The demo area was a field, not part of a dungeon
Elements of dungeons and fields are being combined
Some dungeons may feature areas where you have to run from enemies, or you don't have a weapon
There may be more items than the 8 seen in at E3
Gorons and Zoras are mentioned in passing, but not confirmed for the game
MotionPlus may lead to new puzzle types
The sword has a treasure-seeking abilityso it is like hot and cold game
Link does have a method of travel between the two worlds, but that's not being discusses yet
And each Zelda game has differentiated themselves from the next one to the point that saying they're all the same is completely mindless.
yea himu it's not like every zelda has a boomerang,a hookshot,a bow,bombs,a forest temple,a fire temple and a water temple amirite? :smugspoiler (click to show/hide)this one might have puzzle where you have to lit torchs :omg[close]
???
umm yes himu,most rpg play the same but we accept that because they bother with other stuff like characters,the world around,the plot,the dungeons,the loot,the various subsytem
zelda does none of this,they slap the same shit over and they are done with it
Wind Waker's sailing made it feel different, I thought. Now you can make the case for TP, but TP is really the only thing that's feels derivative and canned and yet it still has some of the best dungeons in the series, so that point ends up being moot.
Majora's Mask was completely different, yes. But that doesn't mean that the other Zelda's are the same thing either. Wind Waker places an emphasis on sidequests and exploration more so than dungeons. TP is all about dungeons. Ocarina of Time and Link to the Past have similar to stories, but their gameplay and how they fuse these story elements into the gameplay are completely different. Link's Awakening has the entire map as one big puzzle to solve. The original game is one big dungeon and it doesn't tell shit on where to go or what to do. Zelda 2 is a fucking side-scroller.
Zelda games share similarities, but not one Zelda plays the same as the next.
Eiji Aonuma says Zelda is same old same old
Wind Waker's sailing made it feel different, I thought. Now you can make the case for TP, but TP is really the only thing that's feels derivative and canned and yet it still has some of the best dungeons in the series, so that point ends up being moot.
Majora's Mask was completely different, yes. But that doesn't mean that the other Zelda's are the same thing either. Wind Waker places an emphasis on sidequests and exploration more so than dungeons. TP is all about dungeons. Ocarina of Time and Link to the Past have similar to stories, but their gameplay and how they fuse these story elements into the gameplay are completely different. Link's Awakening has the entire map as one big puzzle to solve. The original game is one big dungeon and it doesn't tell shit on where to go or what to do. Zelda 2 is a fucking side-scroller.
Zelda games share similarities, but not one Zelda plays the same as the next.
Yes zelda 2 and Majoras mask are like the only zeldas who TRY to do something totally new in the series and I give props to that. Why did Miyamoto run his mouth and say that TP will be the last Zelda in its form when Skyward sword does not seem to do anything groundbreaking or even close to it! Nintendo was once the masters in creativity with their franchises (remember when miyamoto disapproved Super Mario Bros 2 because it looked too similar to SMB or when Yoshis island got an overhaul so it wouldnt play as SMW?) seems like they're stuck in a loop, atleast with Zelda.
So basically you have no argument.Bingo. This thread is pointless.
Wind Waker's sailing made it feel different, I thought. Now you can make the case for TP, but TP is really the only thing that's feels derivative and canned and yet it still has some of the best dungeons in the series, so that point ends up being moot.
Majora's Mask was completely different, yes. But that doesn't mean that the other Zelda's are the same thing either. Wind Waker places an emphasis on sidequests and exploration more so than dungeons. TP is all about dungeons. Ocarina of Time and Link to the Past have similar to stories, but their gameplay and how they fuse these story elements into the gameplay are completely different. Link's Awakening has the entire map as one big puzzle to solve. The original game is one big dungeon and it doesn't tell shit on where to go or what to do. Zelda 2 is a fucking side-scroller.
Zelda games share similarities, but not one Zelda plays the same as the next.
Yes zelda 2 and Majoras mask are like the only zeldas who TRY to do something totally new in the series and I give props to that. Why did Miyamoto run his mouth and say that TP will be the last Zelda in its form when Skyward sword does not seem to do anything groundbreaking or even close to it! Nintendo was once the masters in creativity with their franchises (remember when miyamoto disapproved Super Mario Bros 2 because it looked too similar to SMB or when Yoshis island got an overhaul so it wouldnt play as SMW?) seems like they're stuck in a loop, atleast with Zelda.
uhhh
they haven't shown anything about zelda ss lol except a demo area
I mean, you could say do the same thing with majora's mask. Show off a dungeon at E3 and it's just classic zelda gameplay. This doesn't go into the story or the flow or structure or sidequests.
