Something I haven't seen mentioned here yet - theme. Assassin's Creed is about a clash of civilisations and beliefs, or rather the futility and hypocrisy often apparent in that clash. A fascinating theme given serious treatment (if a little pretentious at times). In comparison Assassin's Creed 2 is a fairly light-hearted frolic around Renaissance Italy - no comparison. In thematic terms the first game is the much more coherent and worthy game.
" @Alex_V: Thats not the point though, the point is why are these people playing these crappy games, when they have a whole world of genuinely good games they could play? I'd love it if all of these people stopped playing Farmville and started playing some decent games. "
'My games better than your game'. All a bit pointless don't you think?
I think the reality is that the talent is actually going to be drawn towards the audience. Sid Meier is making games for Facebook now. More will follow. Maybe Farmville and the other facebook games seem a bit basic just now, but I think the games will evolve with the audience. I'm not sure your average Facebook gamer particularly wants to play Bayonetta or Bioshock 2 just yet, and maybe never will - for a start they need games they can dip into during their lunchbreak, not 15 hour epics.
In terms of users, games like Farmville totally overshadow most of console gaming. As do flash gaming sites like Miniclip for that matter.
I don't know why people get so defensive about it. It's hardly a threat to the 'hardcore gamer'. I think it's great that people are playing games of all different kinds.
In what specific ways would you like the game to revolutionize something? "
It's a turn of phrase rather than a demand as such. Maybe it will be wildly original - I'm only offering an opinion of what my impression is based on what I've seen. No game has to be revolutionary. As the third game in a series that has a fairly well-established style, both of play and presentation, it's highly unlikely that the game will stray too far from that formula - that's what tempers my excitement somewhat.
Wouldn't it be exciting if the game was revolutionary? To me, yes.
" I think it just looks absolutely certain to be very very good. But it's not going to be revolutionary. It's the sort of thing I will play but I'm not absolutely chomping at the bit for. "
I Don't understand why people expect every game to be revolutionary. "
Nobody does. But if it could be I would be more excited.
I think it just looks absolutely certain to be very very good. But it's not going to be revolutionary. It's the sort of thing I will play but I'm not absolutely chomping at the bit for.
I thought the original game was generally completely misinterpreted by many reviewers. Instead of accepting that it succeeded or failed on its own terms, they seemed to generally criticise it for not being a different game. I'm expecting the reviews for the sequel to run along very similar lines.
Remember what site you are talking about here. For all I know you were the one who added Zelda II (which even then was very different than what we think of as Zelda.) Wikipedia is not a valid source for this sort of arguement. Even on Wiki, Adventures is not refered to as an action RPG, but rather an Action Adventure, which is what I've been saying all along. Searching for either "RPG" or " Role playing" doesn't even muster a response on that page. The rest of this space you spend arguing that genres are unclear. Great, but that doesn't make Zelda an RPG. It just says that we shouldn't use genres all together. Not a compelling arguement towards the point you are trying to make. In the end, all you need to know is that on the Nintendo website, the Zelda games are listed either as Action or Action Adventure. From the original, through Link to the Past, on to Ocarina of Time and ending at Twilight Princess.
The fact is that games where you inhabit a role in a fictional place used to be the exception rather than the norm.
Uh, what? Mario? Zelda? Metroid? Metal Gear? Final Fantasy? Sonic? That statement is face-palmingly wrong. Maybe in the end an RPG has to have stats. Could also be that you have to have a party. Whatever it is though, Zelda, Assassin's Creed, and Grand Theft Auto are not RPGs. "
If we want to be pedantic about 'role-playing' it is something you do naturally with virtually any game you play. The paddle in PONG becomes your avatar, and you are role-playing a scene involving a virtual tennis match. But in a broader sense, I think there is a distinction between popular games where you are just represented by a pretty graphic onscreen (Pac-Man, Donkey Kong, Sonic etc) - these games totally dominated the pre-Zelda gamespace. Outside of text adventures, games where the character that you played was an important decision-making part of the story (Zelda, Ultima, Wizardry etc) were rare or considered weird niche products. When the first Zelda came out it spoke to a generation of players because they felt a connection to the character, or at least the decisions they were allowed to take in their adventure - that's why the game is seen as a classic. Whether or not we class it as an RPG or an action-adventure, the concept of actively playing a key role within a game story is definitely present.
Looking at Gamespot's genre definitions, it seems they label Zelda games as RPGs up to Ocarina of Time, where they become action adventures. As I concede, there is very little difference between the two. Put 'Zelda RPG' into google and you come up with a swathe of links all referring to Zelda games as RPGs.
As you rightly indicate, it seems that modern Zelda games are much more likely to be described as adventure games these days. For practical purposes I wouldn't disagree, because I don't see much value in the distinction anymore. All the classic features of RPGs are now integral features of most games - the levelling or the 'maths' may not be displayed onscreen, but this is how the games work internally regardless.
Can you link me to a place where your definitive definition of an RPG is described? The one where levelling and experience have to be present? Would be interesting to read and react to.
Log in to comment