True Zelda Fans

I actually havn't seen too many OoT crazies.
It's more MM and WW that have a psycopathic following.

Originally Posted by Misa Misa

I'm not ashamed that I love Ocarina of Time just because it's popular. (Though I'm not suggesting that's what you were saying.)

I loved Majora's Mask equally, and Link to the Past. I've completed every Zelda game and each has it's own charm and merits. Everyone is entitled to a favourite, and I don't really care whether or not people want to regard themselves as 'true fans.'

I just know that I've been a fan of the franchise for such a long time and each game holds it's own memories for me. Whether games other than Ocarina of Time appeal to other people is not really a concern of mine.

I am just quite disgusted that some people view Ocarina of Time as if it is the only 'true' Zelda game, and they give their "downhill ever since" crap. If Zelda was going downhill, which they said since way back around 2002, why does each new game alway win a "game of the year" award and get critically aclaimed? The only way for it to go downhill are if it fell into the wrong hands (you know what I mean!), but that only ever happened once, and Zelda has been fine since.

Originally Posted by Koulatio

I actually havn't seen too many OoT crazies.
It's more MM and WW that have a psycopathic following.

I guess I can go into the category of a Wind Waker psychopath follow. >_>
Just kidding, I love all of the games. And I don't know what people didnt like about The Wind Waker graphics; I thought they were attractive and, well, I just loved how clear they were. Something about The Wind Waker's graphics is special.

Originally Posted by Horny Dog Matt

I guess I can go into the category of a Wind Waker psychopath follow. >_>
Just kidding, I love all of the games. And I don't know what people didnt like about The Wind Waker graphics; I thought they were attractive and, well, I just loved how clear they were. Something about The Wind Waker's graphics is special.

Like you said in your opening post: Change is good. Wind Waker is a very good example, largely because of the graphics.

Majora's Mask was awesome. Everything else sucks. I'd play some shootan games to any Zelda game except for Majora's Mask. Which is awesome.

I think there's more to the table than "change/NO CHANGE ARRRRGH GET AWAY FROM ME AND MY ZELDA".

Change can be bad just as it can be good, don't be fooled. You can't simply slap something different onto a Zelda game and say "OKAY, IT'S ALL GOOD NOW, IT HAS CHANGE!!". Putting in a different name for the world you are traversing does not make it that much better. If Link was given a gun, that wouldn't necessarily be a good change.

At the same time, Zelda games have always needed to distinguish themselves. Especially when adapting that classical "save the princess" plotline that the series is constantly accused of. The series uses variation and change to mark their games as different. If it was up to me I'd slap any person who dares say that TP is basically OoT - the two feel nothing alike.

Change is not the ultimate recipe for perfection. Zelda is established - messing too much with it is going to prove fatal. A futuristic Zelda game? You'd get a disaster at your hands. It would be the slaughter of the established Nintendo franchise. This is why people are responding negatively to the train in Spirit Tracks. Wind Waker was met with doubt upon seeing the boat and the massive ocean. It was rather different from the Zeldas that they had known.

Majora's Mask was different too. In theory. But in truth, it was rather much the same. A fantasy world that needs to be saved, requiring you to traverse dungeons and gain items. It presented itself in a very different way, but at the same time the familiar Zelda "spirit" was there (I myself don't believe in a "Zelda spirit" outside the fantasy setting).

I believe "good change" is what people associate with Majora's Mask. It was very different, but was still attractive as a Zelda title and managed to hold onto the familiar elements that has created the Zelda universe. "Bad change", or perhaps we should say "risky change", is something like the train in Spirit Tracks. It derails from the elements in the Zelda universe, thereby feeling un-natural and somewhat out of place.

Originally Posted by Light

Like someone said earlier, Youtube comments are like skinny chicks in roller derbies: useless and there to draw attention.



That's like saying Super Metroid was akin to Metroid Prime. The core is there (fending off space pirates to get to Mother Brain aka Metroid Prime), yet the ways to get there are much different. Charge beam, ice beam, missiles: all there. But lock-on? Whole different game. In theory ALttP was the same as OoT: but Z-targeting added a whole new element to a whole new game.



See above Z-targeting rant.




I suggest you stop telling people what a "true" Zelda fan is. I have never played AoL, LA, and the Oracles. Am I not worthy to play the others then? Am I not a true Scotsman Zelda fan?



I suggest you stop telling those who favour OoT over the others that they are "psychopaths". Fanboiz like me will react. Oh, and check the contradictory bolded sentence out.

Love,
A True Scotsman

I'm calling those who favour it psychopaths and then clain it as the only "true" game. Did you not read that little sentence that mention I have seen myn people who view it as the only "true" game and that it intrduced everything? Like helll, it it didn't. It intrduced a few new 3d features, but A Link to the Past deserves the credit for most of the introduction of elements.

