There is a site I like to visit by the name of ActionButton.net. You might have read the story Kotaku ran about them where they gave BioShock a lower-than-industry-standard score. I happen to think they are brilliant, which will probably make some of you (most of you) instantly think they are bad. But hear me out. For starters, they're at the very least great to read. They are witty, extremely well-written and delve into areas of game-critiquing that would make the average GameSpot reviewer wet his pants. I like to think they have played more and know more about games than those same people, too. To top it off, they only review games they want to (not necessarily game they like) and you can be absolutely certain that they are being completely honest.
Actually talking about the thread now
To paraphrase their front page, because of the sheer amount of hatemail they get regarding the games they hate they have decided to create what they call the Action Button Dot Net Manifesto. A list of what they consider the 25 best games of all time, for them to use as a counter-arguement against any claims of unwarrented hatred. Unlike most game sites they are not doing this for filler material between game news, games do not get on the list because of how important they were, how revolutionary they were or how great everything but the gameplay is. To be on the list the game has to meet this criteria:
[quote][The game must] possess a clean aesthetic, self-assured graphical and sonic presentation, streamlined mechanics, and common-sensical level designSo you can at least look at it as 25 games you probably should play if you give a crap at all about video games. They have been counting down the list 3 at a time twice a week and now they have finally reached number one. Because I'm nice, I will list 25-2 here. Because I'm a bastard, I'll force you to go to the site itself to read #1.
25. Castlevania Bloodlines
24. Spartan: Total Warrior
23. Monster Hunter Portable 2nd G
22. Secret of Evermore
21. Dragon Quest V
20. Breath of Fire V: Dragon Quarter
19. The Lost Vikings
18. Metroid Prime
17. Winning Eleven 7
16. Outrun 2
15. Doom
14. Ikaruga / Bangai-O Spirits (alternate)
13. Panzer Dragoon Zwei
12. Katamari Damacy
11. Shadow of the Colossus
10. Metal Gear Solid 3 (yes, Big Boss, this is actually worth looking at now!)
9. Chrono Trigger
8. Cave Story
7. Street Fighter III: Third Strike
6. Gears of War
5. Pac-Man Championship Edition
4. Mother 3
3. Half-Life 2
2. Super Mario Bros 3
And [URL="http://www.actionbutton.net/?p=385"]here[/URL] you can find the Manifesto page, where you can navigate to the #1 greatest game of all time. A game that every review on the list has been building up to and pointing to in some way or another.
[quote]24. Spartan: Total Warrior
Stopped caring about the list right there.
I'm expecting about three more of those.
Stopped caring when Gears of War was mentioned, and even more so when Xenogears didn't even make the list. Not to mention I detest the guy's writing style.
No Super Metroid? **** this ****.
Metroid Prime? **** this ****.
Indeed, opinions different to the norm. Imagine that.
Seems like they went almost out of their way to be different than the norm.
That is generally the assumption made when an opinion is different to the norm. Consider that video games are really quite new and that the average review is carried out by a fanboyish, illiterate, tastleless manchild and it's really not all that hard to believe. It's not supposed to be a "we are right and everyone else is wrong" list. It's supposed to be examples that fit their ideals of a good game. It's quite rare, I find, that something like that is quantified in such a sane and down-to-earth manner and is presented well and even humerously at the same time.
Like I said, this isn't IGN filler material or something you see on MSN Today. It's something worth reading from start to finish, even if there is a significant danger of your mind being changed on at least a single, minor point. Instead of being repulsed by the sometimes bizarre choices I encourage you guys to let it tempt your curiosity and maybe discover quite why they came to that conclusion, even if you don't agree.
They are definitely funny at times, but every review (yes, including MGS3's) boils down to a glorification of why they love or hate something with analogies that are more entertaining to read than a successfully accurate proof of their points. It seems like they do their best to cram every game into this impossibly shaped frame of what each game is supposed to be, even if such standards are ones only they give a f[color=yellowgreen]uck about, far removed from the complicated nature of what games truly are. Breaking down what every great game should be in a sentence, no matter how adjective-filled it is, is a misrepresentation of the many ways a videogame is awesome. Then again, any list needs a certain criteria, no matter how fundamentally simplified, to educate readers on how the writers came up with it in the first place. Surely no better or worse than the numerous award features found on other sites.
