SydLexia.com - The Forums :: View topic

Posted: Sep 10 2012 07:57 am

lordsathien wrote:

I honestly have to wonder, when did Skyward Sword become regarded as the second coming of Zelda II's black sheepishness?

I felt pretty underwhelmed with Skyward Sword when I was done with it and most of the game felt like a chore. Most everyone I know that played it agreed. There wasn't anything particularly bad about it but the whole thing just felt mediocre. All those reviews that went nuts over it couldn't have been honest opinions, the game just wasn't that good. However, I wonder the same question about Twilight Princess. When that came out, everyone was praising it, now I hear mostly dislike for it.

Posted: Sep 10 2012 09:41 am

Blackout wrote:

Now I skip the voice acting when it runs long so I can speed read the text, SHUT ALREADY AND GET TO THE POINT!!!

QFT. Unless it's an Atlus game, in which case I am usually at least as interested in the story as the gameplay, if not moreso.

Joined: Apr 09 2008 Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 3112

sidewaydriver wrote:

lordsathien wrote:

I honestly have to wonder, when did Skyward Sword become regarded as the second coming of Zelda II's black sheepishness?

I felt pretty underwhelmed with Skyward Sword when I was done with it and most of the game felt like a chore. Most everyone I know that played it agreed. There wasn't anything particularly bad about it but the whole thing just felt mediocre. All those reviews that went nuts over it couldn't have been honest opinions, the game just wasn't that good. However, I wonder the same question about Twilight Princess. When that came out, everyone was praising it, now I hear mostly dislike for it.

The impression I'm getting is that the basic formula for 3D Zeldas has mostly been to recreate Ocarina of Time. I know that there are people who still re-play OoT and Majora to this day, and that's probably because those two felt very fresh in their day, and people still have those positive connotations in their mind when re-playing those two. I didn't play a 3D Zelda until Wind Waker and Twilight Princess, both of which I really enjoyed. When I tried to play OoT and Majora, I was kind of underwhelmed. They were of course good, but I wasn't really enthralled by them, because I had been through the similar gameplay facets with WW and TP when those two felt fresh to me. It's just a theory, though.

As far as story goes, I think it's not necessary, but at the very least context beats out no context. The best-designed games tell stories without having to "tell stories." Super Metroid only took control away from you for like five seconds, but it told a story through level design (how the Chozo and pirates interacted with Zebes) and the moments with the baby Metroid. Samus is also characterized as a complete badass female bounty hunter that can beat the shit out of any alien race she pleases just through how the player plays her, and that's how she's come to be one of our favorite characters. Story isn't as much about exposition as much as what's told through environment, character designs, and actions of characters. There still is room for Atlus-style exposition, but even simple games have stories that you're unaware of.

Joined: Dec 06 2007 Location: Connecticut Posts: 11244

JoshWoodzy wrote:

No I got what you were saying, and gathered from your past post history that you'll always think of Nintendo games as for kids, and Darksiders, Elder Scrolls, etc, as for adults. I find that preposterous and is 100% you whining.

How about I list a few Nintendo games for the Wii that I liked to balance it out. I really enjoyed:
* Metroid Prime 3
* Super Mario Galaxy 1
* Zelda Twilight Princess

When someone expresses a complaint about something and offers conversation about it, it doesn't mean they are whining. Perhaps it means they are interested in discussion.

Bob Dylan`s Blues wrote:

Speaking of cuteness, you don't think Kirby is freaking adorable?

I enjoyed Kirby's Dream Land. After that, I lost interest. I was 12 when that game came out. The cuter they made Kirby, the less interest I had in the game. So yes, I do think he is cute. Too cute.

Mondegreen wrote:

How old are you, anyway? I sincerely hope I won't get so damn picky a few years from now.

32, and I am a picky person. I don't consider opinion to be a negative trait as long as consensus can be reached when it is needed.

Mondegreen wrote:

The only thing that matters to me is whether a game is fun to play or not. Everything else, the graphics, story, etc. are all side dishes to me. Regardless of their quality, if I can enjoy the core game i'm set.

