The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword

GhostAnime wrote:

4. Just about every video game is fictional. Also, just because it has a
fantasy setting doesn't mean it can't look real.

WHY should it look more real then?

Because it needs to move away from being childish so people will take it more seriously. Also because it's been practically the same game since OoT.

Are you finished?

Zelda was never childish, I disagree entirely that the games have been the same since OOT, Windwaker was a massive graphical difference and gameplay wise, Twilight Princess was very dark.

Because it needs to move away from being childish
so people will take it
more seriously.

isn't that your problem? a video game that's fictional about a young blonde hero saving a princess from an evil dark man needs to be realistic in order to avoid being childish just so teens like you and me can feel like men when we play video games.

makes sense i guess. i mean, i mean, if you're a man, you'll come to reality. not all these unique colors that separates itself from bland bullshit gore and boring backgrounds. Miyamoto needs to be a conformist.

one only has to think if Conor is in the 'blood and gore' group of people who think a game is more fun if it's violent.

Also because it's been practically the same game since
OoT.

"Darker" games - Ocarina of Time, Majora's Mask, Twilight Princess
"Brighter" games - Wind Waker, the DS games, pretty much most 2D sprite Zelda games.

sounds to me that Zelda's just been a normal fantasy game with dark changes every now and then. are you truly a fan of the series? i guess not.

Darren wrote:Zelda was never childish, I disagree entirely that the games have been the same since OOT, Windwaker was a massive graphical difference and gameplay wise, Twilight Princess was very dark.

Come on, Zelda is a childish franchise! Why else would there be all the fake violence and stupid wacky characters and cartoony visuals.
The only mature 3D Zelda was TP.

Obviously I wasn't saying that the graphics are all the same. I mean the same in the way that the game is structured. There are always separate dungeons with element-themed bosses and a tacky item that you'd conveniently find in that dungeon. In some cases, the item is never used after finishing the dungeon and the bosses are, as I've said before, have stupidly convenient weaknesses and fighting them always involves rhythmic, repetetive stages.

example

- A monster boss uses small, dodgeable attacks
- the boss then prepares for a larger attack which leaves its eye or mouth vulnerable for a few seconds
- you throw a bomb (that you happened to acquire just before the fight) into its mouth / eye.
- it then falls over to let you slash at another weakpoint for a bit
- it gets up
- repeat (two more times at least)


The lock-on combat technique is the same in all the 3D Zeldas as well as far as I can remember.

Only mature 3D Zelda was TP? No offence, but someone's not played Majora's Mask. Most mature Zelda game around in many peoples opinions

I wouldn't call Zelda a child-ish franchise, it's Nintendo's biggest true hardcore franchise in my opinion, with Mario being the childish (for everybody) series.

Come on, Zelda is a childish franchise! Why else would there be all the
fake violence and stupid wacky characters and cartoony visuals.

Because it's a FICTIONAL VIDEO GAME.

LOL IMAGINE THAT.

The
only mature 3D Zelda was TP.

Is this the ONLY Zelda game you played or something? Isn't Ocarina of Time considered 'mature' too? What exactly is mature? Blood? What's so mature about blood and a dark sky? Just admit that your manhood is on the line when you play a game that doesn't have either.

What are these wacky characters you're talking about?

- A monster boss uses small, dodgeable attacks
- the boss then
prepares for a larger attack which leaves its eye or mouth vulnerable
for a few seconds
- you throw a bomb (that you happened to acquire
just before the fight) into its mouth / eye.
- it then falls over to
let you slash at another weakpoint for a bit
- it gets up
- repeat
(two more times at least)

Isn't this the boss battle for most action adventure games.. ?

GhostAnime wrote:isn't that your problem? a video game that's fictional about a young blonde hero saving a princess from an evil dark man needs to be realistic in order to avoid being childish just so teens like you and me can feel like men when we play video games.

makes sense i guess. i mean, i mean, if you're a man, you'll come to reality. not all these unique colors that separates itself from bland bullshit gore and boring backgrounds. Miyamoto needs to be a conformist.

