I disliked Majora's Mask, so this was a nice refreshing return to the Zelda/Ganon/Link plot. I do hope that if there is a sequel that they start making some changes to the story and how the game is played. It is starting to get a bit stale.

[NvrMore]

*Oversized post away..*

You know, I just got this game last week and admittedly after hearing some of the bashing thats been going on my hopes were beginning to wane a little, but after playing it daily for the past five days I can honestly say I'm loving it, it's a fantastic game.

Granted I haven't completed the game yet despite having sunk at least 20+ hours into playing it but that's simply because I haven't rushed through the game, focussing on little but chasing the next objective, which I think is what many of those complaining about the game being able to complete the game quickly have been doing.

It's comparable to any RPG in that the personal development and enhancement is largely an option for the player, it's not neccesary, but if you want you character to be more potent then you have the option to make them so if you wish e.g. in a stat-based RPG you can choose to spend time running around levelling up to make your character more powerful whereas in Zelda the equivalent is to seek out the additional tools and weapons, heart containers and advancements. In either case, neither is essential and the player can just focus on completing the game and do so very quickly, whether it be a typical RPG (any variant) or a Zelda game, if you cling to the story and focus solely on completing the game you can do so very quickly, but in doing so you waste the game experience and miss out on a hell of a lot. Really, if you only want to follow a single linear path towards a goal then you shouldn't be looking to RPG's or Adventure games.

*Spoiler-ish things inbound-ish*

The game plays fantastically, it's control system is to die for and it's world is amazing, so much so that at times I've found myself more interested wandering off to indulge in what the game world has to offer rather than relentlessley persuing the main story.

Admittedly, I haven't died once, but I've personally never considered dying in a game to be a significant contribution towards a games enjoyability, else I would have been dissappointed with 95% of all the RPG's and Adventure games I've ever played.

On the other hand, I have found the game challenging, some of the puzzles have been suitably taxing but more notably fighting with the enemies has a complete blast and their AI and ability to adapt and react has made for some great fights, which on more than one occasion have seen me being slapped sensless by those oversized pig-hulks or the armoured dark knights and really forcing me to get my shit together and use actuall skill rather than simple button bashing.

It gives variety and challenge at the players discretion, but I guarantee if they had forced such additional challenges such as the monster fights on the player then there would be just as many people complaining because Nintendo had made such a challenge obligatory.

Someone said that Nintendo should be concentrating on the people who played through the earlier series rather than aiming for a new audience. Sorry, but in all honesty, we're in the minority and as gamers, such people tend to die off naturally as they get older. Nintendo should be aiming for the new gamers and seeking to give them the gaming enjoyment they gave us which is genuinly what WW is trying to do. It's not neccesarily easier than it's past incarnations, I (and others) beat Zelda 1, OoT, MM, Awakening and Ages without dying even once, hell someone just beat ALTTP in under two hours and when I first owned it I could get through it in three. I just think nostalgia clouds such things given enough time, which we tend to see much of in retro-gaming circles.

Thankfully, I have seen that WW has hit the spot for those I know, I had five copies on pre-order for others, all of whom have been hooked on the game and hold it in high regard, plus my nephew and his friends are right into it, so I'm kind of pleased to see it's not entirly lost on the younger generation.

Like so many things it's a matter of personal taste, I just hate to see nostalgia or unrealistic expectations of a game of existentially altering greatness pollute things :/

(next week: Godzilla fights this post for Tokyo, raaaaaarrrrr!)

[bargora]

Counterbalancing short post:

For some reason, I keep reading it as "Wind Wanker"

[NE146]

So Tempest, if you have so little hearts how did you hear about those ones that take forever to get? You reading some strategy guide are you? :D ;)


..then again, those may be the pieces of heart you got.. I dunno :P

[MyNameIsBoB]

You're right about the hearts, they take forever to get, especially the one where you have the water all the trees. The game is a good game though, better than Ocarina, but it still had a lot more potential then it had. Everyone expected it to be long and hard, but it was just an average above average game.