So basically you have no argument. When we have SS in our hands and it's the same thing as Twilight Princess, I'll eat crow.
I always wonder why people hate on zelda games for being zelda games.
Hey there was that one door you had to make dizzy so it would open!
Thats like, the same concept as those eye monsters in super mario 64, but it was puzzle!
I always wonder why people hate on zelda games for being zelda games. It's like bitching that mario games are about jumping in bright colorful levels. Or that mario games have recurring elements like 1-ups or flight powerups or whatever. All franchises have their staples. The BIG problem I have with zelda games these days is an overemphasis on story, which I think ruins alot of what made the early zeldas so engrossing. Link's awakening had a cool story but it was never more exposition then the owl giving you a ominous observation here and there.i always tought mario was able to being different enough between each game,well at least until nintendo rolled up new super mario bros wii and mario galaxy 2
Hey guys I only have a wii but I like to pretend I'm too cool to like it
Hey guys I only have a wii but I like to pretend I'm too cool to like it
Dude, if you don't think I can't smell a poser from.... ACROSS THE INTERNET... you have it wrong!
so anyway stop being a poser
Realise just how awesome NSMBWii is on the merits of its level design and powerups and and and everything thats right in the world!
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HowToPlayAConsoleRPG
who cares what zelda is going to be or not bebut why wait? i'm already bitching about it now :smug
...we're all going to play it and bitch about it anyways :P
who cares what zelda is going to be or not be
...we're all going to play it and bitch about it anyways :P
i'm going to play and love it
i'm going to play and love it
just like with spirit tracks? :teehee
i'm going to play and love it
just like with spirit tracks? :teehee
handheld zelda is never better than console zelda
i'm going to play and love it
just like with spirit tracks? :teehee
handheld zelda is never better than console zelda
Meh, there's no Zelda that deviates that drastically from the formula, aside from Zelda 2 (if you even want to count that as a Zelda).
I really would like to know what people have in mind for a significantly 'different' Zelda. I'd argue even something like MM isn't that unique. MM's prime disguishing feature is that it doesn't have Ganon/Zelda, but the gameplay is what you see in every 3D Zelda. The Oracle games are near carbon copies of Link's Awakening.
Dumb thread.
for the most part i'd take console zelda over handheld zelda any day
spirit tracks sucks
It would be better if we just pretended that the DS Zeldas didn't exist, just like the shitty CD-I games.for the most part i'd take console zelda over handheld zelda any day
spirit tracks sucks
didnt you just say that you play and love every zelda game? Spirits Tracks is also zelda. Contradiction much.
finally we agree on something.It would be better if we just pretended that the DS Zeldas didn't exist, just like the shitty CD-I games.for the most part i'd take console zelda over handheld zelda any day
spirit tracks sucks
didnt you just say that you play and love every zelda game? Spirits Tracks is also zelda. Contradiction much.
Meh, there's no Zelda that deviates that drastically from the formula, aside from Zelda 2 (if you even want to count that as a Zelda).
I really would like to know what people have in mind for a significantly 'different' Zelda. I'd argue even something like MM isn't that unique. MM's prime disguishing feature is that it doesn't have Ganon/Zelda, but the gameplay is what you see in every 3D Zelda. The Oracle games are near carbon copies of Link's Awakening.
Dumb thread.
Meh, there's no Zelda that deviates that drastically from the formula, aside from Zelda 2 (if you even want to count that as a Zelda).
I really would like to know what people have in mind for a significantly 'different' Zelda. I'd argue even something like MM isn't that unique. MM's prime disguishing feature is that it doesn't have Ganon/Zelda, but the gameplay is what you see in every 3D Zelda. The Oracle games are near carbon copies of Link's Awakening.
Dumb thread.
the hell are you talking about? MM is different because a large part of the game revolves around the townspeople/journal, and the element of time.
I didn't say they focus on side quests. I said MM focuses on side quests, which is fine, but does that make it significantly different than other Zeldas?