I can't make any sense out of what you're saying.

GhostAnime wrote:one only has to think if Conor is in the 'blood and gore' group of people who think a game is more fun if it's violent.

The main character carries a fucking longsword and sheild, why shouldn't it be violent? I'm not asking for a Gears of War version although "blood and gore" would be a better change from the usual boring effects they have whenever link slashes at a monster. I want Zelda to evolve to a mature game. In Spirit tracks, I think there's an item made out of a leaf or something - and in the "dark" majoras mask. That would be fine for an N64 game because that's what you expect with that kind of console generation but at the moment, in the current generation, we have games like MGS4, Uncharted 2 and Splinter Cell etc. that show us that we have the ability to make games more sophisticated, dynamic, detailed, complex and exciting. They can include cinematic and epic cut-scenes (which would be awesome to have in Zelda) and they could offer more that the standard combat style that we've been using for 10+ years.

Tell me, wouldn't it be more satisfying when you swings your sword at a moblin its arm comes off (with blood, bone, brains etc.) or would you prefer a comedy sound-effect and a blue flash? I want to be able to fire an arrow at the head of an enemy and it falls off it's horse instead of it just bouncing off so that he just starts waddling towards you.

GhostAnime wrote:

Also because it's been practically the same game since
OoT.

"Darker" games - Ocarina of Time, Majora's Mask, Twilight Princess
"Brighter" games - Wind Waker, the DS games, pretty much most 2D sprite Zelda games.

sounds to me that Zelda's just been a normal fantasy game with dark changes every now and then. are you truly a fan of the series? i guess not.

Yeah, I loved LTTP,Links Awakening, TP and even Minish Cap. I don't care whether or not you class me as a "true fan". I'd rather not be in your fanboy cult of keeping every Zelda game the same every time they make one.

Also, why do you think they added WMP if the game wasn't supposed to be realistic? If it was meant to be unrealistic, then why aren't the characters floating around and why isn't the grass made of silicon and why does their "planet" have an atmosphere?

GhostAnime wrote:

Come on, Zelda is a childish franchise! Why
else would there be all the
fake violence and stupid wacky
characters and cartoony visuals.

Because it's a FICTIONAL
VIDEO GAME.

LOL IMAGINE THAT.

GUESS WHAT - SO IS
EVERY GAME EVER MADE BY ANYONE THAT ISN'T THE FUCKING HISTORY CHANNEL.

Are
you just trying to pretend you don't understand what I mean or are you
actually that stupid? I've explained it clearly enough.

GhostAnime wrote:

The

only mature 3D Zelda was TP.

Is this the ONLY Zelda game
you played or something? Isn't Ocarina of Time considered 'mature' too?
What exactly is mature? Blood? What's so mature about blood and a dark
sky? Just admit that your manhood is on the line when you play a game
that doesn't have either.

What are these wacky characters you're
talking about?

No it isn't. I've played nearly all the
Zelda games to some degree. OoT is not considered "mature". What makes
it mature? It's just as mature as Spyro the dragon or something.
Dark
sky? I don't give a shit about what colour the sky is. I'd be absolutly
fine about the whole game being set on a flowery meadow with rainbows
and happy clouds as long and the gameplay and story is mature enough to
be taken seriously.
If you think I'm woried about my manliness when I
play games, then explain how I still love Kirby games. Yes, that's
right. It's because Kirby is the paradigm of awesomeness.