However, at least their reviews are an example of dedication, interestingly written masses of text, which should elicit the most extreme of fanboys to forcibly be fully against or in favor of the reviewer. If you want to read a review that almost guarantees will make your eyes glow with agreement or your ears spit out steam in anger, then that place seems as good as any. Well, at least until you realize if any game reviewer of a major site had more time to play, think and write about a game, they would end up with a similar opinionated essay.[/color]
These guys have jobs, they do this freelance. I don't see why typical game site writers can't do the same with either their own websites or blogs or any article that their website's backhanders aren't relying on. They have ample oppertunity, these guys had the balls to get out there and do it.
I just utterly refuse to believe that so many game critics could come together and announce Twilight Princess as the best game of all time for a while and ignore the game's obvious flaws. Even in 1up and Gamespot's review they demonstrated a shocking lack of understanding of what exactly made the game suck, flailing around blaming things like unreadable signs and samey gameplay. Maybe I'm just impressionable, too young and naive, or maybe I'm impossibly scientifically minded for a subject like this; but I like to think things like "common sensical level design" and "satisfying, streamlined gameplay mechanics" are absolutely, irrefutably necessary ideals for any game designer. And that we shouldn't ignore these obvious universal truths purely because video games are new and the idea that someone knowing anything about them this early in is just far too unlikely.
I'm envious of the fact that he played mother 3.
In Japanese. And knew enough Japanese to appreciate the sentence structure.
"hey guys were gonna give a list about good games, then not give a number one, THEN spend fifty pages *****ing about how kojima's work makes no sense."
...right.
I read it. There were few points that I agreed with, but for the most part it sounded like a rant of an anti-pop douchebag who didn't place things into context and is also the advocate of stories not being the primary focus of games (when some people actually enjoy a good game with a story, or even a story with a good game). Sounds like the kind of stuff you'd hear from a critic, not a gamer without bias.
Oh, and Gears and Metroid Prime do not deserve to be on that list, upon first look.
LoS' post pretty much sums up my thoughts.
I thought it was stupid. Not because I'm a rabid MGS fan, as there was some stuff I agreed with. Even I can point out the flaws MGS has. But, really? They must reeeally hate MGS4 to hype up this feature so long so they can LET ALL THEIR ANGER AND HATE OUT LOL
As far as the list goes, I didn't really agree with it, either. >_> I do think though, that at least one of the Metroid Prime titles are worthy of being on such a list. The lack of any Zelda games made me lol, since some of them have been some of the most groundbreaking games in history. :cookie: And if we're not talking about the revolutionary business, they're still brilliant, amazing games. Majora's Mask was perfection.
AND AM I THE ONLY ONE WHO BLOODY THINKS THAT SUPER MARIO WORLD IS SO MUCH BETTER THAN SMB3?!
I think Yoshi's Island is better than any other Mario game created.
So Super Mario Bros. 3 is #1. Ok, I'll go with that, but I will not stand for Breath of Fire V to be on that list. Out of all the games in the BoF series, that one completely killed it off. This is not a great list, and I bet he said Mother 3 instead of 2 just so the majority reading this couldn't put up a protest. In 2 months I'll be able to play Mother 3 in Japanese, and if it's not as good as 2 I'm sending hate mail, possibly in Japanese.
No Mario 64? **** their standards.
Well, it technically is, since their "Number one" was "Not MGS4". So of the 24 games they presented, SMB3 was the best.
And I looove Yoshi's Island. I used to think it was a lot better than all the Mario games (and it still mostly is), but I do wish they made Yoshi's Island as big as SMW in terms of levels and secrets.
Being a person who does not define himself on whether he did or did not like Metal Gear Solid 4, it seems like a cheap shot to surprise me with an article telling me what I should think about a game when I have not collected my own thoughts on the subject in months. Thankfully, the article is so incredibly long, I was able to fully recall my experiences and reactions before he really even got into the meat of what he was saying, so as to not blindly accept or reject the views I was presented with.
I don't know that the story is really as bad as he or anyone else says (the things everyone else complain about make perfect sense to me), but the story-telling is definitely a giant screw-up. No need to repeat what I and everyone else has said about that.
A whole paragraph about how much it bothers you that no one knows how to fry an egg? If there's one thing that I hate about critics giving a negative review, it's how they take the opportunity to degrade the game in all ways possible by pointing and laughing at whatever minute non sequitur they can scrounge up, using it at the game's expense regardless of whether it really deserves to be judged on that point. Jim here blows it even more out of proportion by insinuating that the lack of egg-frying knowledge between these characters is a statement made by Hideo Kojima that he is better than us. Anyway, in film (which those segments were trying to be), a director is allowed to create any situation he wants to serve his purposes, no matter how unlikely or unrealistic it may be; no one was on Shakespeare's case for using ridiculous things like drugs that make you look like you're dead for two days only to have you wake up fine, or poisons that kill some characters instantly and others after forty plus lines. Kojima is allowed to decide that neither Otacon, Snake or Sunny knows how to prepare eggs as a means to create his situation; whether or not that situation is a valid and successful device for the story is the only question worth asking. Perhaps I'm being hypocritical by taking that small section of his review and writing what will no doubt be the longest paragraph of my post about it, but as far as a comment on that trend in reviewing goes, there you have it.
