+- Tendo City (https://www.tendocity.net)
+-- Forum: Tendo City: Metropolitan District (https://www.tendocity.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Ramble City (https://www.tendocity.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=44)
+--- Thread: My very own Zelda game (/showthread.php?tid=1726)
My very own Zelda game - Weltall - 24th March 2004
OB1 Wrote:Hyrule being flooded? That might be a boring game...
Hylian #1: Hey... why is the floor leaking?
Hylian #2: I dunno... woah! It's up to our knees now!
Hylian #1: Well crap. Better get out the boat then!
*gets out boat*
Hylian #2: So what now?
Hylian #1: *shrugs* Wait for Hyrule to flood, I guess.
Hylian #2: Oh... wanna play cards or sumthin?
Hylian #1: Yeah sure.
*plays cards*
*five days later, Hyrule is covered in water*
Hylian #1: Well I guess we should find a new home now.
Hylian #2: Sounds good to me.
THE END
Wind Waker was ALMOST THAT EXCITING!
My very own Zelda game - OB1 - 25th March 2004
Right, but Xenogear's non-stop super repetitive battles and fifty hours of text is just the epitome of fun.
My very own Zelda game - Weltall - 25th March 2004
OB1 Wrote:
Right, but Xenogear's non-stop super repetitive battles and fifty hours of text is just the epitome of fun.
Yes. Because the combat was fun and the storyline was incredible. Plus, very much unlike Wind Waker, there's the fact that you could actually see a Game Over screen, because the game wasn't so easy that a blind, one-handed mongoloid could beat it.
Wind Waker is like the bastard child of Zelda games. By far the worst, of course, with the exception of the 3D0 versions.
My very own Zelda game - OB1 - 25th March 2004
Don't make me laugh! Xenogears has mindless, repetitive combat and a cliched storyline ripped from a dozen other books and movies. And the storyline is mostly told though text balloons. To even put it in the same league as a Zelda title (unless it's the CDi ones) is blasphemy.
I'm surprised by what constitutes as a good game for you, Weltall. An unoriginal storyline and so-so gameplay (silent hill, the xeno games) is all it takes, apparently. To each his own, I suppose.
My very own Zelda game - Darunia - 25th March 2004
FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!
My very own Zelda game - Great Rumbler - 25th March 2004
It was inevitable. *grabs popcorn*
My very own Zelda game - Dark Jaguar - 25th March 2004
Unoriginal?! I've never once heard a storyline that amazing until I played that game! I loved it, as well as the very original combat system, with the only one similar being a game released around the same time called Legend of Legaia.
My very own Zelda game - Weltall - 25th March 2004
Oh, muthafucka, gloves DOWN NOW BITCH HELL YEAH.
Quote:mindless, repetitive combat and a cliched storyline ripped from a dozen other books and movies.
That reminds me of something but
![[Image: SWLogo.gif]](http://tcforums.com/images/SWLogo.gif)
for the life of me, I can't think of what. All I can remember is, for some reason, you of all people shouldn't mind that!
Xenogears easily trumps any storyline Zelda has had. Zelda games have great gameplay, better than Xenogears, but they storylines of all the games are cliche, repetitive, and usually plain. No game has a storyline as good as Xenogears, it's the reason I love the game so much.
And, of course you mentioned Silent Hill just to piss me off. Or do you really prefer the much more mindless alternatives in the genre?
My very own Zelda game - Dark Jaguar - 25th March 2004
As far as survival horror, if it scares me, it's good (and bad for the same reason), but honestly I do prefer psychological horror to mere physical horror. Still, I honestly didn't like Silent Hill 2. I want to try out one of the other ones, but the second one has such an incredible level of repetitive... osity, that I just couldn't get into it. I spent SUCH a long time wandering around the similar looking parts of the town and the hotels that I just got bored. Honestly, the story showed promise, but it was just a tad repetitive. I can't bring myself to try the game again because of that. Still, I understand 2 is the only one with this issue. I think Konami should make Silicon Knights remake Silent Hill 1 for GCN.
Anyway, Weltall, which is your favorite in the series? I'm willing to try out either 1 or 3, but I don't know which one. Remember that this is the series' second chance for me, so I want to make sure I'm playing the very best the series has to offer, as I've tried the worst and know that well enough that I won't make a judgement call here.
Anyway, I would put the story of Chrono Cross up there with Xenogears myself.
All things considering, I like the storyline of Zelda. Yes I know it's very repetitive, but I'm the sort who reads way too into things, so I see a lot more meaning and depth in the story than was likely ever even intended. Link's Awakening in particular made me think more than it was likely they wanted me to.
OB1, just make sure you don't take what Weltall said too literally. Of course he's the type who knows games are for playing more than watching or reading. However, in the case of something like for example Resident Evil, the entire focus of the game is the combination of story and gameplay. Without the gameplay, the story would be utterly dull. Without the story, the gameplay would be utterly dull. Only both combined make a fun experience. Now, Xenogears doesn't exactly meld the two elements like the survival horror genre does, but you know I'm just making a general point... Anyway, the story IS great and honestly I was under the impression, as you've said yourself, that you never even beat the game because you couldn't stand the constant battling. If you haven't beaten it, you can't say the story is repetitive, because the story has some massive twists and expansions late into it that make it very different than other storylines I've seen. Yes, when you get right down to it this SORT of story has been done before, but honestly there are only 8 basic kinds of stories anyway (or maybe I got the number wrong). Anyway, it's human vs human, human vs society, human vs nature, human vs god, human vs self, and some others I forget. All stories are of those basic types anyway, and the only originality comes in HOW the story is told and what combinations and rations those basic story types are mixed in. As Weltall so accuratly pointed out, your precious Star Wars is also famous for it's very overused storyline type and repetitive battles. However, you love that. I myself enjoy watching Star Wars now and again too, but hey you yourself have stated this same thing over and over again as being exactly what the maker is trying to do.