Wacky
characters include:

~ Nearly every inhabitant of Kakarico village
in TP (including the crazy bomb maker and the baby shopkeeper)
~ The
postman from TP (although he's pretty cool)
~ The dancing elves from
the start of OoT
~ The Goron
~ The pirates from WW
~ The weird
people who dress up as birds from WW
~ Lineback
~ Nearly everyone
you meet in PH (including the giant talking frog-king)
~ Tingle

-
A monster boss uses small, dodgeable attacks
- the boss then
prepares
for a larger attack which leaves its eye or mouth vulnerable
for a
few seconds
- you throw a bomb (that you happened to acquire
just
before the fight) into its mouth / eye.
- it then falls over to
let
you slash at another weakpoint for a bit
- it gets up
- repeat
(two more times at least)

Isn't this the boss battle for
most action adventure games.. ?[/quote]

No, its the conventional
boss battle script they use for most Zelda games (and Metroid Prime
games) that has become repetitive, predictable, boring and
unimaginative.

guys, calm your jets.

Matt's got it right, you both need to lay off each other. Debating and discussing a game is one thing we encourage, insulting and acting aggresive towards each other isn't allowed and you both need to tone it down before it goes any further.

I'm pretty sure that GhostAnime is trying to piss me off just as he has done with Pwiimus.

Games with cartoony visuals that are also mature:

Killer 7 (very very very)
No More Heroes 1 and 2
Phoenix Wright
Borderlands
Mother 3|
Star Wars: The Old Republic

What problems do you see with the inhabitants of Kakariko village? I love the way they look all wierd and funny. It's a unique look!
And have you ever found a boss fight from Zelda or Metroid or Mario challenging? Do you remember dying a lot? It doesn't matter if the pattern is repetitive, it's still a hard challenge!

on that note, ignore GhostAnime. He's being too aggressive. However to be fair, he's stating some decent points. He just needs to calm down and watch his tone.

I agree. While GA's making some good points, there's absolutely no need for this aggression. I understand that it's going to be denied that there's aggression, but you both need to calm down. Your arguing's having a negative effect on everyone else.

GA is making good replies to your posts but there is no need for all of this. Enough of the arguments! Get back on topic for goodness sakes!

I wonder if we'll see a new Tingle...

Yes I want to see the return of Tingle

As long as he doesn't rip me off like in Wind Waker I don't mind

Ben64 wrote:Games with cartoony visuals that are also mature:

Star Wars: The Old Republic

Old Republic actually has realistic-style graphics that remind me a lot of DDO, though realistic MMO graphics are normally toned down in comparison to other games due to the intensive nature of MMOs.

e.g.:

Spoiler:

And yeah, Zelda is a kiddies game. But I agree that not all games with cartoony graphics are kids games. Take for example Street Fighter 4. That has some quite nice cartoony graphics, and is most certainly not a kid's game.

Ben64 wrote:Games with cartoony visuals that are also mature:

Killer 7 (very very very)
No More Heroes 1 and 2
Phoenix Wright
Borderlands
Mother 3|
Star Wars: The Old Republic

What problems do you see with the inhabitants of Kakariko village? I love the way they look all wierd and funny. It's a unique look!
And have you ever found a boss fight from Zelda or Metroid or Mario challenging? Do you remember dying a lot? It doesn't matter if the pattern is repetitive, it's still a hard challenge!

on that note, ignore GhostAnime. He's being too aggressive. However to be fair, he's stating some decent points. He just needs to calm down and watch his tone.

ugh...

I thought you would have known what I meant. I was not talking about the graphics, I was talking about the gameplay style. I thought that was clear.

Is being difficult a good thing? It doesn't change what I said. It just makes them annoyingly hard.

Oh, so after all that it's GA who's making all the great points, is it?

Darren wrote:GA
is making good replies to your posts but there is no need for all of
this. Enough of the arguments! Get back on topic for goodness
sakes!

We were on topic. We were arguing about Zelda.

This
is a forum right? Aren't we allowed to debate?

CONOR wrote:

This is a forum right? Aren't we allowed to
debate?

Refer to my earlier post, if you actually read it.

Dunncor wrote:Matt's got it right, you both need to lay off each other. Debating and discussing a game is one thing we encourage, insulting and acting aggresive towards each other isn't allowed and you both need to tone it down before it goes any further.