[Sylentwulf]

Actually, the 50-level piece of heart was my favorite part of the game, it was ALMOST challenging :) I had to use one or 2 potions.

To the rest, I say - yep.

[Raedon]

The game is a good game though, better than Ocarina

WW is fucking pretty far from the game OOT was. OOT has story, gameplay, challanging dungeons that are more then 6 rooms, emotion, twists and turns in the plot and a epic final battle and the best graphics to date. Wind Waker had none of that, except the graphics.. Which means it's got about as much use to me as Shadow of the Beast.

[BenT]

Insert Credit has an interesting article (http://www.insertcredit.com/reviews/windwaker/windwaker1.html) on the merits (or lack thereof) of Wind Waker.

[Sega Hitman]

IMHO, everybody is being extremely critical of this game. I thought the same about Mario Sunshine as well. Even though both games have their problems, they're still better than 90% of the games out there, at least thats the way I see it. Instead of comparing Wind Waker to one of the classics, compare to whats available in stores right now. At least in my opinion, it's pretty darn good. Judging this against OOT is a little unfair, seeing as it's one of the best games of all time.

Maybe I just play games differently than everybody else. I never have the time to just sit and play a game straight through. If I had an entire day to spend on Wind Waker, maybe my opinion would be different, but I've been going at it about 30 minutes a day for a couple weeks, and I'm impressed. The little side quests are interesting, I like going on them. I actually like the side quests more than the dungeons really.

It should be noted that I only paid $25 for this game though (Dixie Land flea market is the best!), maybe my opinion would be different if I shelled out the $50.

-Hitman-

[wberdan]

i guess im in the minority of people that has had the game for over a month and not beaten it.
i like a game where i can play for an hour and then come back a few days (or weeks) later and have fun continuing on the adventure... i guess if youre pretty hard about playing it from beginning to end then it would seem short... it doesnt bother me, i have a short attention span these days anyway.

the heart pieces are probably just meant for kids anyway.. kids that beat the game and want to search out every little detail before they move on to another game...

willie

[BenT]

Or hardcore gamers that want to search out every little detail... ie, me. ;P

Many of the sidequests are needlessly tedious. I think that's hard to argue against.

[punkoffgirl]

Many of the sidequests are needlessly tedious. I think that's hard to argue against.

I agree. I got frustrated with the actual quest the last time I played, and decided to sail around and map out as much of the ocean as I could. I stumbled across a few more of the sidequests then as well. Not just tedious, but aggravating!

[zektor]

Maybe getting all the heart pieces opens something up? Remember Mario 64. You didn't NEED all 120 stars to beat the game, but if you got them all...

[Tempest]

..then again, those may be the pieces of heart you got.. I dunno

Bingo!

Tempest

[brandver3]

I agree with Sega Hitman. Like I said in the last "knock Wind Waker" post, don't compare it to the game of old. Compare it to the games of know. Its better then that new Batman game. And I'm sure most of us would rather play Zelda then Def Jam Vendetta. Compare it with what is out now, not what came out 4,5, or even 15 years ago.

I've noticed this stigma that Ninntendo needs to stop making kids games. Maybe no one has notice but Nintendo has always been making kids games. I thinks its unfair to expect them to suddenly make game that cater to use since we're grown up and discontent with there games.

Nintendo needs to cater to the younger gamer. No one else does. Sony maybe a little, and most certainly not Microsoft. If no one caters to the younger gamers, then there will be less gamers. A lot of parents won't let there kids play GTA or Splinter Cell. So all they have to game on is "kiddie Zelda". So what happens if Nintendo stops. Then there is a whole gap of kids who are to young to play our games, but to old to play "Piglets Big Game" so then what. They go find something else to do. And before to long, our hobby dies out cause we all get older and get bored or die or whathave you, and there is no new buisness coming in.