More than anything, I guess I'd have to say that I agree most when he says MGS4 is a bad game because it was not a great game (although I don't know that he considered it as defining a remark as I do). It's like it built the framework of a great game - good gameplay, mechanics, story, structure, etc - and only bothered to fill on some of the margins, leaving so much of it just a dull, monotonous and repetitive drag that we often think is good because it looks like it should be good. Sure, lots of games are like that and we accept them as good enough, but that's because they're not Metal Gear Solid games, and as is the trend with just about every last game in a series these days, MGS4 was not good enough to satisfy the standard set by those that came before.
And, uh, yeah, although I can appreciate that everyone has their own personal reasons for liking a game regardless of what public opinion may be, I can't help but think that list is a bit ****ed.
99% of the criticism here is indicative of failing to read matters that the site has addressed numerous times. Not that I'd blame any of you, there must be 20,000 words to read there in the manifesto alone, I actually refuse to believe anyone read all of it in one night. In hindsight the list is horribly offensive to those of you (all of you (all of us)) who already have an idea of what the best games of all time are. I and a few others had the benefit of reading the other reviews before the manifesto started and wondering which games they did actually like. Perhaps I should have posted this a few weeks earlier so you could've has that inside perspective.
Maian: Anyway, there's no doubt in my mind that Yoshi's Island meets the criteria for a 4/4 game (there are 4/4 games that didn't make it to the list); the level, graphics and sound design is easily as good as Mario 3's. It just lacks the finely tuned handling of the game that gives it the extra depth, it literally did away with it entirely. A running jump in Yoshi's Island will never be as satisfying as in Mario 3 and I figure he thinks that is important for a platforming action game.
For the record, he does like Zelda and does happen to think that Majora's Mask is the best one. He's even gone on record as saying that the series is hands down the most polished video game series of all time. I think it's even more interesting that no Zelda game is on the list despite that statement. I figure the main reason is how it basically trains obsessive compulsive disorder in it's players (let's cut EVERY bush and bomb EVERY wall and dig in EVERY SINGLE TILE because there might be SECRETS).
Fate: He is an advocate of story not being the primary focus of all games because, frankly, why should it be? It's not that he doesn't appreciate story, if you read any of the RPG reviews it would seem he cares more about them than perhaps any of us do. He's just not stupid enough to assume that a game can be great by having a brilliant story and nothing else.
Gears and Prime totally deserve to be on that list (maybe not your list) because they not only meet the criteria exactly but they are also brilliant examples of meeting that criteria. Their presentation is through the roof, the mechanics are satisfyingly slick, the level design encourages clever use of those mechanics while still making absolutely perfect sense and the entire time you know what you are doing and why.
Iron Koala: Seriously though, Breath of Fire V sounds like a totally awesome game. It sounds like the reason you don't think it should be there is because how it's nothing like the others. Which is exactly like saying it's not good because it has the wrong title.
Linko: There was no doubt in my mind, even before reading the ABDN review, that Kojima did not want to make MGS4. The signs were everywhere. He wanted to give up directing the series, he said he has no affection for it, he had no idea what to do with the story, he wanted to do something completely new all along. It's no surprise that it doesn't hold up when he didn't have any passion for it. For the record 2/4 stars is a good score by ABDN's standards, they say if anyone manages to get over a single star they deserve congratulations. I think it's kind of unfair to say that they singled out and ridiculed one small point for no good reason, his point was that the characters are fairly inhuman and unbelievable. Your Shakespear analogy doesn't mention unbelievable characters at all. It's a legitimate complaint to make that a fully-trained raw snake-eating ranger doesn't know how to fry an egg, or would let a 6 year old take his cigarrette after killing a thousand people all day.
It's a shame I'm not 5 different people, no one's going to read this despite me taking the time to read everyone else's.
I understand that this is a mechanics/presentation list and I've understood that from the very beginning. I disagree, only because I feel there are better games not even TOUCHED in this list.