EDIT: Also, double posting is against the rules when it's done within a 24 hour period, either put it all in 1 post or edit the first, not to mention you spoiled something in another topic and insulted GA earlier. I think you need to Read the Rules.

Darren misworded his post, he mentioned it in the chat. He meant that you both should calm down. We've already had Pwiimus leave, and this just looks like a repeat of the situation. Debate is fine but this is escalating into attacking right now.

Dunncor wrote:

CONOR wrote:

This is a forum right? Aren't we allowed to
debate?

Refer to my earlier post, if you actually read it.

Dunncor wrote:Matt's got it right, you both need to lay off each other. Debating and discussing a game is one thing we encourage, insulting and acting aggresive towards each other isn't allowed and you both need to tone it down before it goes any further.

EDIT: Also, double posting is against the rules when it's done within a 24 hour period, either put it all in 1 post or edit the first, not to mention you spoiled something in another topic and insulted GA earlier. I think you need to Read the Rules.

Yes, I read it. You didn't seem too fussed when Pwiimus went off it earlier.


Okay, have I done something to offend everyone on this forum? What's going on? That spoiler, as admitted by Lady catrin, was an old one. I've already apologised for that. And if you're going to hold a grudge for double posting then I'll just leave and let you all hate me in peace.

I'm afraid rules are rules Conor, you agree to follow the rules when you sign up for the forums, and we don't actually ask for much. As admin, I need to enforce the rules. Don't think I'm only targeting you though, GA did make faults as well. He needs to stop being so aggressive in the way he puts points across.

Also, I wasn't here during the Pwiimus/GA arguement. It only lasted a few hours and I wasn't here for any of it, it was over when I got back so there wasn't anything I could truly do.

Dunncor wrote:I'm afraid rules are rules Conor, you agree to follow the rules when you sign up for the forums, and we don't actually ask for much. As admin, I need to enforce the rules. Don't think I'm only targeting you though, GA did make faults as well. He needs to stop being so aggressive in the way he puts points across.

Also, I wasn't here during the Pwiimus/GA arguement. It only lasted a few hours and I wasn't here for any of it, it was over when I got back so there wasn't anything I could truly do.

I have't got any problem with the rules, just the way I'm being treated and the way GA is being praised. It's basically like being spat at in the face after that.

I can't make any sense out of what you're saying.

If you want a better version, Zelda being too childish for you is your own problem and not the game's. It doesn't need have excessive gore and dim lights 'so people can take it seriously.' If people need that to take a fictional game seriously then it's pretty clear they're trying to save face while using a toy. The concept is just silly.

The main character carries a fucking longsword and sheild, why shouldn't
it be violent? I'm not asking for a Gears of War version although
"blood and gore" would be a better change from the usual boring effects
they have whenever link slashes at a monster.

There are effects. The only difference is blood and gore. No, that's the only other thing you can add: blood and gore. So, that's what you're asking for pretty much. What's wrong with fantasy effects with limited blood and gore? Sounds more like a change of pace than 'advancing'. Wind Waker is probably the best example of this.

I want Zelda to evolve to a
mature game. In Spirit tracks, I think there's an item made out of a
leaf or something

Fictional video game. What would you want him to have as weapons? I'd like to hear your personal suggestions here. Let's find out what you truly mean by 'mature'.

I see you also listed all the characters that seem 'wacky'; but that's what makes Zelda a fantasy action game. It has things that aren't real and 'wacky'. May I ask what you would prefer? Perhaps terrifying beasts and nothing but humans? Then Zelda wouldn't be fantasy anymore. It'd just be a generic action/adventure game which takes its original appeal away.

That would be fine
for an N64 game because that's what you expect with that kind of console
generation but at the moment, in the current generation, we have games
like MGS4, Uncharted 2 and Splinter Cell etc.

We always had games like this. We've had 'mature' games since the label was invented. You're late.