Sure it is a way out ther senario, but look at the shelf some time. There are loads fo games for really young kids, or games for older kids. Very few in the way of kids 9-13.

THe bottom line is its unfair to expect NIntendo to grow up just because we did.

[Raedon]

Oh don't give me that "better then other games right now" crap. Dark Cloud 2 is a better game then WW by far.


Compare it to the games of know. Its better then that new Batman game. And I'm sure most of us would rather play Zelda then Def Jam Vendetta.

It's better then the new batman game? wtf does that matter? like batman NES made Zelda NES shine more.. Zelda should shine on it's own and WW let me, as a hard core Zelda fan, down.

[Captain Wrong]

I haven't played Wind Walker and have no intention to do so. But this quote bears repeating:


THe bottom line is its unfair to expect NIntendo to grow up just because we did.

Nintendo is doing the same thing they've always done. Granted they have made games catering to an older audience from time to time, but it seems to me like games aimed at a kid age group has always been their bread and butter.

Actually your entire post brandver3 was a pretty good point (except I'd rather play Def Jam Vendetta than Zelda, heh.) People seem to have strong emotional ties with Nintendo, which I can understand, and because of that they always have expectations that they don't have for other companies.

I've always thought of the big N as the Disney of games. I really think that's kind of what they're after. Yeah, I really dug the Disney movies when I was younger, but is it fair for me to go to their latest and get upset that it doesn't speak to me as a 27 year old?

I really think when you look at a Nintendo game, you gotta look at it with the same mind set you had when you first played Super Mario. That's the audience I think Nintendo is aiming for and if they can please the "old timers" that's just the cherry on top.


Now, let the flames begin...

[Raedon]

that is all fine and dandy until you see that kids think Zelda:WW is not that good.

seems this is going the way of "marketing" not good quality gameplay.. WW is neither but whatever I'll debate this.

Here again is the Lucas mistake. You have a long long running series with a huge older fanbase. When you want kids to get into this series you don't make content for the kids, you make content for the adults. When the kids see older kids, adults into something they want it more. You sell more toys, you sell more stuff. Why? Because you haven't alienated the already established market and you gain the younger croud by not making them feel like kiddies.

Lucas did the opposite with Episode 1 and killed his fanbase not by making a kiddie movie (which he did) but because he dumbed down all the content to what he felt would better appeal to children (aliens speaking english so kids that can't read can understand.. common.) Children content does not appeal to children!! Kids are smart, most kids don't take the short bus to school.

Nintendo did the same thing here with the new Zelda. The game is made for the dumb kids who try to fit round pegs in square holes still at age 6.

Now I've seen 6 year olds who could play threw contra on one life, why would todays kids need easier content? and why would they need boring content?

The video game industry is not funded by kids now like in the 80's, it is funded by adults. The idea of marketing any system to children is idiotic (just think Pico) You market to adults and the kids will follow.

Honestly if you want to defend Nintendo on a game you haven't played you really should question why you need to defend nintendo in the first place.

[Captain Wrong]

Honestly if you want to defend Nintendo on a game you haven't played you really should question why you need to defend nintendo in the first place.

I'm assuming this was directed at me.

1) I wasn't defending this game really. I don't really care for Zelda, never have.

2) I wasn't really defending Nintendo either. To be honest, I don't care much for Nintendo either. I'm just sick of all the rabid fanboy mentality people have like Nintendo owes them something.

I actually agree with most of what you are saying, but there's one crucial point that you're missing that kind of negates the whole arguement. People still went to see Episode 1 even though they knew going into it that it was a turd. People still went to see Episode 2 even though they didn't have much higher hopes for it. And people are still gonna buy Zelda Wind Walker if for no other reason than it is a Zelda game.

Sure people are going to complain about it, but I guarantee when the next Zelda game shows up the same people are going to buy it too. How is it killing/alienating a fan base when these people are still buying what their selling? Yeah, they may not be happy about the changes/dumbing down or whatever, but they're still buying so what's the incentive for the producers to change the content?

