By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
theprof00 said:
richardhutnik said:

Well, one would expect another game to win against Zelda, when Zelda happened to have issues with the controls during the presentation.

Tell me what was interesting about zelda.

I have seen more on Zelda now, than people have seen regarding Agent.  So, why are people all pumped about the game Agent?  Do you want to know what I see about Zelda?

* It is Zelda.  Zelda is one of the best franchises ever.

* The controls looked interested, in what it is trying to do.  I account the gltiches that happened today at the show.

* The sword hacking and slashing looks like fun.  The whole entire change how you slash the enemy plant depending on how it opens its mouth is interesting.  Also, the new weapons look like fun.

Anyhow, if you don't know what is interesting about Zelda, then you aren't a fan, which is fine.  Maybe you secretly want something LIKE Zelda, but a bit different, which maybe Sorcery fits into.   Anyhow, there are people like this, usually tied to being a fan of a given console.  Individuals like Selnor, for example, will end up trumpeting every single 360 exclusive as being better to everything on every other console.  Even money he would say Fable III trounces Zelda also.  Why?  Well it is on the 360 first and foremost.



Around the Network
theARTIST0017 said:
theprof00 said:
RolStoppable said:

I just watched the Sorcery gameplay on youtube. So that's the game that makes people go "wow".

It didn't really "wow" me as much to say that right after watchin zelda, it seemed to have many of the same elements, but with a different setting, abilities, and tricks as well as puzzles and expandability.

The two seem very similar, and honestly I was very disappointed with zelda. I expected a lot more. Nothing has changed, and the presentation was nearly a disaster.

With sorcery, it feels like the kind of change zelda should have gotten. It's something different.


Ok dude. Whoah, lets go back to what you said. The kind of change Zelda should have gotten? WHAT?! Are you serious?! I bet you right now Socrcery wont be getting 9's when it come out. Zelda's presentation was a disaster? Why? Because of some technical difficulties note because the games is bad. Zelda > Sorcery IN EVERY WAY. Graphics, gameplay you name it bub.

So if you think Zelda should have gotten the kind of change similar to game like Sorcery, that would be a true disaster. Sorcery does not = Zelda.

I wouldn't want zelda to be like sorcery. I just would like something that isn't ocarina of time with a different artstyle.



I thought both were pretty cool personally, I might actually get Move for FPS on PS3 if it's allowed for MP personally since I've always thought dual analog was ass for FPS. I've seen some Zelda demos already and it works pretty much flawlessly under normal conditions.



Rpruett said:
richardhutnik said:
Rpruett said:
Metallicube said:

Sorcery looked good and all, but come on.. Better than Zelda? ZELDA??

That's like saying Little Big Planet is the better platformer than NSMB Wii.

The powers looked fun to use, but the environments and enemies looked bland. It's like Harry Potter but a bit more dark.


LBP is the better platformer and quite a few people would agree.

On here, if you did a survey for that, I am sure it would come down to the ratio of PS3 owners to Wii owners.  XBox owners might jump in to add additional noise though.

Possibly.  I would say there is generally a good amount of bias (Especially in single console owners).  I'll take metacritic ratings as a backing to my personal opinion (And you will probably take sales) although I believe reviewers again are a little lessed biased in this regard since they don't have a horse in the race. 

LBP can be any type of platformer you wanted it to be..Which is what makes it so great.   The content on it is practically never-ending.   The same can't be said for NSMB.  If you played ones on SNES you will have essentially played this one. 

The physics in LBP prevent it from being any type of platformer one would like.  The jumping is floaty on it, and it does get tied to trying to have realistic physics.  I am a HUGE fan of LBP, and like games with user-created content, but one is hard pressed to say that LBP is "any time of platformer you want it to me".  It is a type of platformer that can create a wide degree of levels.  NOW, if you want to talk LBP2, then that would be a stronger argument here.

I will say what LBP has is excellent user customizability and levels designed.  What NSMB or SMB Wii has is a game created and designed by someone who is considered to be the top game designer of all time, by a number of surveys.  There is a difference here.



richardhutnik said:
theprof00 said:
richardhutnik said:
 

Well, one would expect another game to win against Zelda, when Zelda happened to have issues with the controls during the presentation.

Tell me what was interesting about zelda.

