Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
GameCube (Games)

More Twilight Princess Details Emerge 109

Posted by Zonk from the ninja-princess dept.
Press the Buttons has a link to an interview with Nintendo veterans Miyamoto and Aonuma. In it they reveal the identity of the cloaked woman in the trailer and more information about where in the Zelda timeline the new game falls. Press the Buttons has commentary as well: "From time to time I still see posts on online message boards claiming that Twilight Princess is the Zelda game 'we should have gotten instead of Wind Waker', a train of thought that extends from the fact that some people are still against Wind Waker's highly animated visual style despite having never played the game."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

More Twilight Princess Details Emerge More

More Twilight Princess Details Emerge

Comments Filter:
  • Let me throw my sword with power when I have full hearts and the master sword. I've missed that.

    The revival of the dark world from Link to the Past is a nice touch. I watched the trailer a little while back and was kind of surprised they did that, until I noted the dark motes/style. So, he's a wolf now, not a bunny.
  • People who didn't play Wind Waker because they didn't like the "kiddy" artwork are not real gamers...plain and simple.

    • Re:Just needed to say this... (Score:1)

      by genrader ( 563784 ) on Wednesday June 01, 2005 @02:20PM (#12696614) Homepage Journal
      Well, it's kind of hard to play when you're vomiting all over your controller. I tried to play, I really did. The gameplay felt fun. The visuals though, well, I had to wash my clothes after attempting to play for a few minutes.

    • Re:Just needed to say this... (Score:2)

      by frikazoyd ( 845667 ) on Wednesday June 01, 2005 @02:46PM (#12696944)
      Gamer is a loaded term anyway. And people are entitled to their opinions, regardless of how misguided or influenced by popularity they may be.

      That said, I have to agree that dismissing (or for that matter, lauding) a game entirely due to the graphical style misses the point. You're playing a game, not watching a movie. And Ocarina of Time wasn't that dark anyway, most people didn't like the Wind Waker because Link was a kid. The art style just lent itself to attack. I never heard anybody talk about vomiting when they played XIII. It's just a straw man they can pin on to the argument.
      • "And people are entitled to their opinions, regardless of how misguided or influenced by popularity they may be."

        I'd have to disagree with ya there... If someone is just gonna go with what everyone tells them, then they do not deserve an opinion since they don't actually have one of their own in the first place... Oh if only this could be applied to voting in the United States...

      • Re:Just needed to say this... (Score:0)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 01, 2005 @03:46PM (#12697585)
        "...most people didn't like the Wind Waker because Link was a kid."

        You mean like he is in every other Zelda game besides OoT?

        • Re:Just needed to say this... (Score:2)

          by Elranzer ( 851411 ) on Wednesday June 01, 2005 @06:21PM (#12699316) Homepage
          You mean like he is in every other Zelda game besides OoT?

          Actually the "kid" Link first appeared in Ocarina of Time...

          Zelda 1 - Debatable, but it takes place immediately before...
          Adventure of Link - Clearly a teen/adult
          Link to the Past - In-game is debatable, but the artwork shows a teen/adult
          Link's Awakening - Follows LTTP, so he is an adult. Has a sorta-romance with Marin so can't really be a kid.
          Faces of Evil - Just for a laugh. He's an adult.
          Wand of Gamelon - Again. Laughs, and is an adult
          Ocarina of Time - No Explaination needed
          Majora's Mask - Definitely child Link
          Oracle Seasons/Ages - Takes place after LTTP/LA, so must be a teen/adult. Same artwork as LTTP/LA too.
          Wind Waker - Definitely a child
          Four Swords and Minish Cap - Child again. Same as Wind Waker?
          Twilight Princess- Adult, apperantly exclusively. But we've seen both child and adult Zelda, so it's in the air...

          So it's about half and half.

    • Re:Just needed to say this... (Score:2)

      by clu76 ( 620823 ) on Wednesday June 01, 2005 @03:04PM (#12697106) Homepage
      I suggest people that consider Wind Waker to be a "kiddie" game to go out and rent Mickey Mouse's Magical Mirror. You'll quickly see the difference between a game made for children and a game that is made for all to enjoy.

      Wind Waker is a solid game. Great story, great gameplay and a seriously cool plot twist in the middle. I know at least 8 adults that have played this game. Each of them loved it. Was even too challenging for a few of them.

      I also agree with frikazoyd that Gamer is a loaded term. [slashdot.org]

    • Re:Just needed to say this... (Score:2)

      by oGMo ( 379 ) on Wednesday June 01, 2005 @03:14PM (#12697177)
      Indeed, there's simply no excuse. I'd like to point out exactly how reminiscent of Zelda 1 [rpgamer.com]---the very first and original Zelda, for those who can't count, or very likely were not born yet---Wind Waker's graphics [rpgamer.com] are. Or everyone's favorite, Link to the Past [rpgamer.com].