I'll only add that while I can understand if you got bored with the battles, all a matter of opinion and all, it's a bit odd that you would call it completely aweful and horrible taste to be able to enjoy them for the good parts. No, I don't mean "good because it SUCKS" or whatever your comeback is :D, I mean more along the lines of the unique take on the battles with the ability to mix and match fighting. Also, being able to slowly unlock more moves is something I found very fun. I generally never got bored because I was always getting new abilities. Yes, the ether I found to be almost useless, but other than that it's a very fun system. It's a matter of how you look at it I suppose. I am not one to get bored with battles so long as the battle system is fun.
My very own Zelda game - Fittisize - 25th March 2004
Quote:No game has a storyline as good as Xenogears, it's the reason I love the game so much.
You're a fuck. Xenogear's storyline pales in comparasion to the might that is CHRONO CROSS. Man alive, how even you could pass that up...
Quote:Oh, muthafucka, gloves DOWN NOW BITCH HELL YEAH.Whooo, Weltall used a hockey term! And you say you don't like it...
My very own Zelda game - Weltall - 25th March 2004
I have to insist you give SH2 a second chance. It's the least-frightening of the series... most boring, gameplay-wise, but the story is very, very good. James Sunderland is probably one of the most genuinely tragic videogame characters ever. The complexity of his character, and how practically everyone and everything he sees is a reflection of his character is a mark of genius on the part of the creators. In my opinion, the mental experience is worth the lackluster gameplay.
I had to play it a second time before I began to really appreciate it.
In regards to the other two, you should definitely play the first before you play the third, as the third game is a direct sequel to the first. The other two Silent Hill games don't have the storyline complexity that 2 has, but they are more fun to play, both scarier and faster-paced. If you can overlook the very aged look of the first (and the crummy voice acting), play it with the lights out and the sound cranked, and before you leave the first area, you'll likely make mumbly in your trousers. SH1's the scariest in the series, and that's due much to the sound. 1 and 3 focus on the cult that is presumed responsible for Silent Hill being as screwy as it is, and I don't like that angle as much as I like the introspection of the second game, but it's done quite well, and even at it's worst moments, it's better than any Resident Evil game.
As I said, SH3 continues the story arc of the first game. It's probably the most action-oriented of the series, and the monsters are the most dangerous. It's a dark story and it's well told, but as I said, don't play it without finishing SH1, otherwise the main twists of the story won't have the same impact on you.
My very own Zelda game - Weltall - 25th March 2004
Quote:You're a fuck. Xenogear's storyline pales in comparasion to the might that is CHRONO CROSS. Man alive, how even you could pass that up...
I could never get into Chrono Cross. It was too different from Chrono Trigger, it felt too much like Final Fantasy, a series I am nigh sick of. For that same reason, I did not like Xenosaga. I dunno why they take incredible games, make sequels to them, and change them around so much that they barely resemble what they came from.
Both games have outstanding soundtracks though. Mitsuda rules!
Quote: Whooo, Weltall used a hockey term! And you say you don't like it...
I used it completely ignorant of it's hockey-based connotations, let me assure you. ;)
My very own Zelda game - Fittisize - 25th March 2004
Quote:I could never get into Chrono Cross.How far did you get into Chrono Cross before you called 'er quits? Did you at least get to the Criss-Cross (where you play as Lynx...*cough*spoiler*cough*)?
Quote:I used it completely ignorant of it's hockey-based connotations, let me assure you.No way. Face it: you love hockey.
My very own Zelda game - OB1 - 25th March 2004
Quote: That reminds me of something but
for the life of me, I can't think of what. All I can remember is, for some reason, you of all people shouldn't mind that!
Of course Star Wars isn't original, it's basically an homage to a dozen different movies from a bygone era of filmmaking.
Quote:Xenogears easily trumps any storyline Zelda has had. Zelda games have great gameplay, better than Xenogears, but they storylines of all the games are cliche, repetitive, and usually plain. No game has a storyline as good as Xenogears, it's the reason I love the game so much.
Well NO SHIT! I don't play Zelda for the storyline, silly. Of course the story is simple, and in some cases pretty much nonexistant. I play it for the wonderful gameplay. Stories can enhance a game experience, but without gameplay all you have is... a bad game with a nice story. Which leads me to...
Quote:And, of course you mentioned Silent Hill just to piss me off. Or do you really prefer the much more mindless alternatives in the genre?
Well yes, I much prefer Eternal Darkness over SH as it much better gameplay. Silent Hill has atmosphere and mood in spades, but in terms of gameplay it's even worse than Resident Evil.
Quote:Unoriginal?! I've never once heard a storyline that amazing until I played that game! I loved it, as well as the very original combat system, with the only one similar being a game released around the same time called Legend of Legaia.
Then you must not have read many good scifi stories. Or any, really. The combat is not original at all, I can't see how you can say that. Combo-based turn-based combat systems have been done before. Xenogears just made it more repetitive. If there weren't stupid battles every five damn seconds I wouldn't have minded it, but unfortunately that was not the case.
Quote:I have to insist you give SH2 a second chance. It's the least-frightening of the series... most boring, gameplay-wise, but the story is very, very good. James Sunderland is probably one of the most genuinely tragic videogame characters ever. The complexity of his character, and how practically everyone and everything he sees is a reflection of his character is a mark of genius on the part of the creators. In my opinion, the mental experience is worth the lackluster gameplay.
I had to play it a second time before I began to really appreciate it.
