@CriticKitten
Just going to directly quote, since this layering would get confusing otherwise.
"You clearly haven't read my recent posts at all. I encourage you to do so, as I've already addressed this point to death."
No, I haven't. I didn't feel the need to read over 200 posts for background to respond to one of yours.
"He's pulled the same routine before. He always picks the dumbest of the bunch to serve as his representative sample. He didn't address a single valid point from the VALID hecklers."
Of course he did. You expected a representitive sample? He's not hosting a debate, he's making a point. I don't hear him arguing about polite and well-reasoned hecklers, do you?
"First, and perhaps least importantly, the items are not obtained "in the exact same order".
Please restrain yourself to quoting things I actually said. It's hard for me to take your rebuttal seriously when you're responding to something I didn't say. What I did say was "roughly the same points", not "in the exact same order".
"And even if the order were identical, how is this a valid argument for why the games are "the same" exactly? They use a similar order for items, so all other changes to the game are meaningless?"
Strangely, I never made that case either. You've not only made my argument a strawman, but you've used only a fraction of my argument and are saying it should be the basis for the whole thing. Shall I tell you that your argument is invalid because the inclusion of the beetle is not enough to make the game different from Twilight Princess? No, because that's not the only point you made, and it would be grossly unfair. I'd appreciate you doing me the same courtesy.
"Secondly, the Beetle is functionally a lot different than the Boomerang. The Beetle is primarily an exploration and item retriver. And it becomes even more strategically useful as an item retriever and bomb/beehive dispenser later in the game for some very useful and amusing applications."
So let's see...it's used in order to collect items from far away, and to reach spaces and attack enemies other items can't. The boomerang, on the other hand, is used to collect items from far away, and to reach spaces and attack enemies that other items can't. I'm not saying that it's the same, since you brought up other ways the beetle is used, merely that it fulfills the same role; boomerang 2.0, as it were. To put it another way, what can the boomerang do that the beetle can't?
"Third, that has to be the most generic summary of any plot ever written. By the same token, every Diablo game is exactly the same plot-wise, because you play a hero who seeks to kill Diablo. Also, Star Wars movies are all the same, because they feature Jedi trying to defeat evildoers who are almost always Sith or connected to the Sith. And I can continue to sample similarly stupid examples until you get the point, if you'd like. But I hope you get the idea so I won't have to."
You only gave two examples (your condescenion is appreciated, by the way) of how generic such a comparison was, ostensibly because you didn't think it was necessary for me to get the idea. For the same reason, I didn't see the need to give a half-dozen examples to support every claim I made, because I assumed you'd get the GIST of my argument. In any case:
Non-human assistant giving directions
Link becomes a hero because it's his destiny
Zelda lost/kidnapped/trapped
Link must visit a series of temples as part of a quest
Link meets main villain early, but survives the encounter
Link must begin his quest in or around his home
Native species require Link's help to counteract presence of villain
Link has a strong emotional tie to his mount
etc.
I'm not saying they're the same, but I'm making the point that certain plot elements generally occur in each Zelda game.
"Fourth, I have to ask what exactly is "wrong" with the structure of dungeons that it merits a radical change of formula."
Nothing. I personally enjoy it. But I'm not making the case that it's a problem, merely that it is, in fact, similar in each game.
"Though I will say that you're wrong, multiple occasions have required being pretty creative to progress."
If I'd said I disagreed with that, I would be wrong. But I didn't, since I said something the effect of them having the "same basis", in that most rooms require you to hit a switch/switches or kill each enemy in the room to continue. Pervious Zelda games were not true to formula in every room either, even in games which came to extablish that formula, but the same elements were present in each game.
"Fifth, the core mechanics haven't changed? Exactly how deep are we talking when we refer to the "core mechanics", because you'd have to be ignoring a multitude of changes to claim such a thing. I've quoted it once before, but here it goes again. My friend's list of mechanical changes, with my additional comments in parentheses."
Looking over it, there are some things I agree with as being appreciable changes(stamina and upgrades) and some I don't (map [now a mix of compass and dungeon map] and hearts changes [more hearts, more damage, little difference]), but I'm not going case-by-case to address them all. Partially because they're mostly someone else's points, and also because I don't think we want to be trading back and forth a dozen extra points.
"What does that even MEAN? The plot is built the same as previous games, but it's also different from previous games? I think you knew what you meant to say, but it didn't come out right, because I can't make heads or tails of that. Please explain this."
The plot itself is different, but structurally, it is very similar. Ganon may not be the villain, but the new villain plays essentially the same role in the story, albeit somewhat more visibly. The temple-to-temple structure around which the plot is based is roughly the same. The way you gain access to each temple is also similar to previous iteration I'm not saying every piece of the plot is the same as in other games, with different characters and locations, but many serve a similar function.
"The "lie" is that SS is the same as OoT. This is not an opinion, this is a statement whose validity can be proven false....and has been on a multitude of occasions. Again, there is a difference between saying your opinion, and saying something that can be proven false. If I said "the sky is always orange", is that an opinion? No, it's a statement whose validity can be measured and tested. "This game is the same as a previous game", too, is not an opinion, it's validity can be tested....and has been proven false by every measure of the word. The only people who still believe that all Zelda games are exactly the same are the people who have no valid anti-Zelda argument to cling to."
I don't believe there's anyone seriously saying that they're the same game. People might cite similarities, even strong similarities, but no one but a moron would seriously claim that all Zelda games are exactly the same
"It's amazingly sad that I feel like I have to defend a franchise that I'm only even partially interested in. I won't touch Wind Waker or the handheld stuff, yet I'm being forced to defend the franchise like I was a full-on fanboi just to get the crazies who insist on calling these games "bad" to back off. It makes me want to take a shower. >_>"
*looks around* Hope you're not talking about me. I in no way inferred it was a bad game, or even offered a single scrap of criticism of my own.
