Zelda: Spirit Tracks

[Vampyr]

Yeah, I'm probably not going to be picking this up...especially after hearing your description.

There needs to be some real innovation with Zelda, especially on the handheld ones. The Oracle games were really awesome. They took place in two totally unique worlds, they had about 60 rings you could collect that gave you all sorts of powers, and the rod/harp were really fun gameplay mechanics. Not to mention you could pick one of three pets to use throughout the game.

[BreakABone]

Originally Posted by Vampyr

Yeah, I'm probably not going to be picking this up...especially after hearing your description.

There needs to be some real innovation with Zelda, especially on the handheld ones. The Oracle games were really awesome. They took place in two totally unique worlds, they had about 60 rings you could collect that gave you all sorts of powers, and the rod/harp were really fun gameplay mechanics. Not to mention you could pick one of three pets to use throughout the game.

So just curious... though guess we've been debating this in the other thread, what would you like to see to change up Zelda?

Not disagreeing with you, but I know a part of the problem with a legacy franchise like Zelda is people wanna see change, but they also want it to stick with the core gameplay mechanics.

Unless you just want a completely new style of game.

Also, I am still debating this game. Want to pick it up, but it has a central dungeon like PH, which wasn't fun, but you don't need to replay sections.. so who knows.

[BreakABone]

I'm not gonna say the franchise doesn't need a change, but I guess haven't been with the franchise long enough.

First off, I think removing the sword and the shield would destroy the core of the game.

Second, I think the first thing they should work on.. is the structure of the game. I know taking a not from all of those interviews. But I think the structure within a dungeon has grown rather stale. I mean you go in, solve a few puzzles, find the map, compass, small keys, big/dungeon key and the dungeon item, which of course will be used to defeat the end level boss. I'm not really sure how you could change it up much, but maybe make dungeons more lively or something.

Or maybe make them more compact so more action oriented... I'm not really sure.

Third, on the note of weapons, I think the franchise is good at creating new items, the problem is implementing them. The spinner and double hookshot from TP were awesome items, but had so little shelf life outside of the dungeon you found them in. I'm sure the same will probably happen with the new Wii game and Spirit tracks.

Central Item, the mirror, the ocarina, the wind baton, the.. what the hell was the central item in TP....maybe make it a part of the game as well. I know some of them had gameplay segments, but maybe a weapon you power up along the course of the game or add-ons or something.

I really don't know.

[Angrist]

Why do we need a central item?? That's the kind of thing that's not essential for a Zelda game. TP had the wolf transformation, it didn't need a central item. Imo.

I've been saying from the beginning that travelling by train will probably be boring. Like a boat on land, this time the sea is green-colored.

Like BaB said, the dungeons should be more alive. If I think of an epic and dangerous dungeon that would feature in a movie, I don't think of the static dungeons of Zelda. I have something less structured in mind, with bosses who roam through the whole dungeon. Enemies who come at you all at once. Less puzzles, more atmosphere.
Of course I don't know if that would work...

[Ginkasa]

I think Nintendo is pretty much between a rock and a hard place with the Zelda franchise. On the one hand, its one of the oldest video game franchises and hasn't really changed much since its third installment; it provides quality entertainment, but the same quality and entertainment installment after installment.

On the other hand, its one of the most classic and cherished of video game franchises and changing it would be very risky. Much of the loyal fanbase look forward to the familiarity and comfort of Hyrule and its patterns.

Its kind of a lose-lose situation. There's not really just one thing that makes a Zelda game a definitive Zelda game. Many of the staples and standards that have carried the series these past 20+ years are also the the features that naysayers call formulaic and repetitive. What can Nintendo do different with Zelda without making something besides a Zelda game?

Personally, I think anything truly different or unique that could have been done with the Zelda franchise has been already. The 3D action-adventure genre that was once filled out Ocarina of Time clones has grown and spun-off into different branches and even assimilated into different genres as well. Should Hyrule grow larger and livelier and less linear? Fable, Elder Scrolls. Should it become more linear and focus more on action than puzzles? God of War. Should it become smaller in scope and focus on a more personal, puzzle oriented quest? Ico. How about large in scope and focus mroe on the epic boss battles? Shadow of the Colossus.