I agree completely. If a game is fun, that is all that matters. To me, dated graphics at the time of publishing matter. Dated graphics due to a game aging doesn't matter. Most of my favorite games are ugly as hell, but they weren't ugly at the time they were created. Also, just to be clear, if the graphics serve a specific purpose, then I welcome them even if they use old technique. Cell shading Wind Waker was aweseome, I loved it. Twilight Princess was done with darker tones and more realistic cartoon figures. I enjoyed that very much. Skyward Sword had worse graphics than Twilight Princess, yet it was designed for the Wii while Twilight Princess was designed for the Game Cube. Yes, that impacts the fun for me because the world and characters weren't as magnificent as I had hoped for.

Vert1 wrote:

1) Most of your post seems to be that you don't like the presentation of the game. I haven't bothered with Skyward Sword, but I didn't think it looked cute; it looked ugly.
2) I don't agree with voice acting in Zelda being some downfall, but if they do add it they should keep Link mute. I think Nintendo's Zelda franchise post-Majora's Mask has a lot more issues to settle than hiring voice actors.
3) Motion controlless ftw
4) Yea, it doesn't look good. It's not exactly dated though.
5) Long cutscenes suck. Meaningful intros? Anything can be meaningful...
6) You really give a fuck about character development in a videogame? Come on.
7) Okay.

1. I actually don't think it was ugly. Artistically it wasn't for me, but more importantly that is because it was cute.
2. I would be fine with Link being silent as long as he was less pathetic. I expect everyone else who opens their mouth to produce sound that I can understand in my localization.
4. Yes it is. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and is completely subjective. Polygon count, texture size, and graphical features are technical measurements. The game is dated even by the Wii's standards.
5. If I don't care about the world, the main character, the villian or anything else after the intro, what was the point of wasting my time with it?
6. Yes, I really give a fuck about character development, if it makes sense. I don't expect it in a RTS. I sure as hell do in an RPG or Adventure game.

Syd Lexia wrote:

I don't see any polygons in either of those screenshots. What I do see is two VERY different art styles.

There is no doubt that they used distinct art styles. Additionally there is no doubt that the polygon count is low. Imagine the characters and the world as a wire mesh without texture. The number of polygons/shapes required to build the Zelda Scene is fairly limited. The number required to build the Skyrim Scene is larger by an exponential amount.

JoshWoodzy wrote:

I mean, I'm sorry if I didn't get some broad statement that you were trying to make GP, but you have to see it came off as "Whaaa, why doesn't Zelda look like Skyrim?!" which is pretty fucking stupid.

I don't think they should look the same. I think they should both feature the best of what 2011 had to offer graphically. Skyrim did, Zelda didn't.

Syd Lexia wrote:

Blackout wrote:

Now I skip the voice acting when it runs long so I can speed read the text, SHUT ALREADY AND GET TO THE POINT!!!

QFT. Unless it's an Atlus game, in which case I am usually at least as interested in the story as the gameplay, if not moreso.

No doubt, the ability for one to blow through the dialog should be optional. However, the voice acting and optional subtitles should be present so that the option exists.

Posted: Sep 10 2012 01:13 pm

GPFontaine wrote:

Syd Lexia wrote:

I don't see any polygons in either of those screenshots. What I do see is two VERY different art styles.

There is no doubt that they used distinct art styles. Additionally there is no doubt that the polygon count is low. Imagine the characters and the world as a wire mesh without texture. The number of polygons/shapes required to build the Zelda Scene is fairly limited. The number required to build the Skyrim Scene is larger by an exponential amount.

Well, I think you're being unfair. The screenshot you picked in Zelda requires less polygons BY DESIGN, as there is a lot less going on it.

As for the graphics debate, I am 100% sure that Skyrim is graphically superior on an objective level that includes number of colors, the capability of the hardware it's running on, and many other factors.

However, when you keep stressing that Skyrim looks better, that's not the argument that you're really making. The argument you're making is that Skyward Sword looks "bad" or "dated", which it absolutely does not. The Skyward Sword graphics are not just adequate, they are very enjoyable to look at it.

For my tastes, I don't find that Skyrim shot enjoyable to look at it. It is dull and drab. Unless I'm playing something with a horror or noir theme that necessitates duller color palettes, I prefer my games to make good of the wide range of colors available to them.

That's not to say the Skyrim screenshot is not technically "nice" in a very workmanlike sort of way, but I find it lacking any sort of soul or creative drive.