In regards to the other two, you should definitely play the first before you play the third, as the third game is a direct sequel to the first. The other two Silent Hill games don't have the storyline complexity that 2 has, but they are more fun to play, both scarier and faster-paced. If you can overlook the very aged look of the first (and the crummy voice acting), play it with the lights out and the sound cranked, and before you leave the first area, you'll likely make mumbly in your trousers. SH1's the scariest in the series, and that's due much to the sound. 1 and 3 focus on the cult that is presumed responsible for Silent Hill being as screwy as it is, and I don't like that angle as much as I like the introspection of the second game, but it's done quite well, and even at it's worst moments, it's better than any Resident Evil game.
As I said, SH3 continues the story arc of the first game. It's probably the most action-oriented of the series, and the monsters are the most dangerous. It's a dark story and it's well told, but as I said, don't play it without finishing SH1, otherwise the main twists of the story won't have the same impact on you.
Of course it's better than RE, I do not like RE very much. I beat the first Silent Hill and am slowly making my way through SH2 and 3, but I just cannot stand the gameplay. The only reason I want to play them is for the atmosphere and story. If they fixed the gameplay I'd be extremely happy.
My very own Zelda game - Dark Jaguar - 25th March 2004
And I must again ask if you ever finished the game, since from what you've said it would seem you have not.
Anyway, I'll say something right now just for future knowledge. I don't read many story based books. Most of the books I read are fact filled books like on the human body or physics. Those are the kinds that interest me most generally.
My very own Zelda game - Weltall - 25th March 2004
OB1 Wrote:Of course Star Wars isn't original, it's basically an homage to a dozen different movies from a bygone era of filmmaking.
But Xenogears and Star Wars are somehow on different sides of the very fine line that seperates 'homages' from 'ripoffs'? Or are you just all about the double-standard?
Quote: Well NO SHIT! I don't play Zelda for the storyline, silly. Of course the story is simple, and in some cases pretty much nonexistant. I play it for the wonderful gameplay. Stories can enhance a game experience, but without gameplay all you have is... a bad game with a nice story. Which leads me to...
Right. Zelda games don't have story, and I don't expect them to. However, Wind Waker had crappy gameplay also. The game wasn't even the slightest bit challenging. It was like OOT gameplay, simplified dramatically, with tons of long-ass backtracking and mindless roaming. It was a poor game with no story.
Quote: Well yes, I much prefer Eternal Darkness over SH as it much better gameplay. Silent Hill has atmosphere and mood in spades, but in terms of gameplay it's even worse than Resident Evil.
I didn't enjoy ED a whole lot, because the gameplay was okay, but it was also very repetitive and the storyline bordered on ridiculous at times. It could have been so much better if they had removed about half of the stupid chapters and expanded on the better ones. The gameplay was again, okay, but you're essentially using the same two weapons against the same three enemies the whole time. There were some wonderful concepts and ideas, but I felt they were not taken half as far as they could have been.
And, it wasn't the least bit scary.
Quote: Then you must not have read many good scifi stories. Or any, really. The combat is not original at all, I can't see how you can say that. Combo-based turn-based combat systems have been done before. Xenogears just made it more repetitive. If there weren't stupid battles every five damn seconds I wouldn't have minded it, but unfortunately that was not the case.There isn't a single videogame out there with a storyline to match Xenogears. There are several books, sure. But that's apples to oranges.
As for the rest?
My very own Zelda game - Fittisize - 26th March 2004
Quote:And, it wasn't the least bit scary.Admit it, you screamed like a bitch when you looked in the tub and saw yourself (Alex) in a tub of blood.
I loved Eternal Darkness. My favourite GC game by far...I thought the storyline was fantastic and I've never seen such better cutscenes (the darkness comes!).
And you still never told me how far you got into Chrono Cross before you put it away. Tell me, godammit.
My very own Zelda game - Dark Jaguar - 26th March 2004
Actually, I've already said my own personal opinion on Eternal Darkness. That is, nice try but it was lacking a lot. It was supposed to be scary but it was way too blatent. That scene you mentioned is just like the rest, way too blatent. How could I find that bathtub scene scary when I know my character is alive and well? If they wanted to psych us out, they should have been more subtle. Had a lot of promise, but they just tried too hard I think. Oh, Weltall, I must say that in general in Silent Hill 2 I used the same ONE weapon, the board with a nail in it, on the same 2 or so creatures through the whole game. Eternal Darkness and SH2 share this flaw, of having a really powerful infinite ammo weapon that nullifies the need for any sort of projectile weapon.
My very own Zelda game - OB1 - 26th March 2004
Dark Jaguar Wrote:And I must again ask if you ever finished the game, since from what you've said it would seem you have not.No, I didn't finish it, but if the game takes 30 hours before it gets really interesting, that's sad.
Quote:Anyway, I'll say something right now just for future knowledge. I don't read many story based books. Most of the books I read are fact filled books like on the human body or physics. Those are the kinds that interest me most generally.
Well there's your reason then. :)
Weltall Wrote:But Xenogears and Star Wars are somehow on different sides of the very fine line that seperates 'homages' from 'ripoffs'? Or are you just all about the double-standard?Well yes, there's a difference between an homage and a rip-off. An homage usually takes clichés and standards from the original material that inspired it while still keeping the story fresh and interesting, while a rip off just takes a bunch of ideas and slaps them together. Xenogears isn't really that bad, and the story is interesting for a video game, but I've seen most of it before. Another example of something that's borderline homage and rip-off is Kill Bill, which while being an entertaining movie which tributes a bunch of asian movies that Tarantino is fond of, it largely just takes a bunch of plot points and clichés and slaps them together. I've heard the second volume is better though...
