Spirit Tracks: Really All That Bad?

Originally Posted by Labrynian Rebel

Yeah, the logic of the top dogs in the video game industry sometimes doesn't seem very logical. (I mean having the B button and then the A button? We read left to right! Not right to left! It should be A and THEN B, or didn't you learn the alphabet! Okay, enough ranting about the NES controller for now...)

Japan reads right to left. Your logic is invalid.

Originally posted by GKANG
What I don't understand is - how can they make Super Mario 64 DS, with a lot of added content, and not something like Ocarina of Time? Even if it weren't as long as OoT, I'm pretty sure that's possible.
SMB64 / OoT = pretty much the same engine.

Super Mario 64 DS wasn't that great of a game. It was an admirable effort which succeeded on some levels, but ultimately unmemorable because of the crap controls.

I don't think the controls or how people regarded the remake matters.

I think how they managed to pull off completely explorable 3D worlds on a DS matters.

Originally Posted by The Goron Moron

I don't think the controls or how people regarded the remake matters.

I think how they managed to pull off completely explorable 3D worlds on a DS matters.

you are my new Hero

That means nothing if it's not enjoyable to play.

PH did, relatively, the same thing. Except it wasn't cumbersome to go through.

Originally Posted by Jeff

That means nothing if it's not enjoyable to play.

PH did, relatively, the same thing. Except it wasn't cumbersome to go through.

What. the. hell. are. you. talking. about.

People are different. You can't expect every game to be perfect, so by that logic, every single game in existance sucks, even OoT.

Enjoying or hating something is not equal to programming. They are completely different things.

That's not even remotely what I was getting at, dip****.

Of course no game is going to be perfect, but if something is highly flawed, as were the controls in SM64 DS, there's no reason to ignore it. If you're going to make a great game, all the pieces of the puzzle have to fit, especially the key ones like control.

Why did this had to turn into a SM64DS vs 3D on DS debate? Honestly.

Like it or not, SM64 DS proves that vast, 3D worlds on the DS is completely possible. Back on topic, please.

No one's denying whether it's possible or not. We know it is. If it's worthwhile is the question at hand, and the answer to that is "No", because so far (and this most likely will not change this gen) there's no decent way to control a game like that without an analog stick.

my own opinion: i think the new zelda game looks like CRAP. i was unhappy with phantom hourglass and i dont like the idea of a train replacing a steam boat. arent these games supposed to be set in the middle ages? according to my own preferences i would like it if the games got back to castle days and the whole medieval feel to it. thats one of the reasons i love the Zelda games so much. the steamboat and train just feels like its conforming to Steam punk visions of what zelda should be and i dont like that. not to mention that it clashes with the medieval feel that the games are supposed to be set in. im all for an enchanted forest, a city of fish people who live on the ocean floor, and any other thing like that, but again in my opinion i dont like the advancements in technology link is able to use in the newer DS games. a steamboat.... ugh i would have been happier if it was Link as a captain of a crew of 20 or so men in a trireme. that would have been better than a steam boat. and a train is just not compatible with zelda as far as im concerned. when did hyrule make the transition from the middle ages to the industrial revolution???

Originally Posted by Severian

my own opinion: i think the new zelda game looks like CRAP. i was unhappy with phantom hourglass and i dont like the idea of a train replacing a steam boat. arent these games supposed to be set in the middle ages? according to my own preferences i would like it if the games got back to castle days and the whole medieval feel to it. thats one of the reasons i love the Zelda games so much. the steamboat and train just feels like its conforming to Steam punk visions of what zelda should be and i dont like that. not to mention that it clashes with the medieval feel that the games are supposed to be set in. im all for an enchanted forest, a city of fish people who live on the ocean floor, and any other thing like that, but again in my opinion i dont like the advancements in technology link is able to use in the newer DS games. a steamboat.... ugh i would have been happier if it was Link as a captain of a crew of 20 or so men in a trireme. that would have been better than a steam boat. and a train is just not compatible with zelda as far as im concerned. when did hyrule make the transition from the middle ages to the industrial revolution???

You know what's funny?

When people don't realize that trains were invented before steamboats and submarines (which was in TWW).

And the fact that MM also had advanced technology.

What, exactly, are they conforming to by having the main character in a fantasy action/adventure game drive his own personal cannon-equipped train?
I don't believe "driving your own train" really happens a whole lot in video games. Even in the "steam punk" style that so many of you pre-release detractors are blathering on about.

Originally Posted by The Goron Moron

You know what's funny?

When people don't realize that trains were invented before steamboats and submarines (which was in TWW).

And the fact that MM also had advanced technology.

touchez

Originally Posted by Jeff

With the intent of making one like in the 2D games, yes.

Haha. Phantom Hourglass playes EXACTLY like a 2D game. The Great Sea just feels disconnected from the rest of the game, and it is very dull and empty. I mean, come on! It's an overworld in a Zelda game, that is basically on-the-rails. It's more limiting than The Wind Waker.