Posted: Sep 10 2012 01:18 pm

Quote:

For my tastes, I don't find that Skyrim shot enjoyable to look at it. It is dull and drab. Unless I'm playing something with a horror or noir theme that necessitates duller color palettes, I prefer my games to make good of the wide range of colors available to them.

To it's credit, Skyrim offers a diverse number of enviornments and colors. One screenshot taken in a snowy mountain environment isn't much of a basis to judge.

Posted: Sep 10 2012 01:25 pm

GPFontaine wrote:

Mondegreen wrote:

The only thing that matters to me is whether a game is fun to play or not. Everything else, the graphics, story, etc. are all side dishes to me. Regardless of their quality, if I can enjoy the core game i'm set.

I agree completely. If a game is fun, that is all that matters. To me, dated graphics at the time of publishing matter. Dated graphics due to a game aging doesn't matter. Most of my favorite games are ugly as hell, but they weren't ugly at the time they were created. Also, just to be clear, if the graphics serve a specific purpose, then I welcome them even if they use old technique. Cell shading Wind Waker was aweseome, I loved it. Twilight Princess was done with darker tones and more realistic cartoon figures. I enjoyed that very much. Skyward Sword had worse graphics than Twilight Princess, yet it was designed for the Wii while Twilight Princess was designed for the Game Cube. Yes, that impacts the fun for me because the world and characters weren't as magnificent as I had hoped for.

So in your opinion a lot developers aren't trying to go above and beyond anymore, instead they're just sticking with what works and changing very little? I guess I can agree that certain developers, like Nintendo, could be doing more.

GPFontaine wrote:

Bob Dylan`s Blues wrote:

Speaking of cuteness, you don't think Kirby is freaking adorable?

I enjoyed Kirby's Dream Land. After that, I lost interest. I was 12 when that game came out. The cuter they made Kirby, the less interest I had in the game. So yes, I do think he is cute. Too cute.

Its a shame some people feel this way, Kirby has had some very good overlooked games in recent years. He and Sonic might be the kings of underrated/underappreciated games.

(I would have somehow included Starfox in that but Vert would have eaten me alive)

Posted: Sep 10 2012 01:39 pm

GPF, if graphics are a big deal to you, you are in for massive disappointment in the coming years.

According to market analysts, the current business model of making games on giant budgets with giant teams is becoming increasingly unsustainable due to the diversification of the market place.

Companies are going to have to make better games with smaller teams and smaller budgets in order to continue operating.

This is also one of the reasons why Nintendo continues to be successful. They have their AAA titles, but they can also crank out something like Donkey Kong Country Returns or Kirby's Dream Collection on the cheap and still print money with it. And while they do constantly milk their most famous IPs for all they're worth, they are constantly developing new IPs too. They are, in many ways, a perfect example of how a game developer/publisher SHOULD operate.

Joined: Aug 28 2011 Posts: 537

Syd Lexia wrote:

they are constantly developing new IPs too.

Not on Wii...

Posted: Sep 10 2012 03:25 pm

Um... Wii Fit, Wii Sports, Wii Music, Wii Play?

At least TWO of those will continue into the next generation.

You may not LIKE them, but all of them except Wii Music were commercial successes.

There was also FlingSmash and Fluidity.

Title: Hugh Joined: Sep 23 2007 Posts: 1591

GPFontaine wrote:

To me, dated graphics at the time of publishing matter. Dated graphics due to a game aging doesn't matter.

I don't follow this logic at all. The only way it makes sense for me is if you just never play games that are more than a couple years old. If you're playing a game right now, in 2012, and it looks like it came out in 2005, why does it matter if it came out seven years ago or seven days ago? You're still experiencing it right now. I can't even really comprehend how the publication date would factor into it, for someone playing a game; all that I can see mattering is graphics at the time of playing.

Joined: Aug 28 2011 Posts: 537

Syd Lexia wrote:

Um... Wii Fit, Wii Sports, Wii Music, Wii Play?

At least TWO of those will continue into the next generation.

You may not LIKE them, but all of them except Wii Music were commercial successes.