Quote:Right. Zelda games don't have story, and I don't expect them to. However, Wind Waker had crappy gameplay also. The game wasn't even the slightest bit challenging. It was like OOT gameplay, simplified dramatically, with tons of long-ass backtracking and mindless roaming. It was a poor game with no story.Coming from someone who considers gameplay-handicapped games like Silent Hill and Xenogears to be great games, that's not saying much. :shakeit:
Quote:I didn't enjoy ED a whole lot, because the gameplay was okay, but it was also very repetitive and the storyline bordered on ridiculous at times. It could have been so much better if they had removed about half of the stupid chapters and expanded on the better ones. The gameplay was again, okay, but you're essentially using the same two weapons against the same three enemies the whole time. There were some wonderful concepts and ideas, but I felt they were not taken half as far as they could have been.You see, the difference between ED and SH is that ED actually has a little something called fun gameplay. It's not scary, but it has an interesting story with solid gameplay. It actually has fun combat, which was a first for the genre.
And, it wasn't the least bit scary.
Quote:There isn't a single videogame out there with a storyline to match Xenogears. There are several books, sure. But that's apples to oranges.You must not have ever played Grim Fandango or a hundred other graphic adventure games if you think Xenogears has an unparalleled story.
As for the rest?
Dark Jaguar Wrote:It was supposed to be scary but it was way too subtle.Don't you mean it wasn't subtle enough? ;)
My very own Zelda game - A Black Falcon - 26th March 2004
Quote:Quote:There isn't a single videogame out there with a storyline to match Xenogears. There are several books, sure. But that's apples to oranges.
As for the rest?
You must not have ever played Grim Fandango or a hundred other graphic adventure games if you think Xenogears has an unparalleled story.
Story depth... yeah, adventure games probably have the most. Them and some RPGs for sure. But as I've said many times before, the game I've played with the most wstory is easily Planescape: Torment, the 1999 PC RPG from Black Isle. Brilliant, brilliant game with a huge amount of story and conversation... phenominal game. I don't usually finish games like that, long RPGs... I didn't finish Baldur's Gate for instance... but that one I beat in about two months. I've heard it compared, in story volume, to Xenogears...
As for things like Grim Fandango, and many other adventures, they certainly have a lot of story, but not having played most of Xenogears I don't know how it compares... but comparing it to a Torment it seems like they have less. But still a huge amount. Xenogears may have more story than usual but it's not unparallelled.
Quote:Anyway, I'll say something right now just for future knowledge. I don't read many story based books. Most of the books I read are fact filled books like on the human body or physics. Those are the kinds that interest me most generally.
Too bad... I love sci-fi and fantasy... :) I read some nonfiction (not physics though... :) ) too, but I really like sci-fi and fantasy.
Quote:Well yes, there's a difference between an homage and a rip-off. An homage usually takes clichés and standards from the original material that inspired it while still keeping the story fresh and interesting, while a rip off just takes a bunch of ideas and slaps them together. Xenogears isn't really that bad, and the story is interesting for a video game, but I've seen most of it before. Another example of something that's borderline homage and rip-off is Kill Bill, which while being an entertaining movie which tributes a bunch of asian movies that Tarantino is fond of, it largely just takes a bunch of plot points and clichés and slaps them together. I've heard the second volume is better though...
Vrtually all stories are ripoffs of SOMETHING so that's not a big problem, you know...
The problem withXenogears isn't the story, I bet, but the fact that the random, tedious, extremely frequent combat makes GETTING to much of that story a major chore.
Eternal Darkness. I loved it. It's my favorite NGC game. However, it didn't really scare me. It was really cool, and a huge amount of fun, and had great worlds... but scary? Not really. The insanity effects were mostly cool, not scary... and too easy to get rid of for most of the game... but no it didn't really scare me. But I didn't take that as a major problem, because it was so much fun and the world was so great... it had adventure game aspects, with the inventory puzzles, looking at objects, etc, that I loved, for instance. I really, really like being able to look at things and get descriptions... :) And it obviously paid a LOT of attention to historical accuracy. Far more than most games. That was quite impressive and great to see... they just did an amazing job.
My very own Zelda game - Dark Jaguar - 26th March 2004
Since it's a fictional game, no matter WHAT it did it would be historically accurate as far as it's own world is.
You DARE compare Grim Fandango to Xenogears? They don't even come close! Grim Fandango is a COMEDY game and the story is really a simplistic thing. I enjoyed it yes, but it's not a massive serious story with huge plot twists that make you question everything you believe in.
My very own Zelda game - OB1 - 26th March 2004
So a story can't be good if it's comedic? That's ridiculous. I suppose you think the The Matrix has a much better story than Brazil because it takes itself seriously and is "deep", right?
My very own Zelda game - A Black Falcon - 26th March 2004
DJ, Grim Fandango is NOT comedy. Oh, it's not totally serious, but it's not comedy. You should know that! Monkey Island is comedy. Grim Fandango isn't. Grim has a serious story. Yes, there's funny stuff, but the overall story IS serious. And with a good bit of complexity too...
Quote:Since it's a fictional game, no matter WHAT it did it would be historically accurate as far as it's own world is.
Exactly. They could have used that excuse and dodged the realism. But they didn't. They made a serious effort to be accurate. Yes, some of it is made up like the legends and stuff. But the look of those temples? I'm sure it's based quite closely on the real artwork of those civilizations. They put so much effort into it that it's obvious they made a huge effort to be accurate... down to how in the opening they speak Latin. That should be a clue as to how serious they were. :)
Of course I wish it was ALL in the real historical languages, but most people would probably disagree... oh well. And anyway some we might not know how they were actually spoken...
My very own Zelda game - Weltall - 26th March 2004
OB1 Wrote:No, I didn't finish it, but if the game takes 30 hours before it gets really interesting, that's sad.