Also you only listed gun and stealth games.. which Zelda isn't. They are two completely different games. Try listing actual action/adventure games.

that show us that we have
the ability to make games more sophisticated, dynamic, detailed, complex
and exciting. They can include cinematic and epic cut-scenes (which
would be awesome to have in Zelda)

We already have those in Zelda. As said earlier, the only difference is blood and gore.

and they could offer more that the
standard combat style that we've been using for 10+ years.

I don't understand what you mean by 'standard'? Zelda practically invented the action/adventure combat style.

Are
you just trying to pretend you don't understand what I mean or
are you
actually that stupid? I've explained it clearly enough.

My point is that it's a fictional video game. It's not real. of course the effects aren't going to have plants and animals spit out blood. Not every game necessarily has to have that.

If this is your problem with Zelda and fictional video games in general, then you should stay away from them, but there's a reason why they sell more or just as much as the games you listed.

OoT is not considered "mature". What makes
it mature?

By the consensus it pretty much is (also one of the most revered games of all time). It has one of the more mature storylines, and if I give away the ending, you'd be spoiled, but let's just say you do stab things in bad places.

then explain how I still love Kirby games.

It's called being a hypocrite.

No, its the conventional
boss battle script they use for most Zelda
games (and Metroid Prime
games) that has become repetitive,
predictable, boring and
unimaginative.

Compared to the mature games you've listed where you just shoot and aim at a person? You can make any series' boss battles seem unimaginitive (especially if it's too easy).

That's pretty much all you do in Metal Gear Solid anyway. You can make fun of Kirby's boss battles. Same for Metroid, Mario, Zelda, Prince of Persia; I can go on for years here. The style of boss battles change from game to game but they're always the same for them (it's hard to change up the formula too much to be perfectly honest).

I think considering that you haven't played Zelda much, it's hard for you to judge. Your description would fit more of the N64 Zeldas, but the other Zeldas (especially the later ones) have involved the background as part of the battle too, or things around you.

You've clearly got a strange way of thinking about things. After repeatedly trying to explain my meaning of "realistic" you've still got it completely wrong. Actually, all of your latest replies are wrong in some way. I'm not blaming you, you probably just didn't understand. I'll try to explain now.

GhostAnime wrote:

I can't make any sense out of what you're saying.

If you want a better version, Zelda being too childish for you is your own problem and not the game's. It doesn't need have excessive gore and dim lights 'so people can take it seriously.' If people need that to take a fictional game seriously then it's pretty clear they're trying to save face while using a toy. The concept is just silly.

Obviously I have a problem with it or I wouldn't have mentioned it. I also made the point that Zelda would benefit from a change. Suggesting a good and reasonable course of change in something from a fans viewpoint is only a good thing. You are being naturally dismissive because you probably don't like change or something. Maybe you're protective of the franchise and think that I'm trying to say that it's bad.
Please tell me, why do you keep bringing up "blood and gore" in your arguments? You were the first to suggest it and I only agreed, saying that the appropriate amount of it would make the game more enjoyable as I described. Also, what's this about dim lights? I never said I wanted it to look like gears of war. You're just making things up now.
Again, I'll use Metal Gear as an example of a fictional franchise that is taken very seriously and has a very large fan base and is mostly very realistic and very mature.

"trying to save face while using a toy".

You use the word "toy" in admittance that Zelda is a childish game. The whole point of my argument is that it shouldn't be a childish game and, instead, more mature. You have just contradicted yourself.

GhostAnime wrote:

The main character carries a fucking longsword and sheild, why shouldn't
it be violent? I'm not asking for a Gears of War version although
"blood and gore" would be a better change from the usual boring effects
they have whenever link slashes at a monster.

There are effects. The only difference is blood and gore. No, that's the only other thing you can add: blood and gore. So, that's what you're asking for pretty much. What's wrong with fantasy effects with limited blood and gore? Sounds more like a change of pace than 'advancing'. Wind Waker is probably the best example of this.