Those aren't even games. They are minigames and non-games. Wii Music and Wii Fit are as much games as Electroplankton is a game. Nintendo actually gave a shit and launched new IPs like Pikmin and Luigi's Mansion at GC launch. With Wii they threw on awful motion controls from a Gamecube game that they delayed because they didn't have anything of substance. The only new IP they've developed were Excite Truck and... and...?

Commercial success has nothing to do with this discussion...

Posted: Sep 10 2012 03:59 pm

Luigi's Mansion wasn't a new IP, it was a Mario spinoff.

Also, you don't get to decide what is and isn't a game.

Joined: Aug 28 2011 Posts: 537

Luigi's Mansion is a new IP because it was Luigi's own game. It featured new controls and mechanics that radically differed from other Mario games. Just like SMW: Yoshi's Island is not a Mario game, but a Yoshi game (ala Yoshi's Story).

And yes I can decide what is a game and what is not a game. Electroplankton is not a game. Nor is Wii Music or Wii Fit. They are software for non-gamers.

Gallery 2 · Posted: Sep 10 2012 04:10 pm

I honestly hate that most people still think that growing up means shunning anything kid related and never looking back; it's that kind of mentality that encourages half-assed FPS and assorted "mature" games that make frat houses look like gentlemen clubs in comparison.

For that matter, there's the double standards: grinding in Pokemon is stupid, yet grinding, I mean, "farming" in WoW or Skyrim is completely acceptable?

And overall, the internet hype kills proper enjoyment of games in general. You know, the "OMFG!! X game is the (adjective)est game EVA!!!1!1!1" kind of hype. It's exactly the reason that I can't enjoy Amnesia as I wanted to: It doesn't live to the expectations the hype build up to. I.e. While it does have a good sense of atmosphere and story, it's not the pants-shitting horror game most gamers ("pussies" in this case) worship it as such.

Thing is, as long as the game's fun and/or engaging, it shouldn't matter how cutesy or hard boiled the game is.

Posted: Sep 10 2012 04:11 pm

luigis mansion is a new ip made from existing media. kind of like how mario kart is a new ip based off the mario universe. i think we are splitting hairs in this regard, but they are making a sequel to luigis mansion for the 3ds, so that should be nice.

Gallery 2 · Posted: Sep 10 2012 04:12 pm

I honestly hate that most people still think that growing up means shunning anything kid related and never looking back; it's that kind of mentality that encourages half-assed FPS and assorted "mature" games that make frat houses look like gentlemen clubs in comparison.

For that matter, there's the double standards: grinding in Pokemon is stupid, yet grinding, I mean, "farming" in WoW or Skyrim is completely acceptable?

And overall, the internet hype kills proper enjoyment of games in general. You know, the "OMFG!! X game is the (adjective)est game EVA!!!1!1!1" kind of hype. It's exactly the reason that I can't enjoy Amnesia as I wanted to: It doesn't live to the expectations the hype build up to. I.e. While it does have a good sense of atmosphere and story, it's not the pants-shitting horror game most gamers ("pussies" in this case) worship it as such.

Thing is, as long as the game's fun and/or engaging, it shouldn't matter how cutesy or hard boiled the game is.

Posted: Sep 10 2012 04:14 pm

Well, if we're going to consider every new-ish Mario and Pokemon thing that isn't part of their main franchises a new IP, I can name a ton more. Also, we didn't even touch upon the handheld stuff.

Joined: Aug 28 2011 Posts: 537

I want a mature Daisy game.

Posted: Sep 10 2012 04:19 pm

GPFontaine wrote:

Bob Dylan`s Blues wrote:

Speaking of cuteness, you don't think Kirby is freaking adorable?

I enjoyed Kirby's Dream Land. After that, I lost interest. I was 12 when that game came out. The cuter they made Kirby, the less interest I had in the game. So yes, I do think he is cute. Too cute.

How fucking bitter and picky can you be to refuse to play some of the most solid, fun platformers ever for no reason other than "cuteness"?

Joined: Aug 28 2011 Posts: 537

Clearly Nintendo has tried to appeal to him with the angry Kirby USA boxart. What more can he ask for?

A Kirby game that plays like Gears of Wars? That shit would be amazing.

Joined: Oct 19 2009 Location: Nashville, TN Posts: 1479

Captain_Pollution wrote:

GPFontaine wrote:

To me, dated graphics at the time of publishing matter. Dated graphics due to a game aging doesn't matter.