      If anything, Wind Waker hit it right on the head. The new "photorealistic" Zelda doesn't really appeal to me. Yes, it's shiny. So what?

    • Re:Just needed to say this... (Score:2)

      by Mitleid ( 734193 ) on Wednesday June 01, 2005 @03:27PM (#12697364)
      You are an elitist ass.

      The fact that your opinions are so self-righteous does not make them correct. It is completely feasible that the tone and flavor of the cell shaded graphics in Wind Waker did not really tickle some gamers fancy. Myself, I enjoyed the game and the graphics, but I was not as blown away with the title as I have been with other Zelda titles that might have a more dark tone, in both story and art direction.

      Wind Waker tried something new with the Zelda franchise, and the fact that not everyone liked it doesn't mean it's a failure or that they aren't "real" gamers. People have different criteria for what they consider a good game, and simply because their set does not correspond with yours does not make them wrong.

      • Re:Just needed to say this... (Score:2)

        by tommertron ( 640180 ) on Wednesday June 01, 2005 @05:12PM (#12698557) Homepage Journal
        People have different criteria for what they consider a good game, and simply because their set does not correspond with yours does not make them wrong.

        I think you missed the parent's point though. He's saying that dismissing a game based on its graphics without playing it first is not a real gamer. Everyone's entitled to their opinions on the graphics, but I have to agree that it's a little close-minded not to even try it based on the graphics.

        Now, as for the definition of what a 'real gamer' is... I'll leave that to the fanboys.

      • Re:Just needed to say this... (Score:2)

        by unclethursday ( 664807 ) on Wednesday June 01, 2005 @05:30PM (#12698803)
        You are an elitist ass.

        Is he, or is he on to something here?

        The fact that your opinions are so self-righteous does not make them correct.

        Self-righteous opinions are not automatically correct, true.

        It is completely feasible that the tone and flavor of the cell shaded graphics in Wind Waker did not really tickle some gamers fancy.

        This is true. However, to simply refuse to play a game based on its graphical style is akin to judging a book by its cover, is it not? Most of the arguments you will ever hear about people refusing to play Wind Waker are based off of the "kiddy" graphics.

        Yet, these same people will jump and grab the newest Jak game, or Ratchet and Clank game, even though the graphics, in all honesty, are no less "kiddy" in design, but they aren't cell shaded graphics in those games.

        And that's the point I believe the grandparent is trying to make. Those who simply refuse to play a game based off of its graphical style alone, are not true gamers. Those that refuse to play a game because it doesn't "look" the way they feel games "should look;" they aren't real gamers. They'll, instead, be blown away by the "OMGZ l00k at th0$3 grafx!!!!!!!!!" and never care that the game could either be the best thing ever made, or the biggest piece of shit ever made, they'll make their mind up based off of graphical style alone-- which is not a real gamer.

        It would be akin to me hating Frank Miller's drawing style, and thus never picking up The Dark Knight Returns, or Sin City, or any other book he has written and drawn simply for the fact that I didn't like his art style-- and thus claiming the books were "teh suck" simply because of the art style. This exact same thing is what these "gamers" are doing to Wind Waker, and other games (JGR/JSR and JSRF would spring to mind here)-- claiming they are "teh suck" based solely on graphics alone, and never playing the game to find out if the game is good or not. Yet, they're out playing Madden every waking moment...

        People have different criteria for what they consider a good game, and simply because their set does not correspond with yours does not make them wrong.

        This is true. But if the only criteria for a game being "good" to these gamers is how it looks, then yes, they are wrong. Graphics are not the be all and end all of games, and anyone who thinks they are is completely in the wrong.

        • Re:Just needed to say this... (Score:0)

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 02, 2005 @02:57AM (#12702231)
          > It would be akin to me hating Frank Miller's drawing style, and thus never picking up The Dark Knight Returns, or Sin City, or any other book he has written and drawn simply for the fact that I didn't like his art style-- and thus claiming the books were "teh suck" simply because of the art style.

          I, for one, love his graphic style, but hate his fascist stories.

          Am I supposed to "get over it" and read the books ? Hell, no. Well, I read them, and can say they suck, but that's not the point.

          I now quite a lot of people that never read From Hell, due to Edie Campbell style. Too bad, but that's their choice. I know a lot of people that can't read Mezzo, Mc Kean or FC Ware, just because of the graphic style (which is outstanding, but not mainstream, btw). Are they stupid ? Yes. Can they say those books sucks ? Unfortunately, I think so. I think "I tried to read From Hell, but the graphics are sooo ugly and boring that it felt out of my hands. Damn, that book sucks", is a valid opinion. A stupid one (as the graphics are really really good), but a valid one.

    • New style = New demographic (Score:1)

      by iridium_ionizer ( 790600 ) on Wednesday June 01, 2005 @03:52PM (#12697647)
      I can't wait until the next, next Zelda comes out for the Revolution. Maybe they will have an even more adult Link, like 80 something. Of course he'd still be awesome and kicking butt (ala Frank Miller's Dark Knight Returns).