Then it's a good thing it takes far less than that, I guess. :)
Quote:Well yes, there's a difference between an homage and a rip-off. An homage usually takes clichés and standards from the original material that inspired it while still keeping the story fresh and interesting, while a rip off just takes a bunch of ideas and slaps them together. Xenogears isn't really that bad, and the story is interesting for a video game, but I've seen most of it before. Another example of something that's borderline homage and rip-off is Kill Bill, which while being an entertaining movie which tributes a bunch of asian movies that Tarantino is fond of, it largely just takes a bunch of plot points and clichés and slaps them together. I've heard the second volume is better though...
Okay, what part of Star Wars can't be classified as "been there, done that"? The diabolical Emperor, a man with such deep motives as "I'm evil, muhahaha!" and "Killing people is fun!" wants to dominate the galaxy for such deep reasons as "Just because", and is stopped by his underling's son, who is a pure soul, a true-blue hero that cannot be corrupted, because he's the good guy and everyone knows good guys defeat evil empires. Said Empire is totally annihilated and defeated when one of it's bazillion ginormous deathmobiles is blown up while orbiting a backwater moon.
It's not only completely unoriginal, it's about as deep and developed as spit on a sidewalk. If that's what you call an 'homage', I'll take the 'ripoff' any day. :)
Quote:Coming from someone who considers gameplay-handicapped games like Silent Hill and Xenogears to be great games, that's not saying much. :shakeit:
I can't help it I have good taste. :kiss:
Quote: You see, the difference between ED and SH is that ED actually has a little something called fun gameplay. It's not scary, but it has an interesting story with solid gameplay. It actually has fun combat, which was a first for the genre.
It wasn't that great. Besides, gameplay is hardly the reason I love Silent Hill. Atmosphere and depth go a very long way with me. I won't bullshit and say that gameplay is always the paramount factor. It's not.
Quote: You must not have ever played Grim Fandango or a hundred other graphic adventure games if you think Xenogears has an unparalleled story.
Sure haven't, nope.
My very own Zelda game - Dark Jaguar - 26th March 2004
I played Grim Fandango intepretting everything as comedic, sorta a josh at life itself. Taking the thing seriously, well, it doesn't really make for a stellar story... The game was fun, but personally I just don't think the story was all that deep or meaningful.
My very own Zelda game - Darunia - 26th March 2004
*Alligns with Weltall*
*Sits back and doesn't do anything*
My very own Zelda game - Great Rumbler - 26th March 2004
Wasn't this supposed to be about the Zelda game OB1 was making...
My very own Zelda game - Dark Jaguar - 26th March 2004
Oh yeah, OB1 sent me an IM about that, saying he expected me of all people to have the most story ideas. I have a few good ideas. One serious, which I am KEEPING TO MYSELF thank you! The others, all comedic, which I am ALSO keeping to myself, thank you! Why? Well, I AM trying to continue the comic I started a while ago. I'm ALSO eventually going to be Miyamoto's first general of partyin' down and he'll so TOTALLY let me make a Zelda game for some reason! Well, anyway if that doesn't happen, I'll change the characters to original ones and use the same story.
My very own Zelda game - Dark Jaguar - 26th March 2004
But, if OB1 wants an idea, how about going forward with what happened to Link after Link's Awakening. Since you seem to be going for comedy, it could be wacky misadventures that eventually lead him... under the sea.
My very own Zelda game - OB1 - 26th March 2004
Quote:Okay, what part of Star Wars can't be classified as "been there, done that"? The diabolical Emperor, a man with such deep motives as "I'm evil, muhahaha!" and "Killing people is fun!" wants to dominate the galaxy for such deep reasons as "Just because", and is stopped by his underling's son, who is a pure soul, a true-blue hero that cannot be corrupted, because he's the good guy and everyone knows good guys defeat evil empires. Said Empire is totally annihilated and defeated when one of it's bazillion ginormous deathmobiles is blown up while orbiting a backwater moon.
It's not only completely unoriginal, it's about as deep and developed as spit on a sidewalk. If that's what you call an 'homage', I'll take the 'ripoff' any day.
First of all, that's not how it goes. Secondly, you're confusing a convoluted story with a deep story. A story does not have to be convoluted in order to be deep. Star Wars is like The Odyssey, while Xenogears is a generic scifi story trying to be deep.
Quote: I can't help it I have good taste.
Haha, oh yes.
Quote:It wasn't that great. Besides, gameplay is hardly the reason I love Silent Hill. Atmosphere and depth go a very long way with me. I won't bullshit and say that gameplay is always the paramount factor. It's not.
Understatement of the century. :)
Quote: Sure haven't, nope.
You should.
Great Rumbler Wrote:Wasn't this supposed to be about the Zelda game OB1 was making...
Yeah but then everyone ruined it.
My very own Zelda game - Weltall - 26th March 2004
OB1 Wrote:Star Wars is like The Odyssey
Bahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha...
If Xenogears is a scifi story that tries to be deep, Star Wars is a scifi story that goes very far out of it's way to be shallow.
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
The Oddysey... lmao. That's... almost too sad to be funny. But not quite.
My very own Zelda game - A Black Falcon - 28th March 2004
Yeah, saying you loved Xenogears for the story but not playing adventure games -- a genre that EXISTS to tell stories -- is pretty strange...
Oh, and Weltall, OB1 is right about Star Wars. You confuse not understanding the story with thinking it's shallow... I know we've gone into a high level of detail about the story before. If you still don't get it, it's willful ignorance and there's nothing I can do about that.
My very own Zelda game - Weltall - 28th March 2004
I understand Star Wars perfectly well. It's not hard or complex in the least to understand, and it doesn't pretend to be. It's only you guys who are almost calling it a complex, deep psychological space-drama, and that it most certainly is not. Vader is the only character in the entire series whose base motives change at some point, he's really the only character with any true depth. Everyone else starts out typecast and ends up pretty much the same way. It's a simple series, and it's no more or less either an homage to or a ripoff of anything than Xenogears is.