I don't follow this logic at all. The only way it makes sense for me is if you just never play games that are more than a couple years old. If you're playing a game right now, in 2012, and it looks like it came out in 2005, why does it matter if it came out seven years ago or seven days ago? You're still experiencing it right now. I can't even really comprehend how the publication date would factor into it, for someone playing a game; all that I can see mattering is graphics at the time of playing.

Hooray for post-modernism! I agree.

Joined: Dec 06 2007 Location: Connecticut Posts: 11244

Teralyx wrote:

GPFontaine wrote:

Bob Dylan`s Blues wrote:

Speaking of cuteness, you don't think Kirby is freaking adorable?

I enjoyed Kirby's Dream Land. After that, I lost interest. I was 12 when that game came out. The cuter they made Kirby, the less interest I had in the game. So yes, I do think he is cute. Too cute.

How fucking bitter and picky can you be to refuse to play some of the most solid, fun platformers ever for no reason other than "cuteness"?

This isn't about being bitter. I just didn't find myself interested. I'm not knocking the game for existing, I'm saying that I have no interest in it. Also, I might as well mention that I have zero interest in Pokemon.

Captain_Pollution wrote:

GPFontaine wrote:

To me, dated graphics at the time of publishing matter. Dated graphics due to a game aging doesn't matter.

I don't follow this logic at all. The only way it makes sense for me is if you just never play games that are more than a couple years old. If you're playing a game right now, in 2012, and it looks like it came out in 2005, why does it matter if it came out seven years ago or seven days ago? You're still experiencing it right now. I can't even really comprehend how the publication date would factor into it, for someone playing a game; all that I can see mattering is graphics at the time of playing.

I could have better worded my statement, but here is my best explanation. A certain amount of forgiveness is appropriate for age. When I think back to the older games that have worse graphics because they were made at a time when better graphics didn't exist, I recognize the technological ceiling and all is well. When I look at newer games in a series and I see a regression from a previous game, I am confused and aggrivated. A game that never historically measured up for its time won't settle well in the future for me. This is mostly targeted at series that push out lower quality sequels.

AtmanRyu wrote:

I honestly hate that most people still think that growing up means shunning anything kid related and never looking back; it's that kind of mentality that encourages half-assed FPS and assorted "mature" games that make frat houses look like gentlemen clubs in comparison.

For that matter, there's the double standards: grinding in Pokemon is stupid, yet grinding, I mean, "farming" in WoW or Skyrim is completely acceptable?

I didn't make a concious choice to find cute style games undesirable. I simply stopped finding them interesting and or fun. Often times the wording used to describe this transition is "growing out of it". That may not be the best choice of words, but it is what it is.

As for grinding, to each their own. I personally prefer grinding in a game to forced social interaction. So grinding vs raiding is easy for me. Given the choice for pure individual content vs grinding, I would choose content every time as long as I am not forced to play with others.

GPF's Preference in Gaming
Individual Content > Grinding > Forced Multiplayer

Syd Lexia wrote:

GPF, if graphics are a big deal to you, you are in for massive disappointment in the coming years.

According to market analysts, the current business model of making games on giant budgets with giant teams is becoming increasingly unsustainable due to the diversification of the market place.

Three major things will occur in parallel to deal with the exact situation you are describing:
1. Large studio evolution to deal with huge cost
2. The rise of quality indie games
3. More fremium games and DLC

Also, in the meantime things like the Unreal Engine allow for a large degree of flexibility in cost for startups.

It is an interesting situation. Big studios only want to publish to the consoles because there is less piracy, yet the consoles are a huge pain in the ass to publish to. So more indie developers want to develop for the PC. In the end, consoles will have a lead, but PC gaming will be alright.

Bob Dylan`s Blues wrote:

GPFontaine wrote:

Bob Dylan`s Blues wrote:

Speaking of cuteness, you don't think Kirby is freaking adorable?

I enjoyed Kirby's Dream Land. After that, I lost interest. I was 12 when that game came out. The cuter they made Kirby, the less interest I had in the game. So yes, I do think he is cute. Too cute.

Its a shame some people feel this way, Kirby has had some very good overlooked games in recent years. He and Sonic might be the kings of underrated/underappreciated games.

