Well,you cold say that Halo,like FF7 just came at the right time for the right system.Zelda did too(the last scream of a dying system).That´s the main reason anyone still talks about.None of them had been bad,but it´s not like any of them was innovative at any point.Ash2X
Well someone could say that yes, but I wouldn't agree with that. FF7 was a pretty interesting reworking of the traditional FF formula. I am not a fan of the series or of JRPGs in general, but it took the series in a new direction that is still influencing it today. Zelda has always been a system-seller for Nintendo, not just for the dying N64, and it is because the gameplay is so remarkable. It was remarkable for a system which wasn't dying as well as for one which was.
Everyone still treats them like that,but thats because they don´t have much of a clue,or just too young to know.Ash2X
I am 36 years old. My first system was the Magnavox Odyssey, released in the early '70s. I have been playing games almost non-stop from that time. I don't think I was too young to count my impression of the various Zelda games as remarkably high based on what I had seen up to that time on consoles. And each new Zelda game up to the N64 brands also seemed to push things forward in significant ways. I can't say that for the Zelda games on the Gamecube, but I can say it for Zelda games up to that point on every system except for the CD-i.
A self-regenerating health-bar,the same plain old stuff (including the stupid puzzles)in 3D or nice looking 2D backgrounds and a bunch of cutscenes aren´t a revolution to me...they are all just hyped to death,ignoring that a bunch of much better games came out before.It always happens and I don´t blame people for overhyping anymore.But I think that commercial success is a reason to hype a game and treat other games like they don´t exist.Ash2X
Not every game that has heavy post-hype built on it was a commercial success. How do you explain games like Psychonauts? Eternal Darkness?
But this isn't supposed to be about hype per se, but quality. Zelda and Metroid were two series that changed the way I viewed gaming back in the '80s. Up to that time, home consoles were largely just trying to emulate arcade experiences with just a few exceptions (such as Adventure on the Atari 2600). I purchased the NES primarily because it was a system that looked stellar in comparison with graphics and sound in arcades, but I quickly realized with Zelda and Metroid that it was capable of an experience that both the arcades and other consoles couldn't reasonably provide. I had a lot of expectations with each new Zelda game, and none of them up to the Gamecube failed to meet them. In fact, it was Ocarina of Time that showed me how a good classic series could be remarkably translated into the 3D-space. Its level of polish was so high and its realization of a 3D world was so accessible, that I wouldn't be able to call it anything other than revolutionary.
The reason why Halo whould still work is simple: It´s a good FPS and PC-Freaks with a console love FPS.While Zelda is totally stuck in his formula for too many years FPS didn´t go further much,but they did thanks to graphical improvements.Ash2X
This is a prime example of what I was saying above -- if graphical improvements are what you were after, then Ocarina of Time was clearly a superior presentation to the Zelda formula up to that point. It wasn't just graphical improvements though. The game served as an overall blueprint for other games in the action-adventure genre to make the transition to 3D.
Don´t get me wrong,I don´t say that FPS are better but at least they changed.Zelda for example is almost the last real classic Action-Adventure and I respect it for that,but I usually don´t like the old ones (I love newer with a motivating EXP-system,Okami was a exeption,that was totally unique) that much.Of course it depends on personal taste,but giving people that same thing again and again without making anything really new and still getting hyped as a revolution sounds like pretty stupid to me.Ash2X
I think what is coming out of this is that you are a classic FPS fan and not a classic action-adventure fan. Nothing wrong with that per se, but you've allowed it to cloud your judgement here significantly to the point that you haven't been able to make a fair comparison. It isn't just that you accuse the series of not advancing that leads me to say this, but that you accuse the system of not being viable today -- as if it wouldn't be a sellable gaming formula if it didn't have the Zelda name attached.
Notice how you have been comparing a single series, namely Zelda, against the whole of the FPS genre, not just Halo, without recognizing outside of a last-minute mention that action-adventure games are their own genre, and that Zelda has been an almost consistent standards-bearer for that genre. If "Zelda" doesn't work today without the name, then much of what we know as action-adventure doesn't work today. In your mind, maybe this seems true, but not all of us are in your mind. Zelda has been a standards-bearer for that genre, but it is certainly not the only game in the genre. It isn't just "hype" that drives action-adventure gamers to buy Zelda games, as if they were somehow more prone to hype than FPS fans are and thus (as you are implying) that part of their brains which is able to discern quality shuts off when they see the "Zelda" name. It is the consistent quality of the games in the Zelda series that keep it viable.
Let me give you some of my honest perspective as someone who sees things somewhat the opposite of you as far as personal tastes go. I can completely admit that I am not a fan of FPS with a few exceptions that relate to your exceptions listed in the action-adventure world, but I don't allow that to cloud my judgement into thinking that Halo 3 is an overrated game or that Halo is an overrated series. Halo clearly hit a nerve among gamers, so much so that many were willing to BUY A SYSTEM just for that game and/or its sequel alone.It's a polished game, and it likely deserves the praise heaped on it, my generalized disinterest in the genre aside. If I came on a list today and said "Halo 3 wouldn't work as a game without the Halo named attached to it", I would expect knowledgeableforumites to consider that to be an absurd statement and counter me on it.
Log in to comment