Also, my lack of exposure to PC adventure games is because I don't play PC games much at all, I never have, and the consoles have rarely seen them.
My very own Zelda game - A Black Falcon - 28th March 2004
Lucasarts released Maniac Mansion for NES and Monkey Island 4 for PS2... and I know there are some others. Not a lot, you are right, not very many at all... but a couple. Not the best ones though I'd say. :)
And as I said you don't really get it about Star Wars at all if you're calling it that simple.
My very own Zelda game - Weltall - 28th March 2004
It might very well be deeper when you:
A: Include material from the books
B: Assume a lot of stuff
But I don't read the books. And, if I were, to be fair one would have to include Perfect Works and Xenosaga in my appreciation of Xenogears, and I do not (though Perfect Works is very awesome and does add tons of depth to the game's continuity). I judge the Star Wars movies as movies and I judge the Xenogears game as the game.
Now, perhaps in the literary domain Star Wars is a psychological space-drama. But the movies are not. They are not deep, nor are they complex. There are very few hidden meanings or twists, and little character development. I'm not an idiot, when that stuff is present I definitely notice it. It's not in the Star Wars movies, which have roughly the same amount of development and depth of character as Super Mario Bros.
My very own Zelda game - A Black Falcon - 28th March 2004
Well when I think of Star Wars, it is completely impossible for me to not include the books. The movies themselves do present a simpler picture of events, but still... especially in the Preuqel Trilogy, there is a good amount of story depth...
As for the books themselves, I'd never call them amazingly complex and all that, but as books they definitely have a lot more room for explanation than movies... especially when you consider of MANY of them and that they have continuity. :)
Oh, as for the Odyssey reference... I don't know. The Odyssey is one of the greatest stories ever written, and ... Star Wars is great but I'm not going to say it's 'all-time great'. But very few things are...
My very own Zelda game - Great Rumbler - 28th March 2004
Quote:Lucasarts released Maniac Mansion for NES and Monkey Island 4 for PS2...
They also released Monkey Island 1 on the Sega CD.
My very own Zelda game - Dark Jaguar - 28th March 2004
Yes, I don't really get into the depth argument regarding Star Wars because it's plainly apparent that they are judging it's depth based on knowing all the story from both the books and movies combined. Maybe the books put some sort of huge crisis in Luke's mind as he was destroying the Death Star. However, based on the movies ALONE, it seemed like he was just any hero, destroying the death star with the only thing close to a crisis being a Sailor Moon-ish "believe in yourself" moral. My opinion mind you. My point is the books are "outside" the movies as far as I'm concerned.
You know Weltall, I'm not sure how powerful your PC is, but I'd recommend you start playing some PC games. Yes, there's a LOT of karp out there. A LOT. However, you don't have to actually BUY the games that suck. It may take some time, but I think you can find some old adventure games your computer can run in some bargain bins at stores. You should try out a Monkey Island game. Personally, after playing two of them, I have found Kingom O' Magic to outfunny both of the two I played combined (can't vouch for the first two mind you), but fat chance finding even a used copy of that game. Honestly I think that company that made that game would be wise to remake it for current systems, or at least port it to be a Windows game, considering that everyone has seen Lord of the Rings these days and thus would be FAR more interested in such a parody as that. Anyway, puzzly adventure games of that sort are something everyone should experience once or twice. Unlike Silent Hill or Resident Evil, which have a combination of battles and puzzles, and thus don't really have to focus on hard puzzles to keep the game fun, standard adventure games are ALL about the puzzles, and taking what can be a 5 hour game if you know the solutions and stretch it out for about a month as you scratch your head in frustration.
My very own Zelda game - Weltall - 28th March 2004
I've been on the lookout for Day of the Tentacle, Grim Fandango, or the original Monkey Island (cause I hate getting into series in the middle), but no luck so far.
My very own Zelda game - Dark Jaguar - 28th March 2004
All things considering, I wouldn't try looking for PC games that aren't currently being sold. Used game stores are great for console games, but I have yet to find any used game stores that have anything beyond like 2 PC games in stock. It really sucks.
However, you don't need to play the first ones to have an idea of what's currently going on. Most game series are like that. The exceptions I can think of off the top of my head are Final Fantasy X-2, Shenmue, and the Xenosaga series (once the rest start coming out). Metal Gear also has a habit of needing to know what's going on, and yes it's annoying that the first two aren't here in America (the second one not at all and the first with a completely neutered story), but fortunatly they include the entire storylines of all the previous ones for you to read. Or, unfortunatly, as now the entire story of the previous games has been spoiled... Kinda sucks that I'll know every single twist of MG2 when it comes out...
My very own Zelda game - OB1 - 29th March 2004
Quote:Bahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha...
If Xenogears is a scifi story that tries to be deep, Star Wars is a scifi story that goes very far out of it's way to be shallow.
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
The Oddysey... lmao. That's... almost too sad to be funny. But not quite.
Have you actually ever read The Odyssey before? I made that comparison because The Odyssey is an adventure story that at its core is pretty simple, but the book still possesses depth from the growth and voyages of the characters. Being difficult to understand has nothing to do with depth. There's a big difference between depth and complexity.
BTW Star Wars is not science fiction.
Also, it's really amazing what kinds of double-standards there are out there. For instance, The Lord of the Rings has a ridiculously simple story with extremely simple and predictable character development, yet everyone claims it to be a deep character study. Now naturally it deserves credit for creating that sort of fantasy genre and for basically laying the groundwork for just about every fantasy story that came after it, but it (the movies at least) possesses both a story and character depth far simpler than even Star Wars. Not that simple is bad or anything, but it's still simple.
