ZerodMikestar post=6.72328.755912 said:
wow no, maybe I'll give you Sunshine over Mario 64 (and definitely galaxy over it)
but Twilight Princess over Ocarina of Time?...that's just ever so slightly categorically incorrect. there's an equation that proves it and everything
it goes along the lines of:
Ocarina = better than Twilight Princess. Simple. It had you as a bloody wolf for half the game and borrowed pretty much everything from Ocarina of time. eegads
rant over
funny chat today yahtzee, always hilarious calling children c*nts because they ARE
And if I bothered to, every single quote like this as well, so nothing personal, quoted guy:
I am prone to replay 1-player games. Take, for instance, Civilization, or Pokemon, or final fantasy n<14. If I felt like replaying any given Zelda game, they would be, in this order, TP, WW, OoT, LttP, PH (I haven't played/don't care about the others). Similarly, for Mario, they would be Galaxy, then Sunshine, then 64.
Why?
Good question. The answer lies in the point Yahtzee made and everyone who then whined about it missed: part of what made those games great was that they were the first to do what was in the later games. That's how time works. But if I wanted the Ocarina of Time experience, I'd play Twilight Princess, which does everything Oot does with better graphics and controls, more freedom in combat, and has the added wolf sections which, if I don't like them, do not actually take a long time. You HAD to be a wolf for about...5 extended periods of time or so. And all you had to do was collect little bugs, which I thought was fun, but for those who didn't, it shouldn't matter, because every single temple was still done in human form.
Similarly with Sunshine - the gameplay was cleaner than it was in 64, and all they did was tack on the water pistol, which, if you didn't like it, was often entirely unnecessary for more than half of the game. If that sounds familiar, you may have read the previous paragraph.
What I'm saying is that most games with sequels do not take anything out of the old game, but rather, just add more in. The experience is there, but so are some others being tried out to see how people like it.
In the case of sonic going 3d, it's understandable that people don't like the sequels because the actual intended gameplay is substantially different, not just the old stuff with better graphics and some new elements installed (which is what I hope Sonic Unleashed will be, though it may suck regardless).
So feel free to tell me why I'm wrong, but I probably won't care, because I do understand the hypnotic power Pokemon red and Mario 64 have over me, in that I think they're more amazing than I should think by today's standards.