For the record, Speedy, a text-based game is still a game and it is not less of a game than other titles. Some people really do like to play stories! People like me, who like a healthy merger of the two, would disagree with what people like you like to classify as a game.
Gonna leave this as a double post for a while so increase the chances of anyone actually reading it.
I didn't post this so I could look down upon all of your ideas of a good game, safe behind my billion-word thick, inpenetrable wall of reason written by other people; though I admit that's a typically jacka[COLOR=lightgreen]s[/COLOR]s type of thing I'm liable to do when online. I posted it because I know that there are people here that are genuinely very interested in games. And that it might be good for them, as it was for me, to read an opinion that's completely different from the norm yet very well constructed, thought-out and explained. Not to imply that you'll end up thinking like them or me, or that either of those are the right way to think, but I actually disagreed with maybe 80% of the reviews on that site. I carried on reading anyway, because it was a d[COLOR=lightgreen]a[/COLOR]mn sight more interesting and entertaining than yet another "IGN's top 100 games you'd expect to see on a top 100 games list". Eventually it got to a point where I started to see the cracks in my own arguements formed mostly of narrow-mindedness and nostalgia after reading the reviews of guys who quite literally don't care about nostalgia, fear change or any kind or feel any affection for any of the major hardware producers and software publishers, past or present. So I'm passing it on, because I wouldn't dream of keeping something I think is this good to myself.
Fate, it is not a list of games with the best mechanics and presentation. It's a list of games they think are great all over, and they've gone to great lengths to explain exactly why.
There are some things about your post that are pretty offensive. First, you have come to the conclusion that they don't care about story, a read through the Chrono Trigger review would address that. I actually can't imagine what you did read to form that conclusion since in any game with a story they talk about it at great length. Secondly, you then lumped me in with that ignorance-fueled impression of them and implied that I wouldn't classify a text-adventure as a game. I've never said that and I don't think it, and neither do Action Button. It seems your defensiveness has created a false impression of the list and of myself, which is frustrating to say the least.
Eh, I can see why SMB3 would make it onto the list as opposed to Yoshi's Island. The thing that I'm confused about is why this site, and the vast majority of people think SMB3 is a better game than SMW. :(
Well...like Yoshi's Island, the physics just aren't there in Super Mario World. Go play it now and see, really. Besides that, Yoshi's Island is a hell of a lot more polished, SMW was rushed to launch. There's also the fairly unnecessary billions of branching paths and the inferior warp zone. I like to think SMB3 had better graphics, too. Chunkier, crazier, more unique.
[COLOR="Yellow"]Alright so, taking a quick glimpse at the list, i felt inclined to reply with the expected disagreement of the games picked. After all, seeing games like Gears of War and Spartan: Total Warrior rank so high on a list of the best games ever made seems out place based on the typical "criteria" for rating games nowadays. So instead of quickly replying with "Cave Story?! Whaaaat?!", i went to the site, read their review on Shadow of the Colossus and i was pleasantly surprised by their creativity. It was such an enjoyable article to read, that i started reading more. And although i still disagree with 95% of their list (which in turn, can only mean i disagree with at least some of their opinions), it doesn't matter because the point of creating this thread (i think) was to bring to light a website with opinions that differ from the norm. Hopefully to encourage gamers to seek out and embrace even more sites with different points of views.
I agree that IGN and Gamespot don't do a good enough job of putting out well written and thought out articles. Their reviews are simple, uninspiring and at times it feels like they rush out things just to have a new article for the day. Yes, the gaming industry is still an infant compared to T.V or music, and that may be why our journalists seem so young and inexperienced compared to theirs. But that doesn't mean there aren't talented writers out there with "better" input and/understanding of both the gaming industry and games in general, it just means they haven't found. That's why sites like these need to be given a chance, rather than just accept what we already have. Just a thought.
Though i still think their pick for #1, or not picking a #1 game was pretty gay.[/COLOR]
I laugh uproariously. I'll leave it at that.
[quote=Fate;878782][COLOR=skyblue]You said earlier that the guy did care about story and I understood that from his own text, but didn't believe that a story should drive a game. I mentioned text-based games because, well, they ARE games. So a game pretty much driven by a story is less of a game? Thanks for reading.[/COLOR] :/
[COLOR=skyblue]And I know you a little more personally on the subject of games and mechanics than to make a jab at just what you say here. Try to keep that in mind when we post in public forums with each other, okay?[/COLOR] :cool:
Did he actually say that a story shouldn't drive a game? I don't really remember that, and it sounds kind of bizarre considering how he valiantly defended MGS4s long cutscenes. Keep in mind there's more than one writer on the site, and their opinions differ greatly. One of them gave FFVII 0/4 (in a hilarious review I suggest anyone not enamoured with the game to take a look at, I might add) whilst another gave it 4/4.
