What really sucks is that playing Twilight Princess now will never compare to playing OoT when I was in 8th grade, no matter how "techinally" superior it is.
This upsets me lots.![]()
Link's Awakening is an amazing game, I am playing through it for the first time in years. The only downside is the bosses look a little "goofy" or comical at times, otherwise it is a beautifully done game. It also has amazingly ambient and rich sound for a GB game.Originally Posted by sethsez
Never played the Oracle games tho and still yet to play Minish.
Last edited by 1CCOSA; 22 Aug 2005 at 11:56 PM.
What really sucks is that playing Twilight Princess now will never compare to playing OoT when I was in 8th grade, no matter how "techinally" superior it is.
This upsets me lots.![]()
Well that's like, your opinion, man.
I really, really disagree with these being the best aspects.Originally Posted by kbuchanan
The control was good when OoT first came out because it was still a new game in that style. But now, I don't want to have to switch to the menu screen every minute or two to switch items again. By this point in the series there should be a more elegant way to switch items, since they're so integral to everything.
The puzzles are good, but the problem is the recycling. If I just got the mirror shield, there's a ray of light shining down from the ceiling, and a target on the wall, I know what to do. I know what to do because I've done it before. You can't stump people with the same puzzle multiple times, but that's exactly what Nintendo tried to do pretty often in Wind Waker.
Combat... eh, that's okay. I personally hate the split-second screen freeze after every hit, but most people seem to like it.
The recycled puzzles are what really killed Wind Waker for me; I knew the solution to everything from past games.
And yes, the control scheme isnt so hot anymore.
OoT sucked, btw.Wow, you are an utter idiot. Yeah, and there was also "no NFL 2005 on PS2" according to you either as I recall in the Madden 06 thread from last week.Originally Posted by diffusionx
![]()
A whole new low, welcome to my ignore list.
And OoT was nothing short of carefully executed to the point of brilliance.
LOL!! The second person to fall for this.Yeah, and there was also "no NFL 2005 on PS2" according to you either as I recall in the Madden 06 thread from last week.
Okay, find me a Metal Gear Solid for the NES, champ.
Heh. I was gonna explain it to him, but too late.
Well that's like, your opinion, man.
Well, keep in mind that MG1 for the NES was a half-assed port of the original MSX version and even at that, the actual MSX game was a relatively simple game, especially by today standards.Originally Posted by Zerohero
MG2 on the other hand, did almost everything MGS did back in 1990. The only thing missing from MG2 was a movable camera and ability to see in first-person for obvious reasons.
So yeah. MGS isn't so much of an upgrade of MG1 as it is to MG2.
Easily the worst Zelda game, yes, though I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say it sucked. I personally didn't enjoy it though.Originally Posted by diffusionx
Anyway, stop coming so close to agreeing with me (aka being right about something) -- quite frankly, I find it creepy.
I'll also throw my hat in with the whole "OoT wasn't that great" crowd.
People talk about how great Epona was. Why? You could only really use him in one place, and it was a goddamn empty field. Wonderful. And that field managed to be the laziest thing I've ever seen in a Zelda. Even Capcom tried to make their worlds flow nicely, but with OoT we just got a large empty hub. The dungeons fared better, though... until the fucking water temple. And block puzzles were no more fun then than they are now.
Bookmarks