The videogame industry as a whole may be funded by adults who grew up in the 1980s, but it's seemed to me all along that Nintendo was more concerned with the kid audience. I see it a little different than you. I see Nintendo doing like what Disney is with all the direct to video sequels of all their old movies. They take a property that the parents are already familiar with and wrap it up for the kiddies.

May be right, may be wrong. I'm not going to debate with you if dumbing things down for kids is the right way to go about things because I honestly don't know. It's just seems to me like Nintendo has been happy to let Sony and Microsoft battle it out over the adults while they swoop in and take their kids.

My point is this, it seems clear to me that nintendo is more concerned with the younger audience than they are with their older fans. Older fans can sit back and crab on message boards about how Nintendo has sold them out or whatever, but until they start voting with their wallets (meaning don't buy the game) it's not going to change. Though I will admit Nintendo seems to have a better dedication to quality than most in the industry, at the end of the day they are in this to make money. As long as they're making it, I really doubt pleasing everyone who owned a NES is going to be their top priority.
[/quote]

[Achika]

When you brought up Disney, Cap'n it made me start thinking about Kingdom Hearts Vs. Zelda. Obviously the whole "Disney" aspect of Kingdom Hearts instantly makes people think "kiddish", while the name of Zelda instills fond memories in hearts of seasoned players.

Let's just agree to disagree or say that both were made for a younger audience in mind. I've played both, I've beaten both, but I found Kingdom Hearts WAY more enjoyable than Zelda

KH gave me the nice long game with *fun* side quests, IMO a WAY better story and travel without that huge ocean. And a warp that functioned properly to get where I needed to go (not 10 minutes from where I needed to go). I think I actually cried at certain parts. Puzzles, "dungeons", shooter, a host of different characters. I game I can see myself going back to time after time because of story, fun, and all around good action/adventure/pick up and play. Maybe because there really was no predecessor to this game I felt it was one of the best of 2002?

Zelda, was well...monotonous. Needless ocean travel must have taken up half the game, even when I did get Cyclone's warp. After awhile, finding out how I didn't need any extra heart pieces, I just stopped looking. I assumed that most were in the ocean since I was nearly full anyhow. -_- The story didn't really do it for me, I saw so many similarities with OoT, I kinda felt jipped. The thing this game DID have going for it was the Koroks. Having this long line of history in the Zelda series to go by had an impression on me. Most of the kids that I've seen buy the game, were playing OoT years ago and loving it, a reason a few close to me bought the system. IMO, Majora's Mask then WW have been the decline of the series, I'm sadly dissappointed in what it's become, since I remember playing Zelda on NES when I was 5 and having no problems. Now, if that's still to hard & too long of a game for kids these days, I don't know if I can keep buying N's first party games anymore.

*SPOILER* (highlight to read my next point:)
Ok, Zelda was Sheik in OoT, now she's Tetra in this one...big deal, different identities, same person. Look ma! Nintendo recycles

[NvrMore]

The game is made for the dumb kids who try to fit round pegs in square holes still at age 6

Firstly, that remark is so off base it's incredible. There is a tremendous ammout of exaggeration with regard to the simplicity of WW's puzzles and challenge going on here and if you honestly buy into anything like that then I really don't know what your concept of younger players is.

While many of WW's puzzles are reasonably straight forward there are also many which aren't actually too easy to figure out straight away and which would certainly prove hard going for many people, let alone any kid under 12. I've encountered a numerous puzzles so far that have forced me to put a fair amount of thought into solving them, yes I did it but to say that such puzzles would be set up for ages of no more than 6 - 10 is rediculous.

In terms of challenge with regard to fighting enemies, I'm sorry but in reality WW's enemies provide much the same level of challenge as any of the other Zelda series and if we're to compare directly then OoT's enemies certainly weren't any more difficult.