But just to make myself clear, I am definitely not saying that Star Wars is as great of a story as The Odyssey or even The Lord of the Rings (the books), but as a movie series it possesses many elements from different myths and stories that makes for an excellent set of movies, one that works particular well in this medium.
My very own Zelda game - Weltall - 29th March 2004
OB1 Wrote:Have you actually ever read The Odyssey before? I made that comparison because The Odyssey is an adventure story that at its core is pretty simple, but the book still possesses depth from the growth and voyages of the characters. Being difficult to understand has nothing to do with depth. There's a big difference between depth and complexity.
The Oddysey is basically about one man and his adventure. His character (and to a small extent, that of his wife) does experience some growth in depth. No, it's not a complex story. It would actually make a decent linear console RPG with some tweaks. But the difference is the character development. The Oddysey has less room for complexity because it focuses almost entirely on Oddyseus' adventures in getting home. The plot is singular and straightforward.
Star Wars, on the other hand, features more characters, and does not really develop any of them. Had the series focused exclusively on one or two characters, perhaps. The most the OT had to offer is the love story between Han and Leia, and who didn't see that coming anyway? The NT tries harder to deepen the characters, and they made an attempt with Anakin, but even with him, it didn't go far enough. It of course doesn't help that everyone knows what happens to him. The plot isn't complex, and the characters are not deep. Now, I'm not saying that's a bad thing.
But, for instance, Xenogears' story is very complex and it's main characters are very well developed, so to compare the two on that criteria is simply wrong.
Quote:BTW Star Wars is not science fiction.
It's not? The heavy focus on technology and special effects are for what then?
Quote:Also, it's really amazing what kinds of double-standards there are out there. For instance, The Lord of the Rings has a ridiculously simple story with extremely simple and predictable character development, yet everyone claims it to be a deep character study. Now naturally it deserves credit for creating that sort of fantasy genre and for basically laying the groundwork for just about every fantasy story that came after it, but it (the movies at least) possesses both a story and character depth far simpler than even Star Wars. Not that simple is bad or anything, but it's still simple.
I agree totally. Most fantasy out there now is based on LOTR, but there is quite a bit that features more character depth and story complexity. Wheel of Time immediately springs to mind.
My very own Zelda game - OB1 - 29th March 2004
Quote:The Oddysey is basically about one man and his adventure. His character (and to a small extent, that of his wife) does experience some growth in depth. No, it's not a complex story. It would actually make a decent linear console RPG with some tweaks. But the difference is the character development. The Oddysey has less room for complexity because it focuses almost entirely on Oddyseus' adventures in getting home. The plot is singular and straightforward.The characters aren't developed?? Sure not every single character gets an enormous amount of development, but the main character of the saga does, much like Odysseus.
Star Wars, on the other hand, features more characters, and does not really develop any of them. Had the series focused exclusively on one or two characters, perhaps. The most the OT had to offer is the love story between Han and Leia, and who didn't see that coming anyway? The NT tries harder to deepen the characters, and they made an attempt with Anakin, but even with him, it didn't go far enough. It of course doesn't help that everyone knows what happens to him. The plot isn't complex, and the characters are not deep. Now, I'm not saying that's a bad thing.
But, for instance, Xenogears' story is very complex and it's main characters are very well developed, so to compare the two on that criteria is simply wrong.
Anakin goes from being an innocent young boy who is seen as a savior of sorts, a "chosen one" of the Jedi, and is taken away from his mother at a very vulnerable age in order to fulfill his potential and be freed from slavery. He grows up to become a cocky young Jedi, knowing very well of his own power, but still there's that young innocent boy in him who was yanked away from his mother that he constantly worries about. He goes to find his mother, finds her dying, and ignores his Jedi training for a moment and lashes out on the ones responsible for her death. He's ashamed of what he's done, but could not help but give into his emotions. He then falls in love with a woman and marries her, again giving into his emotions and ignoring the Jedi code. He has little control over his emotions and gives into fear, anger, and lust. Without giving too much away, in Episode III he grows further, still believing that his place in too low considering his power, and again gives into his lower emotions. He's manipulated, but still makes his own choices, and in the very end sees the most tragic results of his actions and seeks ultimate darkness and power as his only escape (I won't give anything away, but you will see why Obi and Yoda believe that there is absolutely no good in him in the OT). Fast forward to the OT and you see him as an evil conqueror, apparently completely fallen to the dark side without even the smallest amount of good inside him. It takes his son near death to free the last bit of good inside him and release himself from his prison of pain and torment (his actions at the end of RotJ will have far greater meaning once you see the end of Episode III), eventually fulfilling his destiny by bringing balance to the force.
None of the other characters have the same amount of depth as Anakin's, but Luke's journey parallel's his father's and shows in many ways how different people under similar circumstances can have vastly different outcomes depending on the choices they make.
Quote:It's not? The heavy focus on technology and special effects are for what then?It is fantasy/myth in a sci-fi setting. It has much more in common with LotR or The Odyssey than it does with Star Trek or 2001. I suppose you could call it sci-fi because of the technology in the movies, but the story is very much fantasy and myth.
Quote:I agree totally. Most fantasy out there now is based on LOTR, but there is quite a bit that features more character depth and story complexity. Wheel of Time immediately springs to mind.I haven't read that.
My very own Zelda game - Great Rumbler - 29th March 2004
Quote:I haven't read that.
I have, just started book 10 a few days ago.
