curl-6 said:
Nuvendil said:
1) If Sailing is coma inducing than traversing OoT's green void could straight up kill a man. At least the sea had enemy outposts you could take down, small islands to find for side activities, treasures to fish up, and some visual movement. Hyrule Field in OoT is a flat green emptiness with virtually nothing of worth to be found. And what's worse, whenever you are young Link you have to run, slowly, aggonizingly around. And with Wind Waker HD, the Sailing becomes convenient quite early on and you even get an adequate fast travel system. And I feel the ocean also gives the world a sense of vastness far greater than OoT, which very quickly feels small despite that vast emptiness in between.
2) I strongly disagree, but then my taste has grown very broad and flexible over time and not everyone shares the same experiences that shape their tastes in the same way. And at least there's expressiveness in Wind Waker. OoT's NPCs all share like 5 expressions grand total. And the writing is very strong. But again, taste in art style is is flexible and subjective. But I would contend it was used exceptionally well and the script played to its strengths.
Also, I'll concede the dungeons were lacking numerically, but I enjoyed those that were there. And the combat was a very big step up, the writing was light years past OoT's in terms of characters (seriously, I will continue to contend that OoT *has no true characters*, as characters necessitate more features and fleshing out than OoT gives any NPC) and even surpasses Majora's Mask, and some of the more severe issues like that quest were resolved in the HD version, which is the version I consider the definitive one, similar to OoT3D. So no, I would contend Wind Waker is a good game, objectively. I'm not going to keep arguing this cause it's not going to accomplish anything and it's also going to just congest the thread. So let's just agree to strongly disagree.
|
Ocarina's field was a chore, but at least the field didn't take up like 90% of the world with empty nothingness like WW's ocean does.
I actually don't believe there's such thing as a game being good or bad objectively, as all perception of such things is inherently subjective. So it's really all just a matter of opinions. In other words, yeah, agreed to disagree.
|
Well I'll drop the Wind Waker argument, but I will hold that a degree of objectivity - though not pure objectivity - is possible. I'm a pretty adament holder to that as a creator myself cause if there are no real quality standards of any kind...then what the crap am I striving towards? It's a mix, and taste, of course, is always subjective.
But I think it's very wise to come to recognize that it's possible to not like something that is truly good and to like something that is truly not very good. I've never gotten a quarter of a way through a Souls game, but I would still give Bloodborne a very high rating, like a 9 or so. Meanwhile I have spent hundreds of hours with Mount&Blade but I would never in a million years rate it higher than like a 6 cause while it has a lot of original ideas and a good foundation that I have fun with, in terms of presentation, writing, etc...the game is a shit circus. And to give it much higher than a 6 would be a diservice to games like OoT, Wind Waker, Twilight Princess, Skyrim, etc etc etc that stand in the 8+ range.
But anyways, this is not the place for a philosophical debate of interpretation, evaluation, critique, and all that.
