According to Videogames.com, the long-anticipated Wind Waker is only a 9.3...compared to Ocarina of Time, which was a perfect 10, GoldenEye a 9.8, and Perfect Dark a 9.9 ... does this bother anyone else...? I'm a little more uneasy now that perhaps it won't be as good as hyped.
Videogames.com is run by monkeys. Well, maybe that's not true. Something less than monkeys. Although IGN gave it a #this score has been removed by the IGN Insider Secret Police#.
They more than likely docked it for graphics. How much you wanna bet?
Nothing, because Gamespot said the graphics are good...
Oh, and TELL US THE IGN SCORE! :(
I hope its difficulty at least compares to that of OoT... although OoT wasn't all that hard, either, what with Navi holding your hand the entire time. I guess as long as the game lasts long (god, I hope it isn't short) and is fun to play, it'll still be a worthwhile Zelda experience.
I've heard that it's a bit easier than OoT, but at least as long. I've also heard that there's more incentive to play the game again after you beat it. It's nothing huge, but a nice bonus. I'll leave it at that.
They also say its easier than OoT... and that there's a part near the end that is fairly long and drawn out that gets very tedious and only seems to be there to give the game a better length. What was it they said, 15-20 hours maybe?
Quote: While The Legend of Zelda games have never been overly difficult, The Wind Waker seems to be easier than previous entries in the series. Most of the game's in-dungeon puzzles are really straightforward, and the game's bosses rarely put up a terribly threatening fight. Even the game's multistage final boss battle is only marginally difficult. Players already familiar with The Ocarina of Time combat and control system should be able to breeze through the game without having to go out of their way to acquire extra bottles for fairies or medicine or find the game's numerous hidden heart pieces. Eager Zelda fans who pre-ordered the game should have already been brushing up on this fighting system, thanks to Nintendo's Zelda preorder disc offer, which includes both the original Ocarina of Time and a more-challenging "master quest" version of Ocarina. Both of these hold up well, considering how much time has passed since their original release, but the Wind Waker is good enough to justify the entire purchase on its own.
Quote: All told, the game can be completed in 15 to 20 hours, though considering all the extra heart pieces, treasure maps, and other little optional endeavors in the game, that number can increase fairly dramatically. The game's quest starts out in a very brisk manner, quickly moving you from dungeon to dungeon without delay. The game's final third, however, requires you to collect a series of items before you can gain entry to the game's final sequence. Collecting these items isn't difficult, but the focus on sailing, rupee collecting, and dredging up items from the bottom of the sea is pretty tedious. While this portion of the game has actually been shortened up a bit since the Japanese release, it still feels like it was put in the game merely to pad it out to an acceptable length. Thankfully, the game gets back on track after this portion is completed, and the game's final confrontation puts a nice new twist on the classic Zelda boss fight.
Those are really the only paragraphs that critisizes the game much...
I beat OoT under 20 hours the first time through, so that's not a big deal.
It took me a lot more than that... but for me games often take a while...
i would expect WW to get a score lower than OOT simply because it isn't as revolutionary. but i was hoping that it'd get higher than a 9.6...maybe like, a 9.8. oh well, it'll still be sweet, anda 9.6 is still very very very good. i would like to see what Planetgamecube gives it though, since their reviews tend to go along very closely with how i would rate a game.
Scores are irrelevant. You all know you're going to consider it one of the best games ever.
And GameSpot giving any game a score over 9 means they REALLY liked it.
Quote:Originally posted by Private Hudson
Scores are irrelevant. You all know you're going to consider it one of the best games ever.
And GameSpot giving any game a score over 9 means they REALLY liked it.
Exactly.
As for the lenth I've heard it's 20 - 25 hours if you ONLY do the main quest and ignore all the side quests.
Wow, thats quite a concept...20 hours just for the main quest. I think I agree with Big Guy; it received a lower grade because it isn't so revolutionary...no doubt such was also the lackluster grading of MM. Well, most of us (myself included) will find out for sure in just a few hours...