My very own Zelda game - Dark Jaguar - 29th March 2004
I'm sure a lot of that depth was INTENDED, but it's never brought across. On the other hand, an equally simple story manages to actually DO the job of conveying the human condition, because it's much more well written, Lord of the Rings. You can actually feel what's going on in their minds. Now, the thing about Star Wars is that it has POTENTIAL to be a great story that can convey the same thigns, but Lucas just isn't a good story teller. I bet of all the things I could have said, that offended you most didn't it? Because the story isn't as well told as it could be, it ends up merely being a fun adventure for a sunday afternoon, rather than a moving experience the whole world diagnoses.
My very own Zelda game - OB1 - 29th March 2004
Dark Jaguar Wrote:I'm sure a lot of that depth was INTENDED, but it's never brought across. On the other hand, an equally simple story manages to actually DO the job of conveying the human condition, because it's much more well written, Lord of the Rings. You can actually feel what's going on in their minds. Now, the thing about Star Wars is that it has POTENTIAL to be a great story that can convey the same thigns, but Lucas just isn't a good story teller. I bet of all the things I could have said, that offended you most didn't it? Because the story isn't as well told as it could be, it ends up merely being a fun adventure for a sunday afternoon, rather than a moving experience the whole world diagnoses.
You state that as if it were fact. When I watched the Rings trilogy I had very little interest in the story and characters, as they weren't just simple (which is fine), but had no emotional hook for me. The story is about some people on a quest to throw a ring into some lava. It doesn't get much deeper than that. And the characters? Gollum had immense potential, but in the end his character was the exact same as it was in the beginning, so the his arc was completely pointless. I was somewhat intrigued by where his character would go in TTT, but then by the end of RoTK I was just thinking "what the hell did that accomplish??". He was there to show how powerful the draw of the Ring was, but they already established that long before he came into the picture. Very poorly-developed character. None of the other characters stick out, as their story arcs are very simple and the moral of their arcs paper-thin. Yes okay Frodo is just a poor little Hobbit who has a really tough time carrying the Ring, but what else? Why should we care that he has a tough time wearing the ring around his neck? I can see where what they were trying to do with his character, but in the end all I felt was "that must have been rough". They were entertaining movies for the pretty effects and gorgeous New Zealand scenery, but in the end all they proved to me was just how terrible most Hollywood movies are today that they consider LoTR to be a "powerful, deep" movie even though it's just one big special effects fest with very little emotional resonance. Perhaps the books are much better at making you care for the plot and characters which is why you love it so much, but as someone who has only seen the movies I was not very impressed.
My very own Zelda game - Dark Jaguar - 29th March 2004
Wow...
I did read the book first, but others who haven't who aren't known for liking cheesy action movies or special effects fests loved the depth that was conveyed. You really didn't pay attention to how it was told, just the overall story. You didn't go to the movies with a "I'll see it just to show I"m not biased, but I know they will suck" attitude did you? Smeagle was kinda ruined in the 3rd movie, but you know, his development arc was a counter to Frodo's. Frodo was one who managed to break the grip of the ring (it wasn't supposed to be heavy, it was an EMOTIONAL weight that was having a physical effect on him), while Smeagel, first showing that he COULD break free, eventually fell again. It was SUPPOSED to be a sad moment where you would be all like "he was so close!" and then you are supposed to frickin' CRY you insensitive robot!
Hmm, I guess it's all personal opinion, but it's just really hard to see how anyone could just label it as a special effects movie and not see the depth of character...
My very own Zelda game - OB1 - 29th March 2004
Quote:Wow...Oh heavens no, I walked into the first movie with extreme anticipation, the second with slightly less anticipation since I didn't find the first as great as I hoped it would be, and the third more excited than the second since I thought everything would have a payoff which would make up for my disappointment with the first two.
I did read the book first, but others who haven't who aren't known for liking cheesy action movies or special effects fests loved the depth that was conveyed. You really didn't pay attention to how it was told, just the overall story. You didn't go to the movies with a "I'll see it just to show I"m not biased, but I know they will suck" attitude did you?
Quote:Smeagle was kinda ruined in the 3rd movie, but you know, his development arc was a counter to Frodo's. Frodo was one who managed to break the grip of the ring (it wasn't supposed to be heavy, it was an EMOTIONAL weight that was having a physical effect on him), while Smeagel, first showing that he COULD break free, eventually fell again. It was SUPPOSED to be a sad moment where you would be all like "he was so close!" and then you are supposed to frickin' CRY you insensitive robot!When I said "rough" of course I meant emotionally-speaking. I didn't think that the ring was physically heavy.
Hmm, I guess it's all personal opinion, but it's just really hard to see how anyone could just label it as a special effects movie and not see the depth of character...
It did not seem as though Gollum broke free. It seemed as though he was playing Frodo and Sam, and towards the end of the movie and in all of RotK it was clear that he was evil. His internal struggle was well-acted but seemed more like an excuse to show off great CGI and acting than real significance, and during his final moments I felt only disappointment that they went where they did with his character. I thought they were setting him up for a final act of goodness and redemption, but in the end all I felt was "what a jerk!".
And just so you know, I'm not one of those people who try to act all macho and tough during movies, as I have cried plenty of times in the past. LotR just had very little emotional impact on me. I didn't care too much for the story or the characters. But to each his own. There's no correct answer to this.
If you're curious, one movie that brought tears to my eyes and had a great emotional impact on me was Akira Kurosawa's "Ikiru", a movie about an aging bureaucrat who finds out that he has stomach cancer and realizes that his entire life has been a waste of time, so he seeks to find meaning in his final days. It's a movie with a very simple plot but an incredible amount of emotional depth and meaning, and considered to be one of the greatest films ever created.
My very own Zelda game - UltraMarioMan - 30th March 2004
I made a short RPG Maker game about me going to get pizza once. Was stupid in so many ways. There were like 3 enemys. A killer Subway sub, a hamburger, and a pizza guy.
My very own Zelda game - OB1 - 30th March 2004
Like Earthbound, kinda. :D