      They wouldn't have to give him walkers for weapons or Viagra for health potions though. They'd just make him older and wiser, and instead of having to prove himself to older people, he'd just have to kick the snot out of young wippersnappers that thought he was over the hill. Over the course of the game he would keep getting more and more permanent injuries. Think dentures, magical hip replacement, pacemakers, etc. Some levels would even randomize locations ever once and a while to simulate senility. And then, once the death blow to Gannon was delivered, he would die of a heart attack. Thus leaving Zelda a substantial life-insurance policy to cash in.

      That would definitely bring a whole new demographic to Nintendo!

    • Re:Just needed to say this... (Score:1)

      by XXIstCenturyBoy ( 617054 ) on Wednesday June 01, 2005 @06:46PM (#12699542)
      Maybe the "real gamers" were just pissed that if you remove the boat trip, the game last about 45 minutes. There is not more than 45 minutes of action in that game. You don't even have to search as there are hints everywhere about your next step, you just travel to and fro endlesly. Wind Waker is not a game, its a demo of what a game should have been. And yes I finished the game. And every other Zelda. Windwaker felt like an intro game to the Zelda world. It was very dissapointing for "real gamers" as you say. My girlfriend enjoy watching me play "those game where you have to search" as she call them. She sat with me trough most Zelda, and especially trough Shenmue. She actually got bored of watching me travel in Zelda. And even with the cyclone its not better. But then again, and its not a flame bait comments, everything Nintendo touches these days seems to be beatable in less than 2 hours if you don't mind about the "collectible" items. Only exception seems to be Pokemon, but then again, I hate buying games that boost sales using different colors on the boxes and minor change in games. And I repeat, it is not flamebait. I have a Gamecube, a GBA SP and a DS, and I try to stay clear of game by Nintendo themselves.

      • Re:Just needed to say this... (Score:0)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 01, 2005 @09:32PM (#12700805)
        "But then again, and its not a flame bait comments, everything Nintendo touches these days seems to be beatable in less than 2 hours if you don't mind about the "collectible" items.

        If it's not flamebait, it's just plain ignorant. I would consider myself an "above-average" gamer, and I just beat Paper Mario in over 30 hours. I spent well over 20 hours on the first Metroid Prime, and about 15 on the sequel. Even a "short" game like Pikmin took me about five hours to beat, and I know many people that couldn't beat it in the 6.5 hour "time limit" on their first try. The fastest speed run I've seen of Pikmin 2 takes over five hours. And don't even get me started on how many hours I've put into Smash Bros.

        Maybe you've only played WarioWare and Mario Kart, or else you're just exaggerating immensely. Either way, your statement is completely unfounded.

    • Re:Just needed to say this... (Score:0)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 02, 2005 @12:07AM (#12701744)
      Yes, but just because they didn't enjoy it as much as OoT doesn't make them the opposite. The game was large and well done, but their were some flaws that were a little too frustrating for me (like the slow way of changing the wind system... Should have been a quick push of the button after the first few tries... Not a long animation over and over and over and over again).

    • Re:Just needed to say this... (Score:1)

      by Akaihiryuu ( 786040 ) on Thursday June 02, 2005 @02:23PM (#12706646)
      Agreed, definitely. Wind Waker is a great game, and it's a lot darker than people seem to think. Everyone I know that's actually played it agrees with me. It's definitely darker than Majora's Mask. Every time someone has told me it's cartoony and kiddy, it turned out that they had either never played it, or only played a demo for 5 minutes. It's not the best game in the series...I think Ocarina of Time is better...but that has nothing to do with "kiddy" graphics, it's because Ocarina of time has a better, more involved story, more, better dungeons, and a better overworld that's easier to explore. Sailing got a bit tedious in Wind Waker, even though the teleport song helped a lot.

  • Wind Waker (Score:4, Insightful)

    by th3space ( 531154 ) <brad@bradfuci o u s . c om> on Wednesday June 01, 2005 @02:19PM (#12696606) Homepage
    *Off topic...kind of*

    I never really liked the Zelda games, they held absolutely no appeal for me. Sometime last year, on a whim, I borrowed The Wind Waker from a friend, and have loved every minute of it...it's got quirk, it's got character, and it plays very smoothly...something my previous dungeon-crawler addiction never really did - Dark Cloud 1&2.

    If this is the game we were supposed to have gotten instead of the Wind Waker, what will it take to get something along the accidental lines?

  • First pro-Wind waker post (Score:5, Interesting)

    by identity0 ( 77976 ) on Wednesday June 01, 2005 @02:24PM (#12696638) Journal
    Aside from playing a bit of the original NES Zelda, Wind Waker was my first time at a Zelda game, and I must say that I actually prefer the cell-shaded Link to the other incarnations. The previous Zeldas had kind of a anime feel to them, while the WW Zelda was more like an American cartoon. I think it's pretty cute, and while others may find it too 'kiddie', the graphics have a lighthearted feel that I like.

