ID:An IGN editor claims that opinions are facts and that his coworkers are hypocrites

[SugarCoat]

Whaaaa!? You know the exact same thing can be said for Zelda and games of it's type.

Anyhow, I'm not sure how long you've spent with GeOW but it's not just another pretty looking shooter; Resistance may fall into that category, but definitely not Gears. What makes Gears "Game of the Year" worthy is that it PLAYS differently from almost every other shooter out there. This is a game that focuses on tactical maneuvering and close quarters combat. I haven't played Zelda:TP, but I definitely would have given Gears the nod over Okami.

Twilight Princess is in a league of its own. Not many games mirror Zelda well, and few have, i personally cant think of any off the top of my head.

I wasnt suggesting that Twilight Princess deserves any nods either, i'm exactly 24 hours into the game, about 3/4 done, and its simply been one of the biggest worlds they've ever attempted so far, and its definitly had some moments that were ripped straight from previous zelda games, but theres quite a bit new as well. My judgement over a game like this doesnt come until a few days after, when it sinks in. Like a good book it has to have excellent characters, plot, and story for the whole thing to stick even after you've completed it.

Gears never struck me as evolutionary or memorable in any way for its genre. I dont agree with all the acclaim it gets for the same reasons i think Halo is overhyped as well as Doom 3.

 

[Inquisitive_Idiot]

The only problem I have with Matt's comments are that he tried to pass his opinion of as fact. Why he would make such unprofessional comments about an award based on people’s opinion is beyond me! He may like Zelda better than Okami, but that does not mean everybody else will agree with him. His coworkers sounded a bit arrogant, so you can see where some of his frustrations may have come from, but that does not give him the right to use fan mail as a stage to launch a rant about the validity of their opinions.

I still have yet to fully play Zelda: Twilight Princess (Only the first five to fifteen minutes and the final boss), but from what little I have played it seemed like a pretty solid game. If I had to choose my personal Game of The Year right now I would probably go with Gears of War. Gears blew me out of my seat in a year that has been filled with some pretty awesome games. The overall package is something to be marveled, from graphics to sound and gameplay Gears has it all for me. Seriously though, I would probably nominate Gears just for the Chainsaw Bayonet alone

 

[Dregun]

Not to poke fun at any particular group but why is it that unless it says "Mario, Zelda or Metroid" in its title no matter how many variations of it their are its just the "same ol" thing? GOW is just another FPS with pretty graphics, and what...Zelda isn't just another Zelda game with prettier graphics? Mario isn't just another Mario game with prettier graphics, metroid isn't just another Metroid with prettier graphics?

Its "All hail Nintendo" when it comes to franchises, and they are the KING of franchises...Pokemon? What GOW did with FPS is no different then what Zelda did with another Zelda game, try to improve on the genre. Did anyone ever stop to think that the other editors of IGN are just as sick of another Zelda game as the Zelda fans are sick of thinking of another FPS? This is what has been killing me about Nintendo for the last 15 years, I grew out of Mario, Zelda and Metroid once I hit puberty and could frankly care less about any other game variation with those characters ever again.

Okami deserved the award just for NOT being Zelda, at least the FFX games change characters, worlds and engage in a story that doesnt seem manifested from a 12yr old childs daydreams. Why try and debunk the success of one game only to praise another for doing the EXACT same thing your rallying against? When I hear the comparisons made about how FPS's are all similar and then hear how great a Metroid, Zelda, Mario or heaven forbid Pokemon are it really makes me wonder who are the real fanatics.

The editor was no better then the person who wrote in with his complaint; they presumed their opinion was the only one that mattered because they are fanatic about a game. We can't expect everyone to agree with what we say but we shouldn't bash people because they have an opinion of their own.

Dregun (and thats just my opinion).

 

[doob]

I think i wouldn't express myself that well, i share u'r thoughts Dregun.

 

[Bohdy]

I grew out of Mario, Zelda and Metroid once I hit puberty and could frankly care less about any other game variation with those characters ever again.

I always find statements like that amusing. Some of us don't grow out of quality games, nor do we feel that something has to be new to be good.

 

[doob]

I don't think he meant to imply that the way you presented. And im sure he didn't mean or thinks new = good. But it has an indirect relation.
It's just that franchises already marketed several times are allot more limited in terms of headroom to maintain the quality previous titles had, mainly in terms of story. How many times can you present the plot of some intriguing key factor of a main character/hero that adds emotional feelings and/or value/feature to a product? Not many of them, unless you want some type of (not the best example) Dragon Ball/pokemon product where the next serie has a new evolution after evolution, and ends itself in a loop routine because the basic starting plot cannot lead to anything else!
Thats one simple example that will limit the freedom and originality to keep things interesting to the consumer/gamer.

 

[Fox5]

I'd have understood his ranting is gears won (stupid graphics....mumble mumble grumble), but it's rather hypocritical of Matt to complain about Okami winning. Whether or not it's a better game, it's at least a fresh experience. Zelda is the least changed of all Nintendo series since its inception, I don't care how good something is if I'm having it for the thirteenth time.