I have seen more on Zelda now, than people have seen regarding Agent.  So, why are people all pumped about the game Agent?  Do you want to know what I see about Zelda?

* It is Zelda.  Zelda is one of the best franchises ever.

* The controls looked interested, in what it is trying to do.  I account the gltiches that happened today at the show.

* The sword hacking and slashing looks like fun.  The whole entire change how you slash the enemy plant depending on how it opens its mouth is interesting.  Also, the new weapons look like fun.

Anyhow, if you don't know what is interesting about Zelda, then you aren't a fan, which is fine.  Maybe you secretly want something LIKE Zelda, but a bit different, which maybe Sorcery fits into.   Anyhow, there are people like this, usually tied to being a fan of a given console.  Individuals like Selnor, for example, will end up trumpeting every single 360 exclusive as being better to everything on every other console.  Even money he would say Fable III trounces Zelda also.  Why?  Well it is on the 360 first and foremost.

So what is interesting is that it is zelda, has motion plus, and basically the same items we've seen before? The bug? It's the same thign as the boomerang in the DS zelda games. The whip? It's been in zelda before. slingshot, arrows. it's all the same.

The only thing different was motion plus, and that failed onstage. Other than that, it's zelda. Don't you think that's a problem? FYI I own every single zelda game save for twilight princess, which I played briefly, and the cd-i one. I loved Zelda, but it's the same thing time after time after time. The two I love the most? Ocarina and Wind Waker, and they were different. This demo today would've been exciting 4 years ago.



Around the Network

I think the point he is trying to make is that he wasn't impressed by anything shown with Zelda.  It didn't look overwhelmingly fun, pretty, smooth gameplay, etc  and that if you didn't stamp the 'Zelda' title on it...Would there be as much excitement?

I agree with that notion.  Obviously, Zelda is zelda and will be a fun game almost assuredly but take away the namesake and from watching what you watched how excited would you be?  Probably not as much.  On that sense, I agree Sorcery did look better.  It's just highly doubtful it turns out better.



theprof00 said:
theARTIST0017 said:
theprof00 said:
RolStoppable said:

I just watched the Sorcery gameplay on youtube. So that's the game that makes people go "wow".

It didn't really "wow" me as much to say that right after watchin zelda, it seemed to have many of the same elements, but with a different setting, abilities, and tricks as well as puzzles and expandability.

The two seem very similar, and honestly I was very disappointed with zelda. I expected a lot more. Nothing has changed, and the presentation was nearly a disaster.

With sorcery, it feels like the kind of change zelda should have gotten. It's something different.


Ok dude. Whoah, lets go back to what you said. The kind of change Zelda should have gotten? WHAT?! Are you serious?! I bet you right now Socrcery wont be getting 9's when it come out. Zelda's presentation was a disaster? Why? Because of some technical difficulties note because the games is bad. Zelda > Sorcery IN EVERY WAY. Graphics, gameplay you name it bub.

So if you think Zelda should have gotten the kind of change similar to game like Sorcery, that would be a true disaster. Sorcery does not = Zelda.

I wouldn't want zelda to be like sorcery. I just would like something that isn't ocarina of time with a different artstyle.

OK THEN! So then why are you contradicting yourself?! FIRST you said its the kind of change Zelda should have gotten. THEN, you said you don't want Zelda to be like Sorcery. Come on man its beggining to sound like you're dragging up excuese becasuse Zelda had bad presentration. AND you wouldn't want Ocorina of Time with better graphics. 1. We don't know much about the game. 2. Ocorina of Time is the highest rated game of all time.



NINTENDO

nintendo forever . . .

Rpruett said:

I think the point he is trying to make is that he wasn't impressed by anything shown with Zelda.  It didn't look overwhelmingly fun, pretty, smooth gameplay, etc  and that if you didn't stamp the 'Zelda' title on it...Would there be as much excitement?

I agree with that notion.  Obviously, Zelda is zelda and will be a fun game almost assuredly but take away the namesake and from watching what you watched how excited would you be?  Probably not as much.  On that sense, I agree Sorcery did look better.  It's just highly doubtful it turns out better.


i really hate when people are capable of writing more succinctly than I. Of course I have to deal with everyone derailing my posts, but still



The game looks badass



omg there's so many threads in the Nintendo section! i don't know which ones to post in.



NINTENDO

nintendo forever . . .