(I would have somehow included Starfox in that but Vert would have eaten me alive)

I guess I wish it were more appealing to me, but it isn't. Also, I don't hate Sonic. I'm terrible at it, but I liked the original games for the Genesis.

Syd Lexia wrote:

For my tastes, I don't find that Skyrim shot enjoyable to look at it. It is dull and drab. Unless I'm playing something with a horror or noir theme that necessitates duller color palettes, I prefer my games to make good of the wide range of colors available to them.

That's not to say the Skyrim screenshot is not technically "nice" in a very workmanlike sort of way, but I find it lacking any sort of soul or creative drive.

Exploring the lands, you will find amazing colorful areas. Also, the spells and battles will light up the screen. It isn't as colorful as WoW, and the time and weather systems play a large part in what appears to be dullness.

If it is dark from 8pm - 6am, that is a large gap of time where things aren't colorful, but torches and fire spells are amazing. You can always wait the time through for daylight.

Also, the weather brings snow storms, lightning, rain, wind, and more. Often when looking up at the mountains, you see mist around the snow caps. near warmer areas.

The game's landscape reminded me very much of the Lord of the Rings movies other than no lava area.

http://cloud-2.steampowered.com/ugc/938127448233511918/6D3B1260C5BF4191DE6ADBC4D55057C29375339A/

http://cloud.steampowered.com/ugc/938127448233510225/BD73B813C44EECFFB5D1E1668D91D98FEB4D7CB3/

http://cloud.steampowered.com/ugc/938127448233517563/039864FF3A6D5A6F68C3A80F29D3DB9F039C70A8/

Posted: Sep 10 2012 08:30 pm

GPFontaine wrote:

Three major things will occur in parallel to deal with the exact situation you are describing:
1. Large studio evolution to deal with huge cost
2. The rise of quality indie games
3. More fremium games and DLC

Let me start off by saying that in the second batch of Skyrim screenshots you posted, #2 and #3 make the game look significantly more appealing.

1. I already told you larger studios are likely to evolve. Smaller teams and smaller budgets for individual projects, as that will allow them to experiment with more diverse projects and develop new IPs.

2. There are already tons of quality indie games. That's part of what's hurting the big budget studios. You can make the best game ever game, but the pie's being divided more ways. Also quality indie games tend to look more like SMB1 and FF6 than Skyrim.

3. DLC is also what's part of killing the industry. People are pissed that they're paying $60 for a game and a week later additional content is being sold to them on top of that. It is one of the #1 sources of video game consumer dissatisfaction and overall video game sales have declined since major studios started pushing it aggressively. PC Gamers are less likely to care about this because DLC goes on sale for PC games much more often than it does for console games.

Back to the original topic, games as I get older. I find that I generally want one of two things when I play video games these days. I either want something that's new/quirky/interesting or I want something that's completely familiar. So if I'm going to play an RPG, it's most likely going to something made by Square Enix, Blizzard, or Nintendo. I've played Skyrim before, because I've played RPGs before. I'm going to play the same old comfortable formula, I'd rather visit the same old comfortable worlds, ones filled references intended to appeal to me. I've never played an Elder Scrolls game, so I have no attached to the brand. So I have absolutely no reason to give their rehash of the same old story a shot over other developers who have already proven themselves to me and got me to invest in them emotionally.

Posted: Sep 10 2012 08:39 pm

Syd Lexia wrote:

DLC is also what's part of killing the industry. People are pissed that they're paying $60 for a game and a week later additional content is being sold to them on top of that. It is one of the #1 sources of video game consumer dissatisfaction and overall video game sales have declined since major studios started pushing it aggressively. PC Gamers are less likely to care about this because DLC goes on sale for PC games much more often than it does for console games.

A week? More like the very same day the game comes out lately. Razz

I wouldn't mind the DLC so much if it wasn't already there at launch, it makes it feel like I bought a partial game and am now required to fork out 10-20 dollars more on top of the 60 I just spent just to get the whole game on day 1. It is the reason I've quit buying a lot of console games and just wait a year for the GOTY edition with all the content included for 40 bucks. With PC games you just have to wait for the next major Steam sale to get it and all the DLC for 20-30 less than at launch it seems.