The fact that we talk off the boards about games is what got me offended!
Aioros: You pretty much have it. Though it wasn't just to post a site I had found that was different, it's because it's different and extremely good. They've put concepts into words that I've been wrestling with in the back of my mind for ages, it's actually made the way I think about games a lot clearer. I couldn't not share something this enlightening.
I don't know how to cook eggs. :/
Doesn't that sort of solidify his point that you'd have to be a real fan of MGS to explain away something that, on the face of it, is a pretty weird scene? You pulled up some real encyclopedic, Rain Man s[COLOR=lightgreen]h[/COLOR]it there.
I don't think reading one of their negative reviews of a game you haven't played is a bad idea, to be honest. I never really wanted to play FFVII because of what I could already tell I didn't like combined with the incoherent, arrogant, eternal beams of praise shining down on it that just pushed me further away. But after having read the, again, hilarious review that handed it 0/4 stars I feel more comfortable with the idea that the game might prove someone who can laugh about it wrong, rather than someone who super [COLOR=lightgreen]fu[/COLOR]cking seriously tells you it's the greatest game ever made.
In any case, thanks for validating the thread with a genuine intelligent reply. VGC needs more of this kind of discussion instead of the bulls[COLOR=lightgreen]h[/COLOR]it the first few posts in this thread spat out.
[quote=Speedfreak;878717]
Iron Koala: Seriously though, Breath of Fire V sounds like a totally awesome game. It sounds like the reason you don't think it should be there is because how it's nothing like the others. Which is exactly like saying it's not good because it has the wrong title.
It shouldn't be there because it sucked in comparison to the rest of the series (specifically BoF III,) in story and gameplay, but my main reason is the dreaded Dragon percentage. I remember 2 reviews that had went into great detail about it, which I didn't really need since I already hated it.
What I think: Dragon Quarter was an experiemental game that had revised the Arc the Lad battle engine for its own, adding a limitation that discouraged turning into a dragon; it was so discouraging that it actually was safer for a player to never use it until the end of the game, which is just silly considering it's not really obvious where the end will be. It was a stupid guestamation limitation that forced players to save a lot incase of over using the dragon power, since raising the percentage couldn't be rolled back. I perferr being able to see the pretty Dragon Power graphics whenever. I have nothing against a limitation feature, just that one created unneeded regrets.
well here is my opinion of this thread
ACTUALLY YOU HAVE TO CLICK [URL="http://www.vgchat.com/showthread.php?p=878918#post878918"]THIS LINK TO FIND OUT WHAT MY OPINION IS[/URL]
I figure I'm not trying to pick the scene apart since I haven't actually seen it and don't feel strongly about the title one way or the other (people tell me it's good, including ABDN, and I do actually want to get MGS3 before the year is out, but then I don't have a PS3 which kind of makes me not give a fuck). But, honestly, Otacon does look like someone who could cook an egg. It's not difficult, and he does know a lot about engineering and computers, I figure he knows enough about thermodynamics and the basic manly need for eggs for breakfast to at least experiment with egg cookery. He'd have to be pretty self-sufficient to get educated in all this stuff and get a job building WMDs anyway. So he has the ability and the drive to learn how to cook eggs. All that remains is whether or not he has the desire to cook an egg. Does he like eggs? Maybe you can answer that.
Not that this would put me off the game anyway. It's the Twilight Princess level of fanservice, bad ending and the series' trademark mental dialogue that would bother me, but if I owned the console I'd still probably get it.
By the way, Big Boss?
I can answer that for him, I'm sure, since I asked him about it.
He says that the first playthrough with OoT was amazing, nearly unsurpassed. The replayability was **** to him, though, so [from my understanding] he didn't play it much after that. He played Master Quest but still felt the original was where it was at and his play through that game stuck with him as a masterpiece.
I played through OoT a lot of times and liked subsequent playthroughs, but he didn't. That Majora's Mask reference was for me, since I think MM is better than OoT.
Nahh, I remember him saying that like 2 years ago (really, those exact words) to either just me or a bunch of us saying MM was better.
I don't buy the explanation, a lot of s[COLOR=lightgreen]h[/COLOR]it was really cool when we were 11-15. I totally thought OoT was not only the best Zelda but also better than everything, which was easy to believe in since that's what all the magazines and websites told us and that's what we told them back when they put up polls. Maybe OoT was a better sequel, a better game to give the fans everything they liked about ALttP, which is obviously going to jack up that nostalgia factor.