 

[SugarCoat]

I'd have understood his ranting is gears won (stupid graphics....mumble mumble grumble), but it's rather hypocritical of Matt to complain about Okami winning. Whether or not it's a better game, it's at least a fresh experience. Zelda is the least changed of all Nintendo series since its inception, I don't care how good something is if I'm having it for the thirteenth time.

not even pizza?

 

[Dregun]

This is what has been killing me about Nintendo for the last 15 years, I grew out of Mario, Zelda and Metroid once I hit puberty and could frankly care less about any other game variation with those characters ever again

To clarify what I was trying to convey was that around that time I was bored with Mario, Zelda and Metroid. I had the NES when it came out, I had every Mario game that was released on the NES. I also had the SNES and yet again had just about EVERY mario game released on it as well (Mario Kart anyone) and when the N64 came out I was pretty much Mario and Zelda out because I played them soooo much in the past I got sick of them. I saved the Princess fought ALL the Koopas's, wore all the suits and rode Yoshi enough to call him my bitch! So when I say "once I hit puberty" it was just shortly after the SNES hit that I had enough of Mario and the rest of the Nintendo Franchises.

I can't say I didn't enjoy the games in the past and I have attempted to play them again on my computer or when my cousins visit with the GBA and DS. After all this time the memories I had/have of those games are better left as memories because each time I try and revisit those games I want to gouge my eyes out and its not just Nintendo games or franchises.


Dregun

 

[ZoinKs!]

Not bad, but overhyped.

CliffyB said that when Halo1 came out it kind of frustrated him. He did not understand what the big deal was because overall it did not do things all that different from what PC FPS games were already offering. Gears is sort of Epic's revenge for that.

Similarly now, from a PC FPS gamers perspective Gears is not as fresh as it is for everyone else. I've heard the same feedback from many PC gamers - they don't see what the big deal is. And especially for fans of Epic's FPS games. If the game was released as a PC only game it probably would have been received differently.

It's still a good game. But I don't think it can be compared with a Zelda. The scope and amout of design work that went into it is just not the same. It's like comparing the Great Wall of China to the Sydney Opera House.

I'm a pc gamer (only console I've ever owned is a non-functional atari 2600 picked up at a flea market) who's played lots of fps and I agree with this assessment. It matches my opinion exactly.

Gears is a good game with great graphics.

But revolutionary? Fresh? Groundbreaking? Game of the Year? No, no, no, and no.

 

[baten]

Not having played Gears, it's dfficult for me to asses, but I played Okami and l think it's not a bad choice for goty, although I would rather go for FFXII as the better game, just like EDGE did.

 

[dobwal]

I'm a pc gamer (only console I've ever owned is a non-functional atari 2600 picked up at a flea market) who's played lots of fps and I agree with this assessment. It matches my opinion exactly.

Gears is a good game with great graphics.

But revolutionary? Fresh? Groundbreaking? Game of the Year? No, no, no, and no.

In your eyes and maybe in the PC world, no, but in the field for which Gears is targeting, yes.

 

[scooby_dooby]

Gears is a good game with great graphics.

But revolutionary? Fresh? Groundbreaking? Game of the Year? No, no, no, and no.

What PC game ever gave an experience like Gears? And I'm talking gameplay.

It's certainly fresh, and I don't believe anyone is calling it revolutionary or groundbreaking. Okami is the only title that could possibly justify those adjectives. Game of the year, I dunno, I don't think it was that good, but if you love the multiplayer I could see how you could give it that honor.

Gears is evolutionary, nothing more nothing less, it is a large forward step in the evolution of the 3rd person shooter. This elitist PC gamer mentality annoys me, there had never been anything quite like gears on any platform, including the PC.

 

[fearsomepirate]

Zelda is the least changed of all Nintendo series since its inception

I submit that the latest iterations of Fire Emblem, Famicom Wars, Warioware, F-Zero, MarioKart, Mario Party, Mario Golf, Mario Tennis, and Star Fox all resemble their original inspirations in terms of core gameplay far more than Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess resembles the original Legend of Zelda, where the resemblence is mostly in aesthetics rather than gameplay.

 

[Fox5]

I submit that the latest iterations of Fire Emblem, Famicom Wars, Warioware, F-Zero, MarioKart, Mario Party, Mario Golf, Mario Tennis, and Star Fox all resemble their original inspirations in terms of core gameplay far more than Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess resembles the original Legend of Zelda, where the resemblence is mostly in aesthetics rather than gameplay.

Let's see...
Fire Emblem : Ok, very unchanged, but it's not really a relevant series in the US, it didn't even exist here until recently.

Famicom Wars: Certainly Battalion Wars is nothing like the old games.

Warioware: The premise of the game is practically innovation, though the concept may be the same for all, I'd be hard pressed to say the wario wares play like each other.

F-Zero: True, it is still a high speed racing game.

Mario Kart: True, it is still a brightly colored cart racing game.

Mario Party: Technically this is made by Hudson and not Nintendo, but yeah, hasn't been changed much. Not a classic Nintendo series though, or at least it wasn't back at Mario Party 4, maybe it's now considered classic Nintendo now that it's at 8.