    That said, there was way too much sailing about in WW. I have friends that liked the game, but refuse to play it again because of the sailing. It looks like the next Zelda won't have that, so maybe it'll be better.

    Another pet peeve - I wish videogames would let you play back cutscenes you've already seen. It's not like I'm going to play it all in one sitting, so I'd like to be able to review the plot and stuff.

    Random stuff, I know. But I'm hoping the next Zelda will be even better than the last one.

    • Re:First pro-Wind waker post (Score:1)

      by Given M. Sur ( 870067 ) on Wednesday June 01, 2005 @02:36PM (#12696799)
      You missed out big time by not playing Ocarina of Time. If you ever get the chance you should play it; it's simply amazing.

      It's not like I'm going to play it all in one sitting

      And you call yourself a gamer??? :P

      Wind Waker was well worth the week of work and school that I missed :)

      Anyways, this next Zelda is sure to kick ass. I can't wait! (Although I'd rather wait than play a bug-ridden, half-finished game -- thankfully the Zelda team understands that).

    • Re:First pro-Wind waker post (Score:1)

      by mink ( 266117 ) <mink@@@dragonhalf...com> on Wednesday June 08, 2005 @11:11AM (#12757867)
      "Another pet peeve - I wish videogames would let you play back cutscenes you've already seen. It's not like I'm going to play it all in one sitting, so I'd like to be able to review the plot and stuff."

      Some do. Try Eternal Darkness. You can play through 3 times (to get the final ending cutscene) and each run through has a set of cutscenes (the ones that are comon to each dont get duplicated). In the games menu you can watch any cutscene you have seen in the game.

  • Differences... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by b0r0din ( 304712 ) on Wednesday June 01, 2005 @02:25PM (#12696644)
    I had the same doubts about WindWaker being cartoony and childish, but after playing it I was satisfied that it belongs in the general pantheon of Zelda games. It clearly grows darker as you progress, and is very hard to put down.

    Viewing the 'screenshots' caused my BS detector to go off, of course, because these are very obviously prerendered elements. They shouldn't be allowed to call them screenshots. But those things aside, it'll be nice to see a more adult Zelda, and hopefully a much darker one.

    • Re:Differences... (Score:2)

      by Ryan Stortz ( 598060 ) <`ryan0rz' `at' `gmail.com'> on Wednesday June 01, 2005 @03:29PM (#12697397)
      Windwaker was easily my favorite Zelda game. It was very visually stunning. It's actually the single reason I went out and bought a GameCube. (I've since bought a few other games like Tales of Symphonia, Madden, etc.) Infact, every Zelda game since A Link to the Past has been the single reason I bought the console it was on.

      I've found that the majority of people who thought Wind Waker was too cartoony weren't really true fans. They may have played Ocarina of Time, but not the others. On more than one occasion, I heard someone say someting along the lines of "They made Link a kid!" Heh, it's quite easy to pick out gaming newbies when they say something like that. Not to generalize, but litterally everyone I've ever heard call Wind Waker "kiddy" or "cartoony" (In a negative way, some people like that) was someone from the MTV generation. Who actively watched such filth as TRL or Punk'd, people who actually care what MTV thinks. Where the real GameCube fans could give a flying fuck what society thinks is cool, and enjoys fun games.

      I'm looking forward to Twilight Princess, even if the name makes me recoil in disgust.

    • Re:Differences... (Score:1)

      by TD-2779 ( 840642 ) on Wednesday June 01, 2005 @03:51PM (#12697645)
      I haven't watched any vids in the link(were there any?), but are you sure you mean pre-rendered? Nintendo has been pretty adamant about NOT using pre-rendered scenes in any of their games. Instead, they DO use cut-scenes that are generated by the in-game engine in real time.

    • Re:Differences... (Score:2)

      by DarkZero ( 516460 ) on Wednesday June 01, 2005 @09:58PM (#12701013)
      The other two may be prerendered, but this one [nintendo.com] isn't. In the E3 trailer, it's really kind of obvious that there's a human being controlling Link during those scenes, and quite a bit of non-cutscene action takes place during them. That shot is actually a direct rip from the E3 trailer.

    • Re:Differences... (Score:2, Informative)

      by cycledance ( 812080 ) on Thursday June 02, 2005 @02:22AM (#12702140)
      they are not prerendered.

    • Re:Differences... (Score:1)

      by dethnite ( 888397 ) on Thursday June 02, 2005 @12:59PM (#12705889)
      Good 'ol FUD. "Pre-rendered" seems to be the FUD buzzword of the moment. Those screenshots aren't pre-rendered. How do i know? Because they wouldn't bother using low-polygon models and low-res textures if they were trying to impress people in a pre-rendered cutscene. All 3 of those images are not pre-rendered.

  • I liked the cell-shaded! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by defkkon ( 712076 ) on Wednesday June 01, 2005 @02:31PM (#12696716)
    "...some people are still against Wind Waker's highly animated visual style despite having never played the game."