Nothing else would've worked for a 3D game. That was kinda the point of PH, it was proof of what was capable with the DS. If you looked at that system four years ago, you would never believe that a 3D Zelda could run properly on and be played. Yet, they made a game that did just that. PH was a tremendous advancement for the action/adventure, it showed how a title of that genre can be made just fine on a handheld. It's step forward for the franchise was minor, but it was a huge step forward for gaming in general.

We haven't been able to say that about a Zelda game since OoT.

You are making a mountain out of ant hill.

Phantom Hourglass is a 2D Zelda game with 3D sprites. The only difference is that it has a 3D "overworld." An overworld where you have to draw a path, and your boat follows that path. It's boring, limited, and nothing worth making a big deal out of.

It would have to be gigantic according to handheld terms for it to be worthwhile, and since we most likely wouldn't get that, you'd be *****ing that it's too small, then.

The other reason is that it's really not that interesting traveling across what are largely useless areas when we don't get any visual flair from them.

Nothing's being dumbed down. The feature you want would more than likely suck.

What are you talking about? Are you saying that traveling a 2D overworld like Link's Awakening or the Oracle games isn't interesting traveling across, but a ocean where you just draw a path of where to go is?

That's precisely what PH did. Beforehand, a 3D action/adventure game on the DS was a prepostrous idea.

It still is. First with the Super Mario 64 DS tech demo. Again with the on-the-rails sailing which doesn't really justify using 3D. Phantom Hourglass plays just like the 2D Zeldas everwhere else; it's a 2D game.

I'll agree to that, because I understand game design at least some.

You're that person who has all these wondrous ideas and a huge imagination, expecting a video game to include every feature possible that seems like a good idea. Unforuntately, you don't know **** about the reality of game design, and that everything that sounds great in theory either can't be done or wouldn't be fantastic when executed.

You're a prime example of the Zelda fanbase, actually.

But you do. Of course. Well, I'll just take the wondrous ideas and huge imagination as a compliment.

You know what's funny?

When people don't realize that trains were invented before steamboats and submarines (which was in TWW).

And the fact that MM also had advanced technology.

I been wondering about that for ages, too.
XD

^At least you can draw whatever ship line you want.

If people wanted to, they could even make their journies more adventerous by drawing loops and twirls.

Originally Posted by The Goron Moron

^At least you can draw whatever ship line you want.

If people wanted to, they could even make their journies more adventerous by drawing loops and twirls.

Gee, that's exciting.

Originally Posted by KeeSomething

Gee, that's exciting.

It's just an example that PH at least has some freedom.

Originally Posted by The Goron Moron: A Link to the Past

If people wanted to, they could even make their journies more adventerous by making a circular motion on the D-Pad with their thumb.

Originally posted by KeeSomething
Haha. Phantom Hourglass playes EXACTLY like a 2D game. The Great Sea just feels disconnected from the rest of the game, and it is very dull and empty. I mean, come on! It's an overworld in a Zelda game, that is basically on-the-rails. It's more limiting than The Wind Waker.

It's only the camera angle that makes it 2D-esque. The game world itself is 3D, everything designed in it is 3D etc. Melee and Brawl? Those are also 3D even if we get a 2D perspective. Those games don't have flat sprites, everything is full geometry. Just like PH. There's nothing to argue.

You are making a mountain out of ant hill.

Phantom Hourglass is a 2D Zelda game with 3D sprites. The only difference is that it has a 3D "overworld." An overworld where you have to draw a path, and your boat follows that path. It's boring, limited, and nothing worth making a big deal out of.

The rest of the video game community and industry would disagree with you. And when I say that, I don't mean sheltered and over-ambitious Zelda fans like you with no real knowledge of gaming.

What are you talking about? Are you saying that traveling a 2D overworld like Link's Awakening or the Oracle games isn't interesting traveling across, but a ocean where you just draw a path of where to go is?

One engine perfectly permits LA's overworld, the other doesn't. 2D works just fine with that. In a 3D game, it has to be infinitely more dynamic and large in order to be interesting.

We're more than likely going to get the same exact experience of exploring huge areas on foot, ones that are most probably going to be larger than realms within the 2D games. We'll explore those just like the older handhelds did, the only difference is they'll be seperated by train tracks to avoid a boring-ass and/or tiny 'overworld' that you want.

It still is. First with the Super Mario 64 DS tech demo. Again with the on-the-rails sailing which doesn't really justify using 3D. Phantom Hourglass plays just like the 2D Zeldas everwhere else; it's a 2D game.

It's not developed as one, nor are your actions/controls identical to 2D gameplay control. You're the only one that thinks so, any person with who actually understands video games will tell you that you're a ****ing moron.

You're a ****ing moron, seriously.