Fact of the matter is, it has always been this way with the Zelda series and with every new release there are always those who don't take to the new installment while others do. OoT was no different, many fans took to it straight off the bat and hold it in fiercly high regard, while others simply didn't like it and, just as people are doing now, stated that it was nothing but a disappointment and a let down, such people have even stated such on these boards

And yet, for many the disappointment of a new installment simply comes from the fact that they became so set in their view of their past favorite that they end up fixated on a view of what they think the next installement should be and when it doesn't fit that mark they are immediately disappointed. They want something new and innovative, yet the same which is in itself a contradiction, and thus inevitable and unavoidable disappointment.

Granted some people didn't take to the game, as I said it's inevitable and unfortunate and it's entirly down to personal opinion, but some are stating such disappontment as general and sweeping fact, yet a hell of a lot of people actually do find this to be a great game and certainly don't see it as having boring content, it's not a case of a mask of hype hiding everyone's dislike for the game, it's simply that the majority of people actually do seem to have enjoyed the game.

Now, I hear the same things about WW and the next Zelda installement as I did and do regarding OoT and WW, "WW should have X just like OoT", "it should be cel shaded like WW", "WW should have adult link like OoT", "the next game should have a layout like WW" etc.. in terms of reception from the fanbase it's basically OoT all over again, some hate the new, some love it.

Getting back onto setting out to please those who grew up with the series, again, sorry but we're the minority. In the past 10 years the consumer base has increased massivly with new gamers (got in within last decade) now making up far more than the older gamers, who as they age reduce in size as a consumer base as they lose interest or move onto other things. We're not the norm, not in neccesarily good or bad ways we're a different and small base of gamers (or consumers to the industry).
You cannot aim your products at a declining and smaller section of the gaming public, not only is it bad business but it's detremental to the quality of your product because you're pandering to a specific group which inevitable leads to you missing the interests of everyone else.

[Raedon]

The game is made for the dumb kids who try to fit round pegs in square holes still at age 6

While many of WW's puzzles are reasonably straight forward there are also many which aren't actually too easy to figure out straight away and which would certainly prove hard going for many people, let alone any kid under 12. I've encountered a numerous puzzles so far that have forced me to put a fair amount of thought into solving them, yes I did it but to say that such puzzles would be set up for ages of no more than 6 - 10 is rediculous.

In terms of challenge with regard to fighting enemies, I'm sorry but in reality WW's enemies provide much the same level of challenge as any of the other Zelda series and if we're to compare directly then OoT's enemies certainly weren't any more difficult.

Fact of the matter is

blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.


Your points make no sense to me. The game is to easy and boring.

BOTTOM LINE!! the gaming industry is not something that is young or old. being labeled a "kiddie" system will now kill Nintendo off. Was Nintendo kid friendly with CBFD? no.. how about 007? not at all, but once you get yourself into a corner of alienating the adult population of the video game market you have doomed yourself to fail. I am the adult population and one of Nintendo's BIGGEST fans and I'm turning my back on them..

Shhhhh.. here that?? *HAND TO EAR* That's the sound of Nintendo going the way of Atari and Sega.. Honestly good, Maybe Sony or Microsoft will buy them out and Zelda will once again be FUN to play, and not for the retarded, no brain, poor puzzle solving morons out there who can figure out that you can glide over a beam of energy instead of moving an unmovable block.

[Mayhem]

Dark Cloud 2 is a better game then WW by far.

LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

I direct you to a review of DC2 by a mate of mine whom I trust implicitely on this judgement... for the record WW got 10/10 on the said same site, but the reviewer still didn't think it was quite as good as LttP or OoT...

http://www.ntsc-uk.com/MainContent/PS2/DarkCloud2/DarkCloud2.htm

[Raedon]

Dark Cloud 2 is a better game then WW by far.

LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

I direct you to a review of DC2 by a mate of mine whom I trust implicitely on this judgement... for the record WW got 10/10 on the said same site, but the reviewer still didn't think it was quite as good as LttP or OoT...

http://www.ntsc-uk.com/MainContent/PS2/DarkCloud2/DarkCloud2.htm

yep, even with all the problems dc2 had it was still much more rewarding to me then WW.

