http://www.the-magicbox.com/Jan04/game012204e.shtml
It's looking good... LttP graphics, but with improvements like the fire effects, some enemies, zoom, etc... the main problem with the game of course is the fact that it's geared for multiplayer and people need GBAs. Argh...
The graphics are much better than LttP's. I love that sketchy style that they're using. Hopefully the next GBA Zelda will look this good.
This looks better than any GBA could do... they could try to come close but I don't think a GBA could do some of those effects. And yes, it does look good... stupid connectivity...
It couldn't do those 3D effects and the resolution and color wouldn't be as sharp/rich, but they could do something almost as pretty.
They also couldn't do that resolution. :)
Oh, and I loved the GBA screens there... the side-scrolling passages are a great touch. Tribute to the LA engine, I see...
I said resolution....
Quote:It couldn't do those 3D effects and the resolution
Hmm, is it my imagination or does it seem to zoom too... unless some of those pics are bigger than a screen... *looks* No, it definitely some screens are closer in and others farther out... GBA couldn't do that either. :)
Though, I think the GBA can do more than it's got in those 'connectivity' screens. They almost seem to be running on the LA engine...
That's just because of the black backgrounds. It's using the FS (GBA) engine.
Yeah, I'd think it would be...
Hey, did GBA Four Swords have sidescrolling parts like that?
I wasn't sure. I don't think LttP did either, so LA/Oracles are the only ones... tributes to Zelda 2? :)
Well I liked it and it's cool to see it back. :)
You just need the newest post in the thread, don't you...
:D
I thought you'd be sad if no one responded to you.
I wonder if it'll have a decent single-player mode.
I hope so. But really, I'd rather Capcom save their strength for the next single-player GBA Zelda.
Yeah. Sounds like the single player in FS+ might be decent after all... that would be nice. :)
It sounds unique, at least... and like it could actually be fun in single player. I wasn't sure how it'd work given the reliance on four characters...
Now my question is, if with 1p you can play with a GBA window why not with two... I know it would ruin the point of the secrecy and wouldn't be nearly as good, but it should be an OPTION for people who don't have two GBAs I think. But no, they won't do that... same with FF:CC... why not have 2p that works like the 1p mode but with two... sure it wouldn't be as good but the choice should be there for people who don't have hundreds of dollars to burn!
Um, but remember that the only reason you play 2P is if you have another human. You don't HAVE to have two GBAs, just make sure your friend has one, and that's a fairly strong likelyhood. However, in this case, the option would make no sense. The on screen sub screens would totally cover up the main screen, see the shots? The game for those on the outside would be completely obscurred, and the game would be unplayable. While I can see how menu screens can be made really small in CC, I can't see how this could be shrunk. No, the GBAs really are a must here.
they could make it work... :)
But assuming that all of your friends have GBAs is just silly. A few, sure. But you can never play multiplayer in this game or FFCC with anyone who doesn't own a GBA themselves... and that is a huge restriction...
Well, not for me :D. As of now, each and every one of my friends has a GBA. I really can't see how they could get the screen out of the way without making it impossible for the person in the cave or whatever to see what they are doing. The GBA really is the only real way to do it. Keep in mind this isn't some artificial requirement like Metroid Prime's need for Metroid Fusion (I HATE artificial hardware requirements, which is a nice way of saying a needless requirement of some tool that only serves as a data key to unlock something and has nothing to do with the device's exclusive abilities). This is genuine. It's just like how to play a multiplayer GBA game, your friends still need to have their own GBAs, and in many cases their own copy of the game on top of that, as well as link cables and so on. If it could be done without the device in any (reasonable) way, I'd fully agree, but if it can't be done, then it's just like any other GENUINE hardware requirement.
Well you, then, are definitely not normal... and the GB multiplay restriction needing, most of the time, multiple carts is why most people don't play much GB multiplayer I think...
Getting four GBAs will not be a problem at my house considering my sister has two [GBA and SP], I have one, and my brother has an SP.
That's why it's nice to have multiplayer mini-games spread across a bunch of different games, and THAT is why I actually LIKE that Nintendo has put Mario Bros Classic in EVERY Mario game on the GBA, so that a bunch of people don't have to have the SAME game, just some Mario related game, and boom they can link. Thing is, that very mini-game is single cart (most of it anyway), so it's not much of a help after all.
Still, ya just KNOW the next GBA Zelda will have the exact same Four Swords as LTTP. You could think of that as lazy, unless it happens to be that they were concentrating SOLEY on the main Zelda game and it was either that by itself or that with Four Swords tossed in as an extra at the last minute.
The problem isn't including Mario Brothers, it's not adding anything else... they should have. They didn't. That is a problem. And I don't exactly have the luxury of having more GBAs... we've got two GBs and a GBC but that doesn't exactly help...
With those ports, yes, for instance they should have just released all-stars on GBA. However, in the case of working on a whole new game and tossing in something included before, they didn't HAVE the option of adding something totally new. It was either toss in something already in another game, or toss in nothing.
Why make $30 when you can make more? Make people buy a SNES game in four parts, for full price in each part! And add almost nothing! Sounds good to me...
It should have been like SMB Deluxe. That was the ideal re-release. The fact the others were less is sheer laziness.
ALMOST ideal. They cheaped out on Lost Levels and made THAT part WORSE than the original version. Being a sequal that was more of an expansion, it was MEANT to be ridiculously hard, so any attempt to lessen the challenge is an insult more or less.
Oh well, wait until SMA5: Super Mario Bros DX :D.
But it was SMB so LL was a bonus. Having it there at all was extra...
"extra" compaired to what? I paid for it so I can make all the complaints I want about it's quality.
As compared to if SMB hadn't included it? I mean, it is an extra because SMBDX was SMB... they didn't say on the box "SMB + Lost Levels"... and sure they took out several worlds but it's still quite hard.
Yeah I bet they'll include the same FS with the next GBA Zelda. It kinda sucks, but it's also kind of good because that means more people will be able to play it.
8/8/8/9 from Famitsu according to IGN.
Well, if they are doing nothing but working on the next Zelda, then including it would be all they could do. They wouldn't be able to concentrate on adding something totally new to something that's already totally new as is.
Wow, old topic ressurection OB1...
Oh and, ABF I don't care what the label says so much as what's in the game. Yes they could have not included it, but that doesn't mean I can't complain about the quality when they did include it. It's better than not at all, but not the best. So, I'll complain until they get it right. When they get around to remaking SMBDX on GBA, I sure hope they include Lost Levels INTACT.
Um DJ I resurrected it just now because that's the first scores for the game I've seen! :)
Ah, didn't remember OB1's post, perhaps I didn't read it, so I assumed that was the ressurector.
Oh well, in any case that doesn't really change anything for me.
Look at the dates on the posts... :)
Yes I'm fully aware. I just didn't do that.
Just funny to see you replying to month-old questions. :)
Not bad... a bit low for Zelda but it's hardly a typical Zelda game. :) Yeah, good ones for what it is...
But it's going to cost $50 and they took out Tetra's Trackers. What the hell is NOA thinking?? I mean I'm sure it's going to be really fun and all, but $50?? If Twin Snakes is $40 and Wario Ware is $30, there is absolutely no reason why Four Swords should cost $50. Absolutely insane.
Wario Ware was $50 until very recently so that's not fair, OB1...
And removing Tetra's Trackers is too bad. That didn't look like the best part but it looked good enough to try at least... too much voice to do? :(
Oh, and $50 is definitley too much.