And I did this because I know that those crazed-Ocarina of Time psychopaths that I see on YouTube are watching. Boy, you bet they are.

Originally Posted by Abyss Master

I think there's more to the table than "change/NO CHANGE ARRRRGH GET AWAY FROM ME AND MY ZELDA".

Change can be bad just as it can be good, don't be fooled. You can't simply slap something different onto a Zelda game and say "OKAY, IT'S ALL GOOD NOW, IT HAS CHANGE!!". Putting in a different name for the world you are traversing does not make it that much better. If Link was given a gun, that wouldn't necessarily be a good change.

At the same time, Zelda games have always needed to distinguish themselves. Especially when adapting that classical "save the princess" plotline that the series is constantly accused of. The series uses variation and change to mark their games as different. If it was up to me I'd slap any person who dares say that TP is basically OoT - the two feel nothing alike.

Change is not the ultimate recipe for perfection. Zelda is established - messing too much with it is going to prove fatal. A futuristic Zelda game? You'd get a disaster at your hands. It would be the slaughter of the established Nintendo franchise. This is why people are responding negatively to the train in Spirit Tracks. Wind Waker was met with doubt upon seeing the boat and the massive ocean. It was rather different from the Zeldas that they had known.

Majora's Mask was different too. In theory. But in truth, it was rather much the same. A fantasy world that needs to be saved, requiring you to traverse dungeons and gain items. It presented itself in a very different way, but at the same time the familiar Zelda "spirit" was there (I myself don't believe in a "Zelda spirit" outside the fantasy setting).

I believe "good change" is what people associate with Majora's Mask. It was very different, but was still attractive as a Zelda title and managed to hold onto the familiar elements that has created the Zelda universe. "Bad change", or perhaps we should say "risky change", is something like the train in Spirit Tracks. It derails from the elements in the Zelda universe, thereby feeling un-natural and somewhat out of place.

If any new change, I perosnally want to control more than Link and have multiple characters to control that are important to the plot. For Zelda Wii, I do hope that strange girl, considering she looks like the Master Sword and Queen of Fairies, can be controlled and used to fight, ect..

Twilight Princess was very interesting, as Midna actually helped fight enemies, and she had a story to tell, a personality, and a developing relationship with Link. I love it when the secondary character gets spotlight, personality, and when their relationship with the main character changes/develops. Midna started out as carefree, annoying, and ignorant, but in the later game, she became lovable, put herself at risk for Link, and then even gave off signs of loving him and making the hard descisson of leaving and never seeing him again. Now those are the companions that truly help develop things.

And you would be suprised to know that some people are still moaning about the change it Majora's Mask: it doesn't take place in Hyrule.

So many crazed fans that can't accept even tiny changes.

Originally Posted by Abyss Master

Majora's Mask was different too. In theory. But in truth, it was rather much the same. A fantasy world that needs to be saved, requiring you to traverse dungeons and gain items. It presented itself in a very different way, but at the same time the familiar Zelda "spirit" was there (I myself don't believe in a "Zelda spirit" outside the fantasy setting).

So, basically, for a game to be a good Zelda game there are the following basics:

• Fantasy world in peril
• Dungeons
• Items

These are the things that you believe give a Zelda game its "Zelda spirit", correct? Now how, pray tell, does changing the level of technology conflict with any of these things?

Originally Posted by Mandrag

So, basically, for a game to be a good Zelda game there are the following basics:

• Fantasy world in peril
• Dungeons
• Items

These are the things that you believe give a Zelda game its "Zelda spirit", correct? Now how, pray tell, does changing the level of technology conflict with any of these things?

I think they should be advance is technology to an extent, but going hardcore sci-fi in the full Zelda overworld for a game all the way through would be too much.

What I think would be interesting is, having adavanced technology in a world beyond Hyrule, not Termina, but some strange world of advanced technology that has some form of connection to the godesses. Maybe, even there world.

People seem to forget about City in the Sky... that place was had some advanced technology beyond our own. The place wasn't in the sky by magic - it was using technology, the whole City in the Sky dungeon had a very futuristic look and even slightly alien feel to it. Oocca... pretty much the aliens of the Zelda universe, if I do say so myself.

I want more places to explore like City in the Sky, where the technology is advanced and there are strange creatures beyond the heavens inhabiting them. I really think that it is about time Zelda showed us what lies beyond even that... I mean, it would be really cool for it to actually show us a place where the godesses actually domain, or maybe even where they came from.

Originally Posted by Mandrag

So, basically, for a game to be a good Zelda game there are the following basics:

• Fantasy world in peril
• Dungeons
• Items

These are the things that you believe give a Zelda game its "Zelda spirit", correct? Now how, pray tell, does changing the level of technology conflict with any of these things?

