Gnizmo said:
selnor said:
Zelda 3 as NOT complex at all. Niether was the first one. OOT was much more complex. The 2nd one with it's 2d side segments was the only complex part of any of the first 3.
I guess my opinion is different to yours. I can see exactly what the IGN article means. I know MK has always had rewards for people in last place. But nowhere near the rediculousness that is MKWii.
And also you cannot have concrete evidence to opinion. Yours is opinion just as much as mine as is IGN's. So no I didnt waste time at all, I'm sorry my opinion is what you wanted, but it's how I feel about Ninty letting me down.
|
I can give concrete evidence for many of my opinions. I have cited new mechanics that make MKWii require skill to excell at. I can also cite examples of why SMG was more "casual" than Mario 64 and a good example of what you are talking about. I just wanted to see if you were going with the majority opinion for a real reason or not.
OoT is a 3D remake of Link to the Past. To call it much more complex is absurd. Many of the puzzles were far easier. Nothing has ever come close to being as hard as the NES Zeldas. They were the most hardcore of the hardcore games in the series, but also amongst the worst imo.
|
It's not the added player mechanics that are at fault for what I'm describing in MKwii, it's the core mechanics that are incontrollable. Dont get me wrong, I can win even with the bad catch up mechanic going on. But it's much more random than before. To random for an ex MK64 player. Yes I'm aware the game is different, but I have played it for more than 5 mins. Probably about 7 hours. Really to please my little sister in law more than me. She loves it.
I know all about OOT. And I still have a copy of Link to The Past. I personally didnt find Z3 that hard. Wheras I struggled sometimes with OOT.