1. I know that there are effects. I said that they were boring.
2. Why do you keep mentioning blood and gore? I never suggested that!! You brought it up!
3. "The only difference is blood and gore." No, that's not the only difference. You are only thinking in extremes. I said that I didn't want cartoony combat effects and you think that it must mean that I want extreme amounts of gore.
4. "Fantasy effects" can include blood effects. Monsters presumably have blood.
5. "So, that's what you're asking for pretty much." I made it very clear what I was asking for and that is not it.

GhostAnime wrote:

I want Zelda to evolve to a
mature game. In Spirit tracks, I think there's an item made out of a
leaf or something

Fictional video game. What would you want him to have as weapons? I'd like to hear your personal suggestions here. Let's find out what you truly mean by 'mature'.

Yes, I know it's a fictional videogame. WHAT IS YOUR POINT? Just because it's fictional doesn't mean that you need to have things in it that dont make sense. Monsters do make sense because they're just creatures, like any other real animal even though they dont exist.

A longsword (mastersword)
Sheild (hylian sheild)
Bow/Arrow (heros bow)
Grapple hook
Dagger/knife/throwing knife
whatever other clever instrument they can come up with

All of these things are good.

GhostAnime wrote:I see you also listed all the characters that seem 'wacky'; but that's what makes Zelda a fantasy action game. It has things that aren't real and 'wacky'. May I ask what you would prefer? Perhaps terrifying beasts and nothing but humans? Then Zelda wouldn't be fantasy anymore. It'd just be a generic action/adventure game which takes its original appeal away.

No, what makes Zelda a fantasy game is the fact that it is set in a fictional world with different kinds of people in it, not the eccentricity and daftness of the characters.

GhostAnime wrote:

That would be fine
for an N64 game because that's what you expect with that kind of console
generation but at the moment, in the current generation, we have games
like MGS4, Uncharted 2 and Splinter Cell etc.

We always had games like this. We've had 'mature' games since the label was invented. You're late.

Also you only listed gun and stealth games.. which Zelda isn't. They are two completely different games. Try listing actual action/adventure games.

Modern games dont look like N64 games any more and for a reason (as I said before) which is that the technology has got better and gamers are wanting more from games.
I didn't know that "gun" is a genre of game. Uncharted 2 and MGS4 are action adventure games, especially Uncharted 2.
Which "two" games are you talking about? Don't answer that, you'll end up confusing yourself.

that show us that we have
the ability to make games more sophisticated, dynamic, detailed, complex
and exciting. They can include cinematic and epic cut-scenes (which
would be awesome to have in Zelda)

We already have those in Zelda. As said earlier, the only difference is blood and gore.

What is with your obsession with blood and gore? And no, we haven't had proper epic cutscenes. That skydive in the trailer is the only evidence of any proper cinematic action.
There were a few near the end of TP but I think they can do more.

GhostAnime wrote:

and they could offer more that the
standard combat style that we've been using for 10+ years.

I don't understand what you mean by 'standard'? Zelda practically invented the action/adventure combat style.

By standard I mean the same basic lock on, strafe, attack combat mechanism that has been present in all home console zelda games since OoT.

GhostAnime wrote:

Are
you just trying to pretend you don't understand what I mean or
are you
actually that stupid? I've explained it clearly enough.

My point is that it's a fictional video game. It's not real. of course the effects aren't going to have plants and animals spit out blood. Not every game necessarily has to have that.

I already know that it's a fictional game. Why do you keep saying it?
I never say that anything should spit out blood. This is all coming from you.

GhostAnime wrote:If this is your problem with Zelda and fictional video games in general, then you should stay away from them, but there's a reason why they sell more or just as much as the games you listed.

I don't have this problem with fictional videogames in general. I keep saying that all videogames are fictional and they can still be realistic. You are definitely ignoring me now.

GhostAnime wrote:

OoT is not considered "mature". What makes
it mature?

By the consensus it pretty much is (also one of the most revered games of all time). It has one of the more mature storylines, and if I give away the ending, you'd be spoiled, but let's just say you do stab things in bad places.

OoT is one of the more mature Zelda games, along with TP and the gameboy ones, but its still kind of a kids game.