[brandver3]

You know Raedon, you did start the "Zelda. Best. Game. Ever." thread when the game came. How easliy people turn on things.

Why does it seem that everyone loves a game when it comes out, but after it's been out for awhile everyone turns on it. Its like some kind of anti hype bug that plagues the hardcore gaming community. I see it here, i see it with my friends. They love a game for a few weeks, and then someone says they don't like. Then everyone else says they don't like. And all of a sudden the entire hardcore gaming community hates it and starts bashing the things they loved about the game when it first came out.

I haven't meet anyone that hates this game, other then the people on this forum.

And you HAVE to take this game and compare it to what is out now. Changes happens, you can't expect it to be LTTP for the next 10 years because it has to fill a "Legacy". You can't compare WW to LTTP, they are completly different games. Not even in the same ballpark. It is a differnet era, a different year, and a different Zelda. If you don't like it, then stop playing it. But an Anti-Nintendo Crusade because WW didn''t fullfil the Zelda legacy( in your eyes) well thats just absurd.

[Raedon]

what can I say, the game was a blast right up to when you learn the secret of hyrule about 10 hours in then it falls flat on it's face. It's obvious I was wrong.. better got change that threads title to Zelda.. THIS GAME F$%#ING BLOWS.

[Kroogah]

And I'm sure most of us would rather play Zelda then Def Jam Vendetta.

I just gotta step in here....I played Wind Waker for about an hour, and once the novelty of the graphics wore off I just got bored. However I've played Def Jam Vendetta for probably about 10 hours so far and I've had the game for 3 days. ^_^

[YoshiM]

I think we may be spoiled from games of the past being larger and taking longer to beat. Brandver3 I think has the right approach: those games were a from a different time and different gaming mindset. I remember the biggest selling points were how many hours it could take to beat. I know I went for stuff like that, knowing it'd be a game that I couldn't breeze through easily so I'd get my money's worth (we all know $40 when you are a young teenager is a lot of dishes and lawns and delivered newspapers).

I agree that there are many games out there today that are pretty short on purpose. Perhaps due to cutting development cost/time or because people's attention spans aren't that long anymore, who knows. Heck even Miyamoto is stating that developers should make shorter games. Good or bad, the future will tell all.

[NvrMore]

Your points make no sense to me. The game is to easy and boring.

In your opinion, and that's one of the key points here. You're trying to state your opinion as being fact when in fact although you didn't like the game a hell of a lot of people did/do.


BOTTOM LINE!! the gaming industry is not something that is young or old. being labeled a "kiddie" system will now kill Nintendo off. Was Nintendo kid friendly with CBFD? no.. how about 007? not at all, but once you get yourself into a corner of alienating the adult population of the video game market you have doomed yourself to fail. I am the adult population and one of Nintendo's BIGGEST fans and I'm turning my back on them..

C'mon get real and please get of this "I'm one of their biggest fans, therefore they should pander to what I want". Yes, you were a big fan but you're not the only one who was/is and it's seems quite apparent that the majority of the other fans are more than pleased with the game, your being disappointed isn't indicative of your being a bigger fan, moreso the fact that you're so quick to turn on them is really quite indicative of the opposite.

To get to the point about consumer makup. I'm sorry, but the vast majority of gaming consumers (and the biggest area of finance) are "casual gamers", that being people who play games casually, for recreation and relaxation. Such gamers are quite different from your typical hardcore gamer, they aren't fond of difficulty in games because they want to get back from a hard day's grind and unwind, not get more wound-up and frustrated trying to defeat a single part of a game, they simply want to be able to sit down, play through a game and feel that they have gotten somewhere in it... Pick up, put down, no stress, no hassle, just entertainment.