But looking at Majora's Mask, judging it on what it actually did as a standalone game rather than how much it satisfied our preteen Zelda fetish puts it in a different light.
Link to the past will always be my favorite. SNES has taken my soul.
Were we trying to decide which of the two Zelda games was the better Zelda earlier? They were both pretty good, and both could go on this oh-so-important list.
Compliments to the over-anaylsis of a minor scene in Metal Gear.
And before I forget: Have you played Dragon Quarter, Speedy? I'm curious to hear what you would have to say about that game after playing it for hours. That game just seems like something you would rip on.
Majora's Mask is my favorite game ever made. :cookie:
I will agree that OOT is brilliant, but I find, with many others, that it doesn't really have much replay value to me. =/ I can't really explain why. I replay Majora's Mask at least once a year, though.
Just to throw it out there, Carlos hasn't played Link to the Past. Or Link's Awakening.
this "carlos" sure sounds like a faggot.
Strip him of his Video Game Makers License To Make Games because *** **** both those games rock.
I have not played Dragon Quarter, but it is my ambition to play every game on that list. Dragon Quarter and MGS3 are on my Christmas wishlist.
Tell him to play Link's Awakening, it's easily got some of the best level design of any Zelda. Doesn't really matter that he hasn't played those games, though. OoT was my first Zelda and I was totally caught up in the hype.
Like me but less violent, he doesn't like handhelds. He'll never play it, I can say that for certain. :)
Kind of sad, considering the handhelds are the best consoles this gen.
To that, he would laugh at you and politely disagree.
I'd just laugh. *shrug*
[quote=Fate;879205][COLOR=skyblue]Like me but less violent, he doesn't like handhelds. He'll never play it, I can say that for certain.[/COLOR] :)
OH WHAT A FAGGOT. Tell him to play it on PC with a friggin' USB pad or something. Jesus Christ, the amount of amazing games he's missing.
...Technically, he could say the same to you. :cool:
I think once a month I have to come here and correct my dear Fate. I used to hate handhelds, because I stopped caring for them after the Game Boy Color came out. I have a GBA and GBA SP, but games like Castlevania: Circle of the Moon and Final Fantasy Tactics Advance just didn't hook me. Some of my fondest gaming memories come from handhelds though, like Super Mario Land and The Bugs Bunny Crazy Castle. When I bought my PSP, I'd only play it every once in a while for GTA and the Mega Man remakes (You're not a Mega Man fan unless you invest time in Mega Man: Powered Up, by the way). However, earlier this year I got hooked on Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney on the DS (ironically, a port of a Japanese GBA game), and realized what I had been missing. The DS is a great system, mostly because it feeds my crave for quality adventure games. I also keep my PSP for the console experience on the go/whenever Fate is hogging the TV. In fact, Phoenix Wright: Trials and Tribulations is one of my favorite games of all time. Still, I don't know what it would take for me to play a black-and-white 8-bit Zelda game... I'm kind of tired of the series.
As for The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, it's my favorite Zelda game ever, even if it doesn't age as well as other Zelda games I've played. My first playthrough of the game was amazing, unlike any other Zelda game I've played... but I can't play the game a second time without getting bored. On the other hand, the original The Legend of Zelda on NES has aged very gracefully, yet the game didn't grab me when I played it as a kid, nor when I grew up and played it several times as I got older. The game is just good enough to be fun, but not great. It's like Tetris. I'll never go, "OMG, DID YOU SEE HOW I JUST CLEARED THAT LINE!? I AM AFFECTED DEEPLY, AND WILL NEVER FORGET THIS!!," yet the game is good enough to stand the test of time and remain enjoyable.
And I think Majora's Mask is fundamentally broken. The slap in the face I get every 72 hours when I see the people I saved back to the same problems they had before took away any sense of accomplishment I felt when doing their quests. Having them "checked out" in my time-proof notebook didn't make me feel much better. As a result, I grew to care less about the doomed Termina city the more I played, and only finished it so I would never have a reason to come back to it. Heck, when I first bought the game on the day it came out, I played for three days and then put the game away for a year and a half, because I couldn't stand it. It was the complete opposite of (partly) why Okami is so awesome. The more you save and complete, the better the world around you is, both aesthetically and interactively. In MM, the gameplay was just interesting enough that it warranted a playthrough from me, and good enough that it sits just above that Link's Adventure NES dud. I wouldn't consider MM "the best of" anything positive.
