Quote Originally Posted by Wolf Kanno View Post
As for the OoT comment. I don't hate the game and its not unplayable as much as the game has not aged well. I'm not talking simply about graphics or shallow things like that. Its level design is archaic, its controls are clunky, and every clever idea in the title was stolen directly out of LttP. Of anything, the title from a gameplay and design standpoint is basically a readers digest version of LttP. Its the ultimate example of a game that is worse than its predecessor yet is herald as the greatest game of all time cause its 3D and its predecessor wasn't and despite the borrowed elements working better in the 2D version, the 3D version is still somehow considered to be better? How does that work?

I love Zelda but I don't get the big deal about this game. I didn't like it back in 98 and I find it gets worse with each passing year as new titles are released. Twilight Princess was a better title cause it smoothed out the controls and its dungeons were a bit more imaginative (despite still ripping off its predecessors; then again, Zelda is one of Nintendo's Madden titles). OoT brought great music and larger emphasis on storytelling but alot of games do that and they also had have the mind to add good gameplay to it.
To get back to your original bait: well, when you put it like that, I can understand where you're coming from. OoT obviously suffers from the problems of early 3D level design where it relies on simple/convenient geometrical shapes and gameplay in encounters and boss battles can suffer. I would say that it makes it seem more unimaginative by today's standards, as opposed to unplayable though. And I think I'd actually have to agree on your LttP->OoT/2D->3D comment, despite the fact that it's caused global warfare between us when applied to the Final Fantasy series.



Quote Originally Posted by Dreddz
Quote Originally Posted by Iceglow
Actually Omecle, I was just responding to some blatant sony fanboy crap which blames Halo for all Sony's woes. Lets be fair The PS3 has the graphical capacity, it has the format win (blu-ray) it has the best hard-drive if you exclude the 360 elite. However here is where Sony fails: Online. Sorry guys but the PSN is free yes but it's also highly unstable and not as efficient as the Xbox Live network. As with most internet things; you get what you pay for. When you pay for the servers you end up with a better service and those complaining about £39.99 for a year + 1 month free is less than £4 a month. It also fails to give up some truly epic in house/exclusive games. Killzone 2 is good but so far it's not showing Halo 3 up in much same goes for a lot of the other exclusives. The real differences could have been made with titles such as Final Fantasy XIII however thats not an exclusive anymore.
I had you as one of the clever and mature ones but I was clearly wrong. You claim your responding to "blatant Sony fanboy crap" and then respond with even more "blatant Xbox fanboy crap". And your arguement is what, Online? Exclusives? What is this, 2007? Next time come with better points that haven't be void for over a year now.
I hate to start a flamewar after seeing what happened with Halo, but I think we can discuss the facts rationally and apply it to the topic.

Iceglow, this is clearly a rare moment where you're uninformed. I think it's a matter of public record that PS3 had more and more notable exclusives last year in 2008 than possibly any other system, and does again this year.

This leads over to the discussion, since I think Valkyria Chronicles and Little Big Planet are clearly highly praised, highly addicting games that could at least beat out SingStar or Peggle. On a personal note, VC is absolutely one of my favorite SRPG's of all time.

Also, I think any of the first 3 Shining Force games should have at least secured a place. The writers obviously haven't played much Sega, either.