This is why games have been becoming gradually easier over the past decade and why so many modern games are basically simple to play through, because the developers are catering to what has become the main audience, the casual gamers.
Hardcore gamers, while still recognized and acknowledged are a minority who's needs are not compatible with the main market. Make your game difficult and you'll alienate the casual gamers because while difficulty may equal fun to the Hardcore set, to the casual gamers it means unwanted stress and frustration. Pander specifically to the demands of the so-called hardcore fans and you miss the main market and leave yourself with nothing but a dying consumer base and no new fans to join the ranks. Of course you could argue that catering to those who call themselves harcore fans will at least result in a loyal following but as you so aptly demonstrate people are very quick to turn and have convieniently short memories.

And contrary to what you have implied, the majority of adult gamers are not those who grew up with the older systems, they are casual gamers, many of whom turned their nose up at video games when they were younger but who now play games because they are no longer deemed geeky.

Honestly, you didn't like the game, it's a shame and nobody's going to change your opinion of it. But your opinions are your own and they are not set in stone facts. The game has been very well recieved and you can call all those who liked it no-brain morons all you like, whatever it takes to make you feel better, but I have to wonder about someone who so quickly turns on a company of whom they were supposedly the "biggest fan" and wishes for said company's demise simply because they didn't cater to a specific and unrealistic mindset x_x

[Nature Boy]

I've thought about this a lot lately and I agree - if Nintendo wants to appeal to all age groups they should really look into providing difficult levels to choose from. I'd probably still play it at normal, but offering a harder challenge by not giving the same hints and by putting more enemies in the dungeons would do nothing but help. They have enough problems keeping older gamers around (as reactions show). Wind Waker, as much as I personally love it, wasn't the step they could've taken.

[Hamsnibit]

WEll, I just read in my latest EGM that the fastest any of Nintendo's playtesters could play through the game an beat it was 10 hours. So I think the 5 hour playtime comment is crap. Just about any game can be beat in 10 hours unless you are talking about traditional RPG games. Like I stated before lots of games have side things you can get. And not everything in Final Fantasy 7 was needed and developed the story, a lot of it was just extra stuff you could get if you wanted. Just like most newer adventure and rpg, hell I don't remember if I got every single heart in Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past, because back then I wasn't into getting everything to fell I completed the game. I think the whole problem everyone has with this game is not enough land and too much sailing. I like the sailing idea, but their is way too much of it. Overall though I feel it was a really good game though.

[Tempest]

WEll, I just read in my latest EGM that the fastest any of Nintendo's playtesters could play through the game an beat it was 10 hours.

10 Hours?!?! What the hell were they doing? I suppose if you wanted to get all the hearts and such, but if you just did the required dungeons you could do in in around 5 hours (ok maybe 6). There are only 6 dungeons if you count Gannons tower (which is really short).

Tempest

[YoshiM]

Well, I just beat the game. On my bro-in-law's copy where we switched off back and forth. I can finally say my piece on it with clear conscience that I gave it a shot.

The story was good. It was what kept me going through the whole thing. The puzzles, while not mind numbing, were tossed at you rapid fire like with multiple puzzles sometimes in the same room! But these nuggets of joy are served up in between long action draughts when you are on the open sea. The enemies were okay, but once you learned how to use the "flashing A" attack you could pretty much widdle multiple opponents down to size. However the threat of death was practically non-existant. I think, during my trials with my first round of games with my bro and then when I tackled the game myself, I think I died once and that was due to bad timing and position than to real difficulty. The most powerful enemy though was the camera. In combat, it was horrid. Another thing that could have been avoided was the necessity to feed fish in order to complete your map. If you had to explore in order to find these fish, why not just mark the map yourself (ie automap) and skip the fish?

Yes, the game was easy for a seasoned player. Usually this isn't a bad thing, but in this case the game doesn't offer anything else beyond a scavenger hunt to command a replay. I don't think I can sit through it again as it just isn't challenging enough. OoT I'd play through again, but even then it's replayability is slightly better than Wind Waker.

Good game, but not as good (in a historical and game play way) as OoT in the 3D Zelda series.