    If you own a Gamecube and haven't played this game - please, try it. Even if you don't like the look of the cell-shaded graphics, don't let it discourage you.

    After Ocarina of Time and Majora's Mask, I was shocked when they revealed the stylistic route they went with Windwaker.

    However, right from the opening screen all the way to the final battle with Ganon, I loved the graphics. They were able to accomplish environments and effects that are very much unique to the cell-shaded universe.

    For instance, there was a dungeon full of lava. I'm sure this would look awesome if they had done the realistic graphcs. However, seeing cell-shaded flames through a heat-induced haze was gorgeous. If you were to present the same environment using "realistic graphics", I'd probably prefer the cell-shaded.

    We've all seen lava, water, mountains, and grass plains in real life (or on TV, or movies). But to see these same environments interpreted as cell-shaded is definitely unique, and dare I say, innovative.

    • Re:I liked the cell-shaded! (Score:1)

      by rylin ( 688457 ) on Wednesday June 01, 2005 @02:59PM (#12697061)
      One thing that really pissed me off on the European release-date was when I was standing in line, noticing that the big N had boldly printed "10/10" on the actual box.
      Not a sticker. They (well, Nintendo Magazine) had rated it, and put the actual rating on the box.
      I was fuming.
      I was SO pissed off.

      An hour later, I was at a friend's place with the cube plugged in, watching the intro sequence.
      Yet an hour later, the smile on my lips hadn't even started fading.

      Bottom line?
      I'm eagerly awaiting the next game where Nintendo print 10/10 on the box.

    • Re:I liked the cell-shaded! (Score:2)

      by cowscows ( 103644 ) on Wednesday June 01, 2005 @04:28PM (#12698048) Journal
      Seriously. You're playing a fantasy game. When you get into the game, you're trying to transplant yourself into a world that cannot really exist. So why should anyone be trying to make it look exactly like the real world?

      If I want to feel like I'm walking through a forest, then I'll go outside and find a forest. Forests are awesome and beautiful, but they're not something that I need to play a game to experience. Now, a game might be enhanced by taking place in an extraordinarily spooky forest, or one with impossibly large trees, or something else, in which case some creative art can only help.

      Add in the fact that, the more realistic things try to look, the more we notice things that aren't right, and you end up very sensitive to mistakes that remind you that it's just a game, and break the immersion.

    • Re:I liked the cell-shaded! (Score:2)

      by david.given ( 6740 ) <dg@cowlark.com> on Wednesday June 01, 2005 @05:30PM (#12698800) Homepage Journal
      For instance, there was a dungeon full of lava. I'm sure this would look awesome if they had done the realistic graphcs. However, seeing cell-shaded flames through a heat-induced haze was gorgeous. If you were to present the same environment using "realistic graphics", I'd probably prefer the cell-shaded.

      Hell, yeah. That level was beautiful... those twisted columns of fire. The open sea was amazingly cool, as well.

      I only had two real problems with the game: (a) too short! I was expecting another round of dungeons to pick up each Triforce piece; and (b) they'd fucked around with the autotargeting and it consistently kept homing in on the wrong creature, compared with Ocarina and Majora's Mask. In particular, on the N64 if you released the trigger momentarily it would focus on the next target. In Wind Waker, it would refocus on the closest target.

      (This made certain levels, such as the sandworm boss, an exercise in frustration. What I wanted to do was to face the boss, ignore the little sandworms, target its tongue and shoot. However, every time I tried the game would focus on one of the little sandworms behind me, and Link would spin 180 degrees... standing with your back to a boss who's slowly sucking you in is not a good idea, let me tell you.)

      Oh, yeah, and the backports of the N64 games are 60Hz only, and my TV only does 50Hz. Which was a bummer.

  • Was scared at first (Score:1)

    by The Grey Clone ( 770110 ) on Wednesday June 01, 2005 @03:01PM (#12697072) Homepage
    I was rather scared at the idea of Link being a wolf, at first. People turning into animals is rather.... cliche and dull. And, I really don't want to spend TOO much time as a wolf. I enjoy playing as Link... not a wolf. Mainly, though, I was concerned he was a werewolf, because that was the way the trailer seemed to show it.

    However, as that doesn't appear to be the case, I'm slightly relieved.

    • Re:Was scared at first (Score:1)

      by defkkon ( 712076 ) on Wednesday June 01, 2005 @03:15PM (#12697194)
      I was rather scared at the idea of Link being a wolf, at first.

      My knee-jerk reaction was the exact same.

      Then I thought back to Marjora's mask where you got to play different creatures - a Goron, a Deku-Scrub, a Zora, etc. The way Nintendo designed the gameplay mechanics and puzzles, it almost felt like you were playing a different game with each character. Each creature had their own strengths, weaknesses, and special abilities, which really opened up the game.