GhostAnime wrote:

then explain how I still love Kirby games.

It's called being a hypocrite.

Are you saying that I'm not allowed to like more than one type of game or I'm a hypocrite? Kirby is suited to being childish and light-hearted. Zelda, I think, should be more mature and realistic.

GhostAnime wrote:

No, its the conventional
boss battle script they use for most Zelda
games (and Metroid Prime
games) that has become repetitive,
predictable, boring and
unimaginative.

Compared to the mature games you've listed where you just shoot and aim at a person? You can make any series' boss battles seem unimaginitive (especially if it's too easy).

Now, you're saying that ALL boss's are bad and you're saying that therefore, the ones in Zelda are fine. In the games that I mentioned, there's far more to it than just "shoot and aim".
For example, in MGS3, one of the bosses is a professional sniper who you have to track and locate in a dense jungle using various different means from his footprints to the shine of his scope.
That is imaginative.

Are you saying that there's nothing wrong with the boss's in Zelda? That can't be true.

Tell me if you disagree that they are predictable and repetitive?

GhostAnime wrote:That's pretty much all you do in Metal Gear Solid anyway.

What is?

GhostAnime wrote:You can make fun of Kirby's boss battles.

But I won't because I really like them.

GhostAnime wrote:Same for Metroid, Mario, Zelda, Prince of Persia; I can go on for years here. The style of boss battles change from game to game but they're always the same for them (it's hard to change up the formula too much to be perfectly honest).

Yes, they're always the same and I'd like them to be different and imaginative. If you think hard enough, it's easy to make an original boss battle. I'll think of one if you want.

GhostAnime wrote:I think considering that you haven't played Zelda much, it's hard for you to judge.

Who told you that?? I HAVE LISTED the Zelda game that I have played before!! Why do you want to annoy me by ignoring the things I've said?

LOZ (NES)
Zelda 2
Links Awakening
Link to the Past
Minish Cap
OoT
Wind Waker
Twilight Princess
Phantom Hourglass

is that enough??

GhostAnime wrote:Your description would fit more of the N64 Zeldas, but the other Zeldas (especially the later ones) have involved the background as part of the battle too, or things around you.

Yes, some of the boss's involve using your surroundings such as using bombs that you find on the floor. The big exception is the boss in the temple of time in TP which uses the spinner but that boss was rubbish anyway.


If you choose to ignore all my points and explanations a third time, I might just give up.

I also made the point that Zelda would benefit from a change.
Suggesting a good and reasonable course of change in something from a
fans viewpoint is only a good thing.

How do you truly know it'll benefit, though?

Please tell me, why do you keep bringing up "blood and gore" in
your arguments? You were the first to suggest it and I only agreed,
saying that the appropriate amount of it would make the game more
enjoyable as I described.

I bring it up because it's pretty much the only thing you're asking for (fine, dim lights and dark environments aren't what you are suggesting).

But so far, once you get down to it, that's the ONLY difference we've found in terms of overall effects and atmosphere. Wy would that would make the game more enjoyable for you? can you tell me why exactly? why is blood and gore important in a game that emphasis exploration.. ?

Again, I'll use Metal Gear as an example of a fictional
franchise that is taken very seriously and has a very large fan base and
is mostly very realistic and very mature.

It has a fanbase mostly because of its storyline and characters; hardly because it has blood in it, or 'mature' settings, or anything of the sort. Btw, it may be fictional, but it's hardly a fantasy action adventure game. It's still not comparable to Zelda. Things comparable to Zelda would be something like Devil May Cry, or Prince of Persia. Maybe even Kingdom Hearts. Those are the games you may be wanting to use (btw two of those franchises are actually very successful even without taking the things you've mentioned).

"The only difference is blood and gore." No, that's
not the only difference. You are only thinking in extremes. I said that
I didn't want cartoony combat effects and you think that it must mean
that I want extreme amounts of gore.
4. "Fantasy effects" can include
blood effects. Monsters presumably have blood.