Until Nintendo can come up with something truly and uniquely original that can easily fit into the established Zelda patterns, I'd prefer they continue to follow those same patterns and not try to emulate any other games or do anything that would ruin the essence of Zelda. From the looks of things, that's what they're hoping to do with Zelda Wii2. Until then, I don't mind some handheld games that just continue carrying the same torch to keep me busy.

[Thespis721]

I'm not a big fan of needing to change the Zelda franchise. I'm a big fan of stopping with the gimmicks that the Zelda franchise is getting that undercut the epicness of the games. I've played Link to the Past multiple times and everytime it is fun. It's the same thing over and over again but it's done will with little to NO gimmicks. Spirit Tracks, Phantom Hourglasses, being a wolf... all gimmicks.

Even the two worlds of LttP didn't feel gimmicky, but an integrated part of the world.

[Angrist]

I liked playing as a wolf. Maybe the twilight itself was gimmicky because it had been done before (and better).

I've just read 2 reviews of Silent Hill: Shattered Memories. I think a re-imagination like this could work for Zelda. This SH game got rid of the tedious tasks and replaced them by new, fun puzzles. It changed how you explore the world (no more locked doors etc.).

Who feels anything for making a list of essential and non-essential Zelda aspects?

[Thespis721]

Originally Posted by Angrist

I liked playing as a wolf. Maybe the twilight itself was gimmicky because it had been done before (and better).

I've just read 2 reviews of Silent Hill: Shattered Memories. I think a re-imagination like this could work for Zelda. This SH game got rid of the tedious tasks and replaced them by new, fun puzzles. It changed how you explore the world (no more locked doors etc.).

Who feels anything for making a list of essential and non-essential Zelda aspects?

Off the top of my head?

Essential - Sword and shield combat, epic storyline, Ganon (I'm sorry, but every time they try and create a story outside of Ganon, it seems to fall flat), keeping with the overall storyline, quests within quests, weapon/shield/clothing upgrades, unique worlds and villages and cultures

Not essential - puzzles for puzzles sake, a friend to tag along, water/ice temples, central temples

[TheSlyMoogle]

Mmm I just always felt like the handhelds were the prime place to experiment.

[Ginkasa]

Originally Posted by Thespis721

Ganon (I'm sorry, but every time they try and create a story outside of Ganon, it seems to fall flat)

I disagree. Link's Awakening and Majora's Mask (which have nothing to do with Hyrule or Zelda, much less Ganon) have the most poignant and emotional stories out of any of the other Zelda titles, except for maybe The Wind Waker.

Re: The Sly Moogle

I think you could make an argument for both experimenting in both formats. Handheld games would be better off experimenting with gimmicky, one-off ideas like linked-games (OoS and OoA) or changing your size (TMC) that won't carry on for the rest of the series. I think if Nintendo wants to alter the way future Zelda games are made or change the inherent formula they need to do it on the console to make the biggest impact.

[TheSlyMoogle]

Windwaker and Mask were good fucking games, aside from the boat in windwaker and the fucking triforce gauntlet at the end of the game. Other than that I loved windwaker. Mask was very good. Mostly it was entirely based on subquests and fetch type quests but it was good. Basically they had a lot of aspects to them that were departures from the series. Both of them equally different. Windwaker had a great story, a lot of fun, and the animation was great I don't care what anyone says, cel shading hasn't been done that well before and since that game. I'm sorry so many people couldn't get past the cartoon look but it added so much to the game. Mask was great too in that it focused so much on side events and the time aspect was awesome, and it did have a really touching story. Link just wanted his Navi back... Is that too much to ask for?

Unfortunately now they're just recycling those tired ass gimmicks and it's getting old.

I see OoT as the perfect Zelda. It basically should have been the last time they tried to make Zelda in the same way that they kept doing it. Everyone complains how the successive games just aren't like OoT. Well that's okay. It was Zelda perfection, and then Master quest came along and just made it even better. Master quest was so fucking hard. I feel there's not anything more that can be squeezed out of that.

I just see Twilight as a flaming pile of beautiful garbage. It's the worst offender. Useless weapons, stupid side-quests, boring story really. It was just a beautiful fucking game and decently fun while it lasted. When I finished it I just felt empty inside. Same with Phantom Hourglass and Spirit Tracks.

I don't know.