      With Nintendo's track record of gameplay innovation, I bet the gameplay as a Wolf will be just as - if not more - entertaining as playing as link

      I come off sounding like a real Nintendo fanboy, but you have to admit that they tend to pull off these strange twists pretty well. A wolf character would be cliche in the hands of many development houses, but the Big N should be able to pull it off pretty well. (at least, I hope!)

  • Looking at games... (Score:2)

    by Taulin ( 569009 ) on Wednesday June 01, 2005 @03:24PM (#12697315) Homepage Journal
    As mentioned, all the sailing in WW is what put me off. In fact, WW was the first Zelda game I did not complete. Each island seemed like a separate level, and made the whole game seem linear. At least in the other games you knew over the mountain there was another section of the world, or like in Ocerana, you could actually see features in the distance of other areas, giving the world a connected feal.

  • Original Response Was Disappointment *Spoilers* (Score:3, Informative)

    by robbway ( 200983 ) on Wednesday June 01, 2005 @03:29PM (#12697386) Journal
    Most people prejudged Wind Waker because they were teased with the more realistic graphics, and then discovered an entirely new game was coming. The simplistic-looking Cel-shaded game disappointed us.

    I've played it all the way thru. The gameplay really deserves kudos for trying something different with the seafaring Link; however, the mechanic became incredibly boring as the game wore on. As for cartoony, it achieved a coherent style.

    Here come the Spoilers for those who plan to play Windwaker

    I disliked the fact that Link and Zelda were completely different and just looked like the original Link and Zelda. Its actually a "side story" variant. The final battle with Gannon was very easy compared to all the other Zelda games. I understand this one is a direct sequel with the real Link in it. I guess in the far future, their race's skin becomes smooth and posterized.

    • Re:Original Response Was Disappointment *Spoilers* (Score:1)

      by Durinthal ( 791855 ) on Wednesday June 01, 2005 @03:54PM (#12697669)
      Chronologically, there's now five or six different people that are the "real Link", depending on the version of the timeline you look at. If you RTFA, the Link in Twilight Princess is a new one as well, even though it's set just a few decades after Ocarina of Time.

    • Re:Original Response Was Disappointment *Spoilers* (Score:3, Informative)

      by Rallion ( 711805 ) on Wednesday June 01, 2005 @04:02PM (#12697775) Journal
      I disliked the fact that Link and Zelda were completely different and just looked like the original Link and Zelda. Its actually a "side story" variant. The final battle with Gannon was very easy compared to all the other Zelda games. I understand this one is a direct sequel with the real Link in it. I guess in the far future, their race's skin becomes smooth and posterized.

      Uh, according to the article, this Link is, like most Links, a new one. Link and Zelda aren't meant to be chracters, exactly, but the eternal personalities of the Hero and of the Princess in Distress.

    • Spoiler (Score:1)

      by Headcase88 ( 828620 ) on Wednesday June 01, 2005 @05:40PM (#12698910) Journal
      Aw, c'mon, I had more fun with the Ganondorf battle in Wind Waker than the boring/easy Ganon battle in Ocarina. Once you learned that you had to go between his legs, that it was it, he was a pushover after that. And the final blow to Ganondorf in WW... I'll never get tired of that :D

    • Re:Original Response Was Disappointment *Spoilers* (Score:0)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 01, 2005 @05:50PM (#12699013)
      Link and Zelda should not be seen as characters so much as archetypes. Nearly every game features a Link and a Zelda who have no direct connection, let alone continuity, with the Links and Zeldas of previous games.

      Hyrule undergoes historic cycles in which a dark force threatens a fair princess, and a hero takes a stand. Sometimes the princess and hero are related to each other (Link to the Past), sometimes they're distant relatives of previous incarnations (Wind Waker), and sometimes they're the same (Ocarina -> Majora's Mask) as the characters is a previous chapter.

      Read Joseph Campbell's Hero With a Thousand Faces and you'll see The Legend of Zelda in a new light -- it's simultaneously part continuity and part retelling of the exact same story. If anything, it will make you understand the meaning of Link's name.
      • This is in response to all. I've played all the Zeldas that were on the Nintendo systems, except for many on Gameboy Advance. The Link and Zelda in Legend of Zelda, Link's Adventure, Link to the Past, Ocarina of Time, and Windwaker are all the same two characters. Link and Zelda are only different characters in Wind Waker. It is the only game to point out the fact that a Link and Zelda existed in the past. Also, please don't assume I didn't RTFA. The only hint Miyamoto gives is "different versions." Versions are not automatically different. In the games I mentioned above, the only versioning was how they look and play, mostly due to increased processing power. I say this because in each of the games, there is a timeline where they fit that are all within the original Legend of Zelda timeframe. They make a point of mentioning how and when these things happen. There would be no need of this if they weren't the same characters. (please no Castlevania references, because that game makes it clear they are all different centuries and different Belmonts)

        On a philosophical level, yes, they are different. But that isn't the literal meaning. Another thing that lends to the concept of alternate Link and Zelda universes is all of the alternate universes and time travel that occurs. In fact, Ocarina of time ends with a lot of possibilities, because Link and Zelda forget everything that happened due to time travel. Most importantly, you can go from Ocarina directly into The Legend of Zelda, because they meet Ganon for the first time.