EDIT: Play Link's Awakening, emulate that shit.
I can see why that'd annoy you if you have a need for a constant, unchangable reminder of your accomplishments. Myself, I always enjoyed seeing a character I had helped once before go about as if I never met him, in a "I know that guy, I know his story" kind of way. That was the reward for helping him out, even if it was saddening (different to unsatisfying, I figure!) that I knew I could never help him permanently. It was poignant that Link was the hero through having this obvious disconnect to the world. If I had to name the single moment that OoT could never live up to it was the final 6 minutes of the third day, where you can see townspeople in panic, denial and accepting of their fate while you are utterly irrelevent to their plight. You could stand under that moon and travel back seconds before impact as an act of defiance, as proof that you don't fear it and will conquer it.
If you want something more concrete, take a look at the world and dungeons even if you didn't like the time aspect of it. OoT is barren, hyrule field is only enjoyable when you remember it was probaly the first 3D thing you ever explored in a videogame. I mean for fuck's sake, we had to duck roll for like 3 minutes to get across the damn thing. Death mountain is little more than a winding path, there is nothing in the Goron City. Majora is smaller, but every nook and cranny is filled with character, there's no wasted space. And take a look at the dungeons, the last 3 in Majora had central mechanics that turned the dungeons themselves into puzzles. They were spoky, bizarre and actually interesting. In OoT we had to suffer tedious shit like dodongo's cavern, the deku tree and the shadow temple.
Number 1 has been revealed!
It is Another World (Out of This World in the US and Outer World in Japan)
It seems to have been released on pretty much everything in the 90s, is the work of a single man and has inspired Japanese designers like Shinji Mikami (Resident Evil), Goichi Suda (Killer 7), Fumita Ueda (Shadow of the Colossus) and Hideo Kojima (Boktai). [spoiler]lol[/spoiler]
Worth a look, I figure.
Review here: http://www.actionbutton.net/?p=431
Download here: http://www.anotherworld.fr/anotherworld_uk/telechargement.htm
Majora's Mask did pretty much everything right, in my opinion. There's just something...I love about it. I guess I'm with Speedy in the sense that even though the characters forget everything, it's cool knowing everything about them. One of the most important things to me in a video game is the world and atmosphere. Even when compared to most of today's games, it's miles ahead.
Every character, EVERY character had a story. Every single character you could speak to was his own, distinct character. Even if they don't have an entry in the notebook and you don't do anything for them, they still have a routine in clock town and you know what their purpose is wen they're doing whatever they're doing. They had names and lives, it was so awesome. I can remember the name of probably every single NPC in Majora's Mask (At least, the ones that had names) and be able to tell who they are. OOT? I remember like, two.
And not only was every single person, Zora, Goron, and Hylian alike fleshed out, the land was too. Like Speedy said, OOT's environments were big and unique for the time, but that was also the first dose ever of a free roam 3D world. Of course it's gonna feel good. But sooo many parts of OOT's world were so...plain. Goron City and Zora's Domain alike have pretty much nothing to do, Hyrule Field is a giant, plain field, Death Mountain is a path, the Lost Woods is a giant square grid. Everything in MM just felt so woven into the world that even if it was similar to OOT in terms of simplicity, it was much more fleshed out. I still get chills when I go to Ikana Canyon. The haunting music, the bloodstained history, the looming Stone Tower, the very original architecture, and the strange few people who still live there make Ikana, to me, one of the greatest video game locations ever made. I personally love Ikana, but every other place in Termina was as well. In OOT, Goron City, Zora's Domain, Castle Town, etc, they were just spots on the map. It was like, "Go across Hyrule Field and now you're in Goron City!" All four parts of Termina's map were all very distinct, with the races who live in them interwoven into the area, instead of it just being their "city". Each area suffered from some problem that was making the land and people suffer. In the end, it was just phenomenal to me.
Since Majora's Mask, there's still been no game that's ever been able to even get close to measuring up to the world Majora's Mask gave me. Even subsequent Zeldas couldn't live up. I'll give Wind Waker an honorable mention, though. Twilight Princess was a joke in these terms. I've played all kinds of games that have their own world, and nothing can compare. THAT is why Majora's Mask is my favorite game.
I don't know why I made this long elaborate post to say that, especially since it's not even really an argument. I just felt like saying it. :cool:
[quote=maian;879911]I don't know why I made this long elaborate post to say that, especially since it's not even really an argument. I just felt like saying it. :cool:
VGC would be better if people did that more often.