Tell me other fantasy effects you want then because blood and gore is pretty much all you mentioned. If you don't want me to keep mentioning it then please suggest something else. How else can you change the effects of Zelda in a way that it would still fit as a fantasy action adventure game?

Yes, I know it's a fictional videogame. WHAT IS YOUR POINT? Just because
it's fictional doesn't mean that you need to have things in it that
dont make sense.

So fantasy games that are fiction are always supposed to make sense? Honestly, what fiction video game DOES make sense? Do any of these monsters exist anyway? Is there actually a guy in Metal Gear Solid that runs around in Alaska without a shirt on? Is there actually a penguin with a hammer in Kirby? No game makes sense, and saying that it has characters that don't make sense is a redundant argument and has little to do with being 'childish'. Video games don't make sense. This isn't news.

Modern games dont look like N64 games any more and for a reason (as I
said before) which is that the technology has got better and gamers are
wanting more from games.
I didn't know that "gun" is a genre of game.
Uncharted 2 and MGS4 are action adventure games, especially Uncharted
2.
Which "two" games are you talking about? Don't answer that, you'll
end up confusing yourself.

Gun isn't a genre; fine, but these games are still not comparable to Zelda. Zelda doesn't use stealth (a lot), or modern weapons in today's time. It's an old-school fantasy action adventure game.

Modern games don't look like games of 10 years ago? Well market wise yes, but mature games were definitely huge 10 years ago as much as they are today. 10 years ago you still had Resident Evil, Half-Life, MGS, Ocarina of Time (honestly, it should have been rated T from my experiences in the game), Goldeneye 007; there were plenty of mature games in the market. I'm just saying this isn't some new evolution that gamers are specifically asking for. non-mature games have sold just fine; in fact, you could argue they have sold more despite gamers actually getting older.

And no, we haven't had proper epic cutscenes. That skydive in the
trailer is the only evidence of any proper cinematic action.
There
were a few near the end of TP but I think they can do more.

There are epicly long cutscenes in 3D Zelda games in general. They may not have long speaking scenes (although they were a lot of those in TP and there's no reason to assume SS won't have them), but maybe you can tell me the differences specifically? I've played all four main MGS games just so you know.

By standard I mean the same basic lock on, strafe, attack combat
mechanism that has been present in all home console zelda games since
OoT.

What would you prefer? It works doesn't it? They have changed it from time to time of course.. what more could you do, though?

Are you saying that I'm not allowed to like more than one type of game
or I'm a hypocrite? Kirby is suited to being childish and light-hearted.
Zelda, I think, should be more mature and realistic.

But... why? Why can't Kirby be under that same scrutiny? You say Kirby is more suited to being childish and light-hearted.. I also remember saying Zelda is more suited (and by 'more suited' we probably really mean 'that's the appeal/the way it's always been for its fans) to be a simple fantasy action game with elements of realism and fantasy having a good mixture. Sometimes leaning heavily after every other game or so.

For example, in MGS3, one of the bosses is a professional sniper who you
have to track and locate in a dense jungle using various different
means from his footprints to the shine of his scope.
That is
imaginative.

I was thinking about listing cool Zelda boss fights here but then I thought it would be pointless, because the games are just too different to compare. MGS does have better boss fights than Zelda.. but that's because MGS is a stealth action game. This sounds more like you saying you don't like fantasy action/adventure boss fights in general. Kirby suffers from the same problem you mentioned as do Mario games, Kingdom Hearts games, Prince of Persia games, etc. They are games that depend on close combat and using various methods for new boss fights each time (even though they're usually ordinarily done). There truly is nothing you can do about that.. although Zelda isn't really one to focus on boss fights in terms of appeal, but I can see your point here at least.

If you think hard enough, it's easy to make an original boss battle.
I'll think of one if you want.

Let's see what you come up with, then.

Skipped some things because I want to minimize post length. I think I responded to at least relevant major points.