        Basically, I get it. It's complex, but I've been following it since the 80's. I understand the nuances. Thanks for the book reference, it sounds interesting.

  • Why???? (Score:0, Offtopic)

    by Daetrin ( 576516 ) on Wednesday June 01, 2005 @04:07PM (#12697832)
    I know i shouldn't expect any less, but _why_ do they require flash just to read a text article? When i load it up with another browser i don't see anything on the page that obviously requires flash, so what's the point?
  • It wasn't the graphics. It wasn't the sailing. Those were both fun in their own way.

    It was the fact that the game had 5 dungeons instead of 8 or 9.

    It's been a while since I've played, but I remember there being 3 dungeons, and then 2 more. Pretty much every other game before it had 8 dungeons, followed by a boss. They were split 3/5 perhaps, but they were there. I finished WW and wondered where the other half of the game was.

    • Re:Why we were ripped off with Wind Waker (Score:0)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 01, 2005 @04:38PM (#12698148)
      Forsaken Fortress I*
      Dragon Roost Cavern
      Forbidden Woods
      Tower of the Gods
      Hyrule Castle*
      Forsaken Fortress II
      Fire Mountain*
      Earth Temple
      Ice Ring Isle*
      Wind Temple
      Ganon's Tower

      I count 7 including Ganon's Tower. And they may not have been long, but the mini-levels were a nice addition, too. It wasn't the longest, but it was still good.

      *mini-levels with no end-of-dungeon boss.

    • Re:Why we were ripped off with Wind Waker (Score:0)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 01, 2005 @04:55PM (#12698270)
      While I wouldn't say I was ripped off, I was disappointed by the number of dungeons in Wind Waker. To be fair, though, you should count the fortress at the beginning of the game as a dungeon, as well as Ganon's tower at the end. That would bring the total up to 7, which is still on the low end compared to past Zelda games. Only Majora's Mask had fewer, but that actually worked with that game's Groundhog Day play mechanic, especially since the world was packed full of things to do, and there were major parts of the main quest that did not take place in a "dungeon" at all. Wind Waker's world also had quite a few things to do, although not as many as Majora's Mask, but it took so long to get to any of them that it wasn't worth going out of your way. I played the boat race way off in the southwest corner of the map once and then forgot about it, for example. The problem could have been solved if there had been a lot more warp points than there were. The game really should have allowed you to warp to any island that you had charted. I can't think of any reason not to allow that.

      • Re:Why we were ripped off with Wind Waker (Score:2)

        by Erioll ( 229536 ) on Wednesday June 01, 2005 @05:06PM (#12698461)
        I disagree with you on Majora's Mask. I couldn't play that game a 2nd time through because of all the minigames. I WANTED dungeons, and they just weren't there. That was what was so great about A Link to the Past and Ocarina of Time: they both had a lot of dungeons. For me, the low number of dungeons REALLY cut down on the replayability. The game was more about getting INTO the dungeon rather than the dungeon itself IMO. And aside from that, to have ANY power you needed to do 10B different side-quests that had little to do with the main story. In OoT for instance, you could probably do ONLY the activities necessary to get into the dungeons and kill the bosses, and still have a decent amount of hearts, and a decent shot at the later end bosses. But in Majora's, it's ALL about the side quests, and you'd be SEVERLY gimped not doing them (and I did them. ALL the masks for me, no matter how excruciatingly painful it was (the f'n aliens SUCKED!!!!!! Have to wait half the night even for the damned event. Waiting around sucks!!!)).

        There's my rant on Majora's Mask. I've tried to pick it up again. I really have. But OoT just blows it out of the water on the "fun" factor. Majora's Mask just felt more like grind than fun.

    • Re:Why we were ripped off with Wind Waker (Score:2, Informative)

      by TiredGamer ( 564844 ) on Wednesday June 01, 2005 @05:32PM (#12698813)
      You're missing 2 from your count...

      Forsaken Fortress
      Dragon Roost
      Forbidden Woods
      Tower of the Gods
      Earth Temple
      Wind Temple
      Ganon's Tower

      That looks like 7 dungeons to me.

    • Majora's Mask was worse (Score:2)

      by JimTheta ( 115513 ) on Wednesday June 01, 2005 @05:45PM (#12698968) Homepage
      I see where your coming from, but in that department I reserve my complaints for Majora's Mask. What it have, like 5?

      Yeah, there were the spider houses, but who cares about those. All of the pseudo-dungeons didn't feel like dungeons. That game was more sidequests than dungeons.