If by better you mean in the ****ter, then yes. Some people say very little with a lot of words, which I'm not going to mention any names. I for one am not interested in going to hell and back with a person over a dispute about preference, which is what a lot of long posts tend to be about.
"I like it because I like it" is short and sweet.
"My thesis about MGS being overrated" bitter and boring.
Maian:
Majora's Mask is pretty good. I have my reasons. ****, I wrote a lot.
:cool:
I read their Super Mario Bros. 3 and Doom reviews.
The Doom review, for the most part, spoke to me. I was one of those "ten-year-olds" being impressed by this excellent, "free" diabolical shooter; and when I played the game again on XBLA, it was actually more fun than I remembered. I even played Doom again before that on Doom 3 for the Xbox, and I never got tired of it. It's always been one of the best games ever, but that's hardly a revelation.
On the other hand, the Super Mario Bros. 3 review was another abdn example of going way, way, way off on what is truthfully a minor "feature" of the game that most players didn't even use, and probably wasn't even an intended "feature" of the game in the first place. Though, by reading the review, you'd think Mr. Rogers was right there under the sink when Mr. Miyamoto was shi[color=yellowgreen]tting curry and vocally designing the game. Talking to friends about what new discoveries were found in SMB3 is as much a feature of itself as it is researching WWII history in the hopes of understanding the "deep" characterizations and events in Call of Duty because that was the first WWII game you played. The excitement of finding out random secrets about games came way before SMB3, and all we can do is assume, reach out with our long fingers and wild imaginations that it was the intention of Miyamoto to deterministically create a social experience out of a platformer. Certainly the design of Zelda and Mario games, in which Miyamoto still has the most important of says, definitely don't indicate that. But now, much like the reviewer, I'm merely speculating.
Not that I disagree with SMB3 being one of the best games ever, and Mario handling as well as if I mind-controlled him with one of those fake PS9 brain-rape devices is certainly true. However, it feels like the social experiment he tries to tie with SMB3 is more a result of his very personal experience, as opposed to the reality of the game's success as an entertainment product.[/color]
[quote=Big Boss;880153][FONT=trebuchet ms][COLOR=yellowgreen]entertainment product.[/COLOR][/FONT]this is what a video game is
*** **** it they do not warrant huge essays. Especially games I have never heard of.
Deposit a list of all your likes and dislikes and leave forever, you ignorant, soulsucking bastards you.
[quote=Big Boss;880153][FONT=trebuchet ms][COLOR=yellowgreen]I read their Super Mario Bros. 3 and Doom reviews.
The Doom review, for the most part, spoke to me. I was one of those "ten-year-olds" being impressed by this excellent, "free" diabolical shooter; and when I played the game again on XBLA, it was actually more fun than I remembered. I even played Doom again before that on Doom 3 for the Xbox, and I never got tired of it. It's always been one of the best games ever, but that's hardly a revelation.
On the other hand, the Super Mario Bros. 3 review was another abdn example of going way, way, way off on what is truthfully a minor "feature" of the game that most players didn't even use, and probably wasn't even an intended "feature" of the game in the first place. Though, by reading the review, you'd think Mr. Rogers was right there under the sink when Mr. Miyamoto was shi[COLOR=yellowgreen]t[/COLOR]ting curry and vocally designing the game. Talking to friends about what new discoveries were found in SMB3 is as much a feature of itself as it is researching WWII history in the hopes of understanding the "deep" characterizations and events in Call of Duty because that was the first WWII game you played. The excitement of finding out random secrets about games came way before SMB3, and all we can do is assume, reach out with our long fingers and wild imaginations that it was the intention of Miyamoto to deterministically create a social experience out of a platformer. Certainly the design of Zelda and Mario games, in which Miyamoto still has the most important of says, definitely don't indicate that. But now, much like the reviewer, I'm merely speculating.
Not that I disagree with SMB3 being one of the best games ever, and Mario handling as well as if I mind-controlled him with one of those fake PS9 brain-rape devices is certainly true. However, it feels like the social experiment he tries to tie with SMB3 is more a result of his very personal experience, as opposed to the reality of the game's success as an entertainment product.[/COLOR][/FONT]
He did actually specifically talk about one game at great length that Miyamoto mentioned playing that was all about the lore. Can't be bothered to find the title but it involves a tower and a bunch of treasures hidden in utterly illogical places on every floor. I don't doubt that that was his personal experience, it was never why I liked it; but there's no doubt in my mind that lore-trading was completely intentional, regardless of whether it was in the design doc from the start or not. It's not like he didn't go into pretty amazing detail about the delicious physics and brilliant level design, anyway.