Gamespot gave OoT a perfect 10. MM then got a 8.3... and now TWW gets a 9.3. And yes, for Gamespot 9.3 is a very good score... very good...
Also, Gamespot said that its not just length... they also say that its just easier than previous Zelda games...
Me too ABF, I take my sweet time playing my games.
Also, Wind Waker is going to rule, that gold case is gonna look sexy on my shelf, and I'm gonna be glue to my TV for hours because of it. And in the end, isn't that exactly what you think too?
Wind Waker will blow us all away, no questions about it.
Quote:Originally posted by A Black Falcon
Gamespot gave OoT a perfect 10. MM then got a 8.3... and now TWW gets a 9.3. And yes, for Gamespot 9.3 is a very good score... very good...
Also, Gamespot said that its not just length... they also say that its just easier than previous Zelda games...
That would be true if they didn't give so many lesser games such great scores. It's just a case of them being stupid.
I definitely take my time in games... like how OoT took me a month and it took me 30 hours to finish Eternal Darkness the first time... and I don't finish games that often, especially on the PC. I actually finish PC games VERY rarely... console games I beat more (many of them I have finished in some way, but not anywhere near all...) because they are easier and shorter usually, though.
Oh, and yes, I certainly disagree with Gamespot sometimes... there is no site where I don't disagree with the review scores a lot of the time... but still they are well done. Do I say that they are always right? No way... their reviews are just of a higher quality than IGN's without question... even when IGN gives scores I like more the reviews themselves are often not as good...
Oh, and a 9.3 IS a great score... what "bad" games does Gamespot give scores at that level?
Serious Sam 2 got a score close to that.
Oh man, easier than OOT is not a necessarily a good thing, being that OOT was already the easiest in the series.
Yes, it was. Perhaps Nintendo is making up for the super-tough Mario Sunshine which frustrated so many people. :D
I didn't find OoT easy... it wasn't as hard as some other Zelda games, but IMO it was by no means easy...
As for the length of TWW, I don't know... for me it probably would be fine because it does take me longer (and since its a Zelda game it has plenty of replay value...), but it still would have been nice if the difficulty level of the game was closer to MM than OoT (not the awful gameplay stuff of MM that I've complained about, but the action itsself... it was tougher in that game...), but oh well...
Oh, and OB1, the fact that you hate Serious Sam DOESN'T MEAN ITS A BAD GAME!
I still find MM to be the most challenging and well put together Zelda game ever. Gamespot rated it pretty badly though, but screw them. Maybe Zelda WW is hard, but they're just pulling our leg with a jaded opinion.
Does IGN make any remarks about difficulty ? I hate games that walk you through like little kids... Metal Gear Solid coming to mind, for example.
Games shouldn't be so much graded even on length or difficulty, but how much fun they are to play.
ABF: Serious Sam is a crap game, okay? There is absolutely no substance to the game whatsoever, and it brings nothing new to the table. It's just Doom with better graphics. That's it.
NA: Ign also said that it was easy, but not much more than OoT. Actually it's probably just as easy as OoT, but since that came out we've gotten used to 3-D games so much of the challenge is gone. I beat OoT the other day and didn't die once.
Look. Doom with better graphics? Yeah... and that is exactly what they are trying to do...
How should games be rated? Based on graphics? Gameplay? Fun? Probably gameplay and fun... but those are so subjective that its impossible to be objective in things like this... but still. I just don't see how you hate Serious Sam so much that you actually think its a awful game! Disliking it I can see... but here's a question: What score would you give it? I don't know what I'd give it... they are fun games (yes, IMO they are fun), but very simple. Probably a 8.something, I don't know... not GOTY like Serious Sam got in 2001 from Gamespot, but a quality game...
Oh, and there is no Serious Sam 2 yet... its still in development. There is Serious Sam and Serious Sam part 2... which isn't a true sequel, just 'more of the same in new environments'.
Yet it got an even better score than the first one, which is just insane.