    • Re:Why we were ripped off with Wind Waker (Score:1)

      by Headcase88 ( 828620 ) on Wednesday June 01, 2005 @05:51PM (#12699027) Journal
      IMO it was a small price to pay. The dungeons had some huge rooms, which made it feel much more open. Floating through a dungeon with the Deku Leaf was fun to me.

      Plus there were tons of islands and side quests, though most of them didn't give any worthwhile rewards (the secret heart containers are surely not needed to beat the game.)

    • Re:Why we were ripped off with Wind Waker (Score:1)

      by Thwomp ( 773873 ) on Thursday June 02, 2005 @06:29AM (#12702745) Journal

      I think you have a point, I remember reading in a magazine that some dungeons had been removed. I can't remember the exact details but I think they were dropped because of time constraints.

      Anyway the magazine was NGC, sold in the U.K., does anybody else remember something along these lines?

    • Late reply that no one will ever see, but this should've been modded up. I agree completely, and it's a shame this complaint was drowned out by the cel-shading whiners.

      Also, you're underestimating A Link to the Past. It had 10 bona fide dungeons (split 3/7) PLUS Hyrule Castle, PLUS Ganon's Tower, PLUS all those awesome caves/Lost Woods/Death Mountain/etc/etc. THAT'S the kind of Zelda I want back.

  • Wind Waker was fucken sweet (Score:2)

    by Tom7 ( 102298 ) on Wednesday June 01, 2005 @05:10PM (#12698528) Homepage Journal

    Wind Waker was fucken sweet, and a large part of that was its beautiful graphics. My heart sank when I learned the new Zelda wouldn't be in a similar style.

  • A counterpoint (Score:2)

    by Pendersempai ( 625351 ) on Wednesday June 01, 2005 @06:50PM (#12699597)
    Just because so many slashdotters are lined up one one side of the fence, let me say:

    I tried Windwaker. I played it all the way through. I never liked the stylized graphics. I'm very relieved they're reverting to a more traditional style.

    • Re:A counterpoint (Score:0)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 02, 2005 @12:06AM (#12701733)
      Tradionally, Zelda is played top-down with cartoony graphics. Cel-shading is closer in line to that than going full on 3d.

    • I agree (Score:3, Interesting)

      by j1m+5n0w ( 749199 ) on Thursday June 02, 2005 @01:08AM (#12701930) Homepage Journal

      I didn't mind the graphics of the world (which looked very good in most places), but I didn't care for some of the character designs.

      I didn't identify well with the main character. He was too young, he didn't handle a sword well, and his head was too spherical. I just couldn't picture him as a hero. I'm accustomed to imagining Link as early-teenage, not as a third grader.

      The game world was too sparse. Even with warping, it took too long to get anywhere. The levels were good but there weren't very many of them.

      I wouldn't say it was a bad game, just not quite as good as it could have been. I'm looking forward to the new Zelda, hoping it's as good as Ocarina of Time.

  • OLD NEWS (Score:0)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 01, 2005 @07:10PM (#12699776)
    This article has been gathering dust at Nintendo's site for weeks. *yawn*

  • Oi... (Score:1)

    by MeanderingMind ( 884641 ) on Thursday June 02, 2005 @11:36AM (#12705100) Homepage Journal
    Can we have discussion of Twilight Princess without going over Wind Waker and Cel Shading vs Realistic? Wind Waker was different, and despite protests that's what we got. Twilight Princess is realistic, and despite anything we say and do that is what we will get. We simply have to live with it at this point and turn our attention to far more important things like gameplay.

    That said...

    The idea of revamping old items really appeals to me. Like others, I really long for the age old Sword Zap. The spinning mega slash is awesome as well, but it doesn't replace the original.

  • Why put that at the end there? (Score:2)

    by Pluvius ( 734915 ) <pluvius3&gmail,com> on Thursday June 02, 2005 @06:05PM (#12708762) Journal
    [S]ome people are still against Wind Waker's highly animated visual style despite having never played the game.

    What does not having played the game have to do with it? Will playing the game somehow make the graphics different? I've never played the game, and in fact, it could have the best gameplay of all of the Zelda games (though I hear that it doesn't). But even that would only cause me to tolerate (or at least to attempt to tolerate) the glaringly ugly cel-shading in Wind Waker, not to actually like it. The simple fact of the matter is that this is the Zelda game we should've gotten, at least graphically, especially after being teased with that technical demo years ago.

    Just a reminder to the many Nintendo fanboys here: You don't have to play a game to critique its overarching graphical style. Oh, and BTW, since some people have already said it, Wind Waker does not look like the pre-N64 Zelda games, so stop trying to use that as an argument.

    Rob

  • Am I the only one? (Score:1)

    by Oracle of Bandwidth ( 528405 ) on Friday June 03, 2005 @02:52AM (#12711843)
    I liked a lot of the other zelda games, but I haven't been able to play windwaker, It's not that the cell shading bugs me because it looks to cartoony, but for some reason the graphcis in windwaker make me horribly motion sick/give me headaches. This is the only game cell shaded or not that does this. Am I alone?

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close