Mario Golf and Mario Tennis have had 3 entries each, and 1 handheld of each, I'm not sure if I'd call it a series, but yeah, it's kind of hard to innovate while copying something well established. I guess they're as much of a series as madden.

Starfox: I wish we had another classic shooter, this series has been all over the place. Definitely not unchanged.

I would say that Zelda's graphical style is very different from the classic 2d adventures, but the gameplay and concept are almost unchanged. The same holds true for Metal Gear Solid, or at least the first 2, never played the 3rd.

 

[ZoinKs!]

In your eyes and maybe in the PC world, no, but in the field for which Gears is targeting, yes.

If that really is true, then it's a sad, sad commentary on the state of console games... or at least the shooter genre segment of console games.

What PC game ever gave an experience like Gears? And I'm talking gameplay.

It's certainly fresh, and I don't believe anyone is calling it revolutionary or groundbreaking. Okami is the only title that could possibly justify those adjectives. Game of the year, I dunno, I don't think it was that good, but if you love the multiplayer I could see how you could give it that honor.

Gears is evolutionary, nothing more nothing less, it is a large forward step in the evolution of the 3rd person shooter. This elitist PC gamer mentality annoys me, there had never been anything quite like gears on any platform, including the PC.

The main gameplay step forward of Gears is the use of cover. CliffyB mentions in the manual that the old circle strafing paradigm is really silly and doesn't reflect a real firefight at all. So a main goal in Gears development was to come up with new gameplay. But then I played the game and found that I've already been there, done that.

In Red Orchestra, for example, use of cover is key to winning and survival. The old circle strafe methods don't work well, if at all.

The one and only new gameplay feature in Gears, which I hadn't already been playing for years on the PC, is the ability to fire without aiming when still in cover. Well, that flying frisbee blade gun from Unreal Tournament about half a decade ago or so alllowed firing from cover, too. So maybe that one doesn't count, either.

 

[baten]

The one and only new gameplay feature in Gears, which I hadn't already been playing for years on the PC, is the ability to fire without aiming when still in cover. Well, that flying frisbee blade gun from Unreal Tournament about half a decade ago or so alllowed firing from cover, too. So maybe that one doesn't count, either.

The said feature has been excellently done in kill.switch - AFAIK it was also released on PC.

 

[Gubbi]

In Red Orchestra, for example, use of cover is key to winning and survival. The old circle strafe methods don't work well, if at all.

So Gears is no better than Red Orchestra ?

Are you insane?

Cheers

 

[dobwal]

If that really is true, then it's a sad, sad commentary on the state of console games... or at least the shooter genre segment of console games.

No its not. The PC world has games with similar features but none offer the same experience. Furthermore, Gears' popularity has the potential of pushing those features into the mainstream, which is something that didn't happen with Red Orch or Kill switch. There is nothing revolutionary about your feature even if its new if it is not adopted by the genre and becomes a generally used feature.

The main gameplay step forward of Gears is the use of cover. CliffyB mentions in the manual that the old circle strafing paradigm is really silly and doesn't reflect a real firefight at all. So a main goal in Gears development was to come up with new gameplay. But then I played the game and found that I've already been there, done that.

In Red Orchestra, for example, use of cover is key to winning and survival. The old circle strafe methods don't work well, if at all.

The one and only new gameplay feature in Gears, which I hadn't already been playing for years on the PC, is the ability to fire without aiming when still in cover. Well, that flying frisbee blade gun from Unreal Tournament about half a decade ago or so alllowed firing from cover, too. So maybe that one doesn't count, either.

The main gameplay step forward is the dependence on the use of cover and lots of movement by both parties, the player as well as the cpu AI. Only the slow and heavily armored Boomers stand out in the open moving slowly forward.

The general action of the cpu AI is to make heavy use of movement and cover, constantly moving in any of the 8 directions and providing more dynamic battles. Most other FPS simply have their AI take cover and then use that cover until you kill them no matter how long it takes for that to happen. Most PC games have AI who will flank you, but they won't fight their way from cover to cover while performing such a manuever.

The fact that the designers put virtually tons of cover promotes the unique gameplay that exist in Gears. Gears plays more like a game of paintball then its does the average PC or console FPS/shooter.

 

[dlm]

I submit that the latest iterations of Fire Emblem, Famicom Wars, Warioware, F-Zero, MarioKart, Mario Party, Mario Golf, Mario Tennis, and Star Fox all resemble their original inspirations in terms of core gameplay far more than Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess resembles the original Legend of Zelda, where the resemblence is mostly in aesthetics rather than gameplay.

First off, if you're going to talk about differences in Zelda, you're doing the comparison the wrong way. The are a few recognized really major milestones in the Zelda timeline in terms of changes:
- The original Zelda
- LTTP (mostly because it solidified the formula)
- Ocarina of Time

OoT translated the game very successfully from 2D to 3D. It cemented the 3D Action/Adventure as a viable genre. Though in terms of plot, link's abilities, enemies, and even a lot of bosses, not a lot really changed. WindWaker was OoT again in pretty much every sense.

I haven't played Twilight Princess, so I'm asking this seriously. What do you consider to be the revolutionary changes between OoT/WW and Twilight Princess?