I think I'll just go play shadow of colossus again. That game makes me happy in ways I still don't understand.

[BreakABone]

Originally Posted by TheSlyMoogle

Windwaker and Mask were good fucking games, aside from the boat in windwaker and the fucking triforce gauntlet at the end of the game. Other than that I loved windwaker. Mask was very good. Mostly it was entirely based on subquests and fetch type quests but it was good. Basically they had a lot of aspects to them that were departures from the series. Both of them equally different. Windwaker had a great story, a lot of fun, and the animation was great I don't care what anyone says, cel shading hasn't been done that well before and since that game. I'm sorry so many people couldn't get past the cartoon look but it added so much to the game. Mask was great too in that it focused so much on side events and the time aspect was awesome, and it did have a really touching story. Link just wanted his Navi back... Is that too much to ask for?

Unfortunately now they're just recycling those tired ass gimmicks and it's getting old.

I see OoT as the perfect Zelda. It basically should have been the last time they tried to make Zelda in the same way that they kept doing it. Everyone complains how the successive games just aren't like OoT. Well that's okay. It was Zelda perfection, and then Master quest came along and just made it even better. Master quest was so fucking hard. I feel there's not anything more that can be squeezed out of that.

I just see Twilight as a flaming pile of beautiful garbage. It's the worst offender. Useless weapons, stupid side-quests, boring story really. It was just a beautiful fucking game and decently fun while it lasted. When I finished it I just felt empty inside. Same with Phantom Hourglass and Spirit Tracks.

I don't know.

I think I'll just go play shadow of colossus again. That game makes me happy in ways I still don't understand.

And I thought Twilight Princess was a much better game than OoT.
Opinions are fun.
Which is why you can and never will please everyone.

[Angrist]

Originally Posted by Thespis721

Off the top of my head?

Essential - Sword and shield combat, epic storyline, Ganon (I'm sorry, but every time they try and create a story outside of Ganon, it seems to fall flat), keeping with the overall storyline, quests within quests, weapon/shield/clothing upgrades, unique worlds and villages and cultures

Not essential - puzzles for puzzles sake, a friend to tag along, water/ice temples, central temples

Ok I made a doc file. I probably missed a lot. Anyone feel free to add and/or reformat it. A doc file sucks, but it works best in a table.

[Ginkasa]

Throwing my two cents in with OoT vs. TP: I think Oot is much better than TP. I don't see how they can really compare on equal terms. The only thing that TP does better than OoT is having better graphics, but that's a given. Specific points:

1) Story. TP's story was/could have been good, but not as a Zelda game. Link was practically a none factor story wise; he was relegated to Midna's errand boy. Zelda and Ganon could have switched to entirely different names and it wouldn't have mattered. Everything Zelda about it felt tacked on. OoT meanwhile is the epitome of the classic Zelda story. Not that other games (MM, TWW, LA) don't have better stories, but OoT is the perfect distilled Zelda story. It has all the bare, classic essentials boiled down to pure awesome.

2) Gameplay. Everything good about TP's gameplay was taken from OoT. There was nothing good added and nothing bad taken away. They would simply be equal except for the whole "new item's only good in one dungeon" thing going on with TP. Off the top of my head I think the only item that is absolutely worthless outside of its main dungeon is the Iron Boots. And I guess maybe the different tunics if you want to count those. But everything else could be useful at other points in the game.

3) Legacy. If TP is truly remembered years from now it will be as "the game that reminded me a lot of OoT." I am still amazed, however, at the things I notice in modern games that I can trace back to OoT. There are some things the industry is finally improving and moving away from direct systems (i.e. you don't see the lock-on system as much anymore; camera controls have gotten better with the second analogue stick), but OoT definitely impacted how 3D games were made for several years to come. TP made not such innovations.

Thre are probably other items as well. Basically, I think you can say that you enjoy TP more than OoT and, I suppose, you could argue that means which is "better" is subjective. However, I don't think you could honestly argue over which is the most influential, classic, or essential.

I mean, someone could probably argue that Super Mario Sunshine is a better game than Super Mario 64 due to technical advancements, but reallY?

[Angrist]

By the way, it's getting decent to good reviews. 8.0-9.3. I don't know what to think..... I'll probably pick up a cheap and used copy.