Note how I never mentioned GOOD Zelda game in my post. Good is a matter of opinion, and even though my post consists mainly of my own opinion, I'm not talking about quality, but the standards of the Zelda universe, i.e. "basics" as you put it. A Zelda game containing futuristic elements could very well be a good game, but it would be a change from the Zelda series that I personally see as a step in the wrong direction. Remember why people picked up the original LoZ to begin with. The further you step away from that, the further you step away from what made Zelda what it is today. I'm all for change, as long as the series don't go too far.

Here are the facts! TLOZ, ALTTP, OOT, MM, WW and TP RULE! my fav is OOT, but they all RULE! those are the creative and amazing facts. If you noticed, i left out TAOL. i left it out because TAOL is below average at best. These are the facts!

Originally Posted by Accursed

Here are the facts! TLOZ, ALTTP, OOT, MM, WW and TP RULE! my fav is OOT, but they all RULE! those are the creative and amazing facts. If you noticed, i left out TAOL. i left it out because TAOL is below average at best. These are the facts!

I love the Adventure of Link! Mine you, most people (including myself) die 100 times before even getting a few steps away from the starting point, but I still love the game.

Originally Posted by Abyss Master

Note how I never mentioned GOOD Zelda game in my post. Good is a matter of opinion, and even though my post consists mainly of my own opinion, I'm not talking about quality, but the standards of the Zelda universe, i.e. "basics" as you put it. A Zelda game containing futuristic elements could very well be a good game, but it would be a change from the Zelda series that I personally see as a step in the wrong direction. Remember why people picked up the original LoZ to begin with. The further you step away from that, the further you step away from what made Zelda what it is today. I'm all for change, as long as the series don't go too far.

Like I said, City in the Sky and Twilight Palace were both very futuristic elements. City in the Sky was a mysterious city literally above the skies of Hyrule using advanced technology to keep it above the clouds, nd the Twilight Realm also felt like an amazing combination of fantasy and sci-fi. Sci-fantasys. I loved those dungeons because they had new elements.

I mean, City in the Sky even made me question who actually created it and why above the clouds. Don't you ever wonder who actually created the city? It looked futuristic and abandoned, and I doubt the Oocca would have created it...

I personally feel that Ocarina is the best in the series (actually lol best game ever), but I do completely agree in that we need something NEW. Just simply one-upping what was already set in stone will only get you so far, and Twilight Princess' obvious Ocarina throw-backs were so plentiful, sometimes I just felt like I was playing the exact same game again. Only, y'know, much, much worse designed.

But I'm going to be honest. As long as a game is well designed, I don't care what novelties it does or doesn't bring onto the table. Pure quality above anything else.

I think that change can be good, but it can be bad. Technology for instance. I've always felt that Zelda is a game that is placed way back in history without guns, cars, ect. I look at ST and I'm kind of wary about the train. To me the train is a little to far advanced in technology for the Zelda games, but I'm willing to accept that Nintendo wants to further the technology.

[QUOTE=Accursed;2901890]Here are the facts! TLOZ, ALTTP, OOT, MM, WW and TP RULE! my fav is OOT, but they all RULE! those are the creative and amazing facts. If you noticed, i left out TAOL. i left it out because TAOL is below average at best. These are the facts! [/QUOT


TAOL is my least favorite Zelda game but I still believe the game is above avg. when compared to video games in general but it's definately below avg. when compared to the other Zelda games.

Originally Posted by TP or Oot

I think that change can be good, but it can be bad. Technology for instance. I've always felt that Zelda is a game that is placed way back in history without guns, cars, ect. I look at ST and I'm kind of wary about the train. To me the train is a little to far advanced in technology for the Zelda games, but I'm willing to accept that Nintendo wants to further the technology.

I agree with you completely.

Whether OoT is or is not the "only true Zelda" game is up to the player. Personally, it was just a favorite of mine, along with TP and WW. It was nostalgic for me, and there's nothing wrong with that.

While I do encourage change, I also encourage bounds (some futuristic things I believe are too much, and I can believe that if I want to.) Also, I would actually like to see some sort of OoT remake, just for the fact that the graphics would be amazing, and I've missed the Gerudos for years.

I also encourage brand new stuff. But trains? Not my personal taste for Zelda.

The point is, everyone has their opinions, and they are not "psychopaths" for having preferences for feeling the way they feel. If you think that OoT is not "the true Zelda" then good for you...and if you DO feel that OoT is the "true Zelda" then good for you, too.

Some Zelda games are liked, and some aren't. You don't have to like every single little thing to be a fan.

Originally Posted by romanomnomnom

I agree with you completely.

That is exactly how I feel with your post

I find it stupid that so many people are so fixated on OOT. It was a good game, but is is not the best of the series. OOT is basically the Final Fantasy VII of the Zelda series. It was an amazing game game, but most of the fans don't realize that numerous better games have come along since.