Challenge is all part of the fun.
Matt Cassamassina just said that the bosses were easy.
I'm an advocate of easy bosses...there are more and better things to do with games that struggle with bosses. Hard bosses are more of a thing for real RPGs; I liked the Resident Evil approach, whereinm they had several cool bosses that didn't take weeks to strategically kill.
Hmm. When bosses are easy I can beat them, but when they are hard when (or, more likely, if) I beat them its a lot more satisfying... I'd probably rather that they are medium to hard, but not too hard. Too hard gets frusterating...
Like Zelda: OoT. Phantom Ganon was probably the hardest boss in the game... I didn't get anywhere against him until I used a FAQ to learn the thing with which side of the road the real one comes down... and he was still very hard and extremely frusterating. But I was very happy when I finally beat him... compared to the boss of the Water Temple. That level was so hard (it was fun, though...), and then the boss, considering your skills when you first fight it, is the easiest one in the game! Pathetic... I do like them tougher than that...
i don't demand that bosses be hard as long as their fun to play against. jet force gemini had a very nice difficulty to its bosses, in that i'd frequently die at them, but once i got the pattern down they were pretty easy. OoT didn't have terribly hard bosses, but they were all pretty fun to go up against, so i think that was well done. in Conkers bad fur day, the last boss, for me, was too frustrating, because there was really no hint on how to kill it, and it ended up just coming down to having VERY precise timing, which was brillient, but i think before you realize that (and i don't think i ever would have if Lazy hadn't pointed it out to me) he is way too hard, and i had given up in frustration.
but i guess my real point here is that a boss can be beaten on your first time through and still be satisfying to have faced, so long as the gameplay involved in beating that boss is enjoyable...does that make sense? ummm, i guess i'm trying to say that the technique required to kill them is a satisfying one to pull of.
The final Ganon fight in OoT is the best 3-D boss I've ever played against. He's very difficult to beat at first, but once you figure out the pattern it gets pretty easy, but still very fun and rewarding. I go back and play that boss battle quite frequently.
OoT has the greatest bosses because they were all so different (REALLY!), so original, and none were really that hard! Odalwa and Bongo Bongo were so friggin' cool...
on the other hand, an example of a boss that's a little TOO easy was the King Dodongo...
Odalwa is from MM, but yes, he was quite cool. I'd say my fave boss in any Zelda game is either Shadow Link from Zelda 2 or Majora (with his many many forms) in Majora's Mask. Sure, there's a Dark Link in OOT, but although a great mini-boss/cameo appearence, he wasn't quite as awesome as the original (well, he was but a miniboss as opposed to the end game boss).
Ganon was cool looking, but WAY too easy. I mean, he was so much easier than Ganondorf... beating Ganondorf took me quite a while, but then I beat Ganon on my first or second try...somewhat dissapointing. All you had to do was get behind him and swing your Biggoron Sword...
Oh, and Bongo Bongo was my favorite OoT boss... so cool... :)
Ganon is an easy boss, but I'm glad they made it that way. The first time I played the ending of the game my heart was pounding like mad and my hands were soaking weat from sweat, and the final battles were so dramatic that it made up for the actual ease of difficulty with Ganon.
I wonder how WW's ending will stack up to OoT's... I doubt it will be as good, but nothing can be, really. OoT is an experience that cannot be duplicated since it was the first 3D Zelda game, which is why I'm glad that WW is so much different.
I don't want to make a new thread about this, so I'll just post it here.
Circuit City is selling Oracle of Ages for a measly $15 (up until saturday), so I suggest that everyone that hasn't picked up the game to get it ASAP. You should also pick up Puyo Pop (awesome GBA puzzle game) for $20.
OoA/S was a great game... probably not worth over $70 (since I got them the same summer that they came out, and the stupid stores were charging $35 for each one... plus tax thats probably almost $75!). They would have been a GREAT value for $30, but $70 was a lot... oh well, its a Zelda game so it was worth it.