-QuesoKirby-
Banned via Warnings
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2011
- Messages
- 114
Great quote!
-
Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
Legend of Zelda The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword - NO SPOILERS, USE THE SPOILER THREAD PLEASE
- Thread starter XACE-K
- Start date
MuraRengan
Banned via Warnings
LT, the point isn't to convince you to like stories because everyone else likes stories, the point is for you to acknowledge the importance of story because everyone likes it.
As for your argument about the reliance on cinematic storytelling, I think you're missing the point of how necessary cinematic storytelling is for the general public. Consider MM, your only example of interactive storytelling, then consider how many of the average fans understand the story told by it. Very few people actually understand what MM is about, and even fewer of them understand it without being told it directly. Hell, I still know people who actually think MM was a bad game. MM's storytelling, though amazing, is ineffective. The average player won't notice the plot subtleties that tie everythign in together, and they'll miss the entire point of the game. I, myself, didn't understand what MM was about after 3 playthroughs and I only really learned after reading Hylian Dan's article. While in theory, interactive storytelling may be a more wholesome storytelling device, it is only catered to the few players who will recognize those interactive storytelling techniques.
Cutscenes and other direct storytelling options remove that problem, and there's nothing wrong with it. There's nothing wrong with watching a series of events unfold for a minute or two. There's nothing wrong with direct divulgence of plot themes. The only thing that interactive storytelling does is to make the few players that understand it feel special and more intelligent by making the core plot theme hidden and exclusive of others. I mean really, how many people got 'the futility of omniscience' out of MM? Nobody, not even the people who do think they understand it. I even disagree with what your judgement of MM is, but that's beside the point. Direct storytelling is a much more accurate and effective means of conveying a plot.
As for LoZ, lets be real here. I wasn't born when LoZ came out, and I won't doubt its popularity, but judgements then about the quality of gaming were limited to the hardware and creative abilities of the past. All games on the NES were simple and gameplay only, because makers were still learning what their capacity for making games was. Players weren't looking for story because gameplay was a huge novelty. Only once gameplay became a given, as it was in future games, did players begin to need something more to sustain interest. That trend is seen with the first 3 games. LoZ was great, but who really cares about LoZII? The next big Zelda game came with LttP, which had, not only enhanced gameplay, but with an enhanced plot too.
As for your argument about the reliance on cinematic storytelling, I think you're missing the point of how necessary cinematic storytelling is for the general public. Consider MM, your only example of interactive storytelling, then consider how many of the average fans understand the story told by it. Very few people actually understand what MM is about, and even fewer of them understand it without being told it directly. Hell, I still know people who actually think MM was a bad game. MM's storytelling, though amazing, is ineffective. The average player won't notice the plot subtleties that tie everythign in together, and they'll miss the entire point of the game. I, myself, didn't understand what MM was about after 3 playthroughs and I only really learned after reading Hylian Dan's article. While in theory, interactive storytelling may be a more wholesome storytelling device, it is only catered to the few players who will recognize those interactive storytelling techniques.
Cutscenes and other direct storytelling options remove that problem, and there's nothing wrong with it. There's nothing wrong with watching a series of events unfold for a minute or two. There's nothing wrong with direct divulgence of plot themes. The only thing that interactive storytelling does is to make the few players that understand it feel special and more intelligent by making the core plot theme hidden and exclusive of others. I mean really, how many people got 'the futility of omniscience' out of MM? Nobody, not even the people who do think they understand it. I even disagree with what your judgement of MM is, but that's beside the point. Direct storytelling is a much more accurate and effective means of conveying a plot.
As for LoZ, lets be real here. I wasn't born when LoZ came out, and I won't doubt its popularity, but judgements then about the quality of gaming were limited to the hardware and creative abilities of the past. All games on the NES were simple and gameplay only, because makers were still learning what their capacity for making games was. Players weren't looking for story because gameplay was a huge novelty. Only once gameplay became a given, as it was in future games, did players begin to need something more to sustain interest. That trend is seen with the first 3 games. LoZ was great, but who really cares about LoZII? The next big Zelda game came with LttP, which had, not only enhanced gameplay, but with an enhanced plot too.
But not everyone likes it. Who plays Zelda for story? Those interested in the story. Others play it for the experience of gaming because it is primarily a video game. That is the first draw. Storytelling is not the immediate anchor for gaming and never will be.
The Real Gamer
Smash Hero
I sure as hell don't play Zelda for the repetitive, predictable plot...
/my 2 cents
/my 2 cents
theeboredone
Smash Legend
It's weird. I guess back when I was kid, I would acknowledge that gameplay mattered to me more than anything else. At the same time, OoT was my first Zelda experience, and I had little understanding of the story. Honestly, it was just a fun game for me (though I required a lot of help from an older friend...I just didn't understand some things.)
However, it was when I grew a bit older, and replaying OoT, I got to understand the subtleties of what was going on in the game, and I wanted more of it. That greed has never died, and I don't think Nintendo will ever give it. A guy can dream though.
However, it was when I grew a bit older, and replaying OoT, I got to understand the subtleties of what was going on in the game, and I wanted more of it. That greed has never died, and I don't think Nintendo will ever give it. A guy can dream though.
I see your point and all but I just disagree. A story or storytelling method isn't a failure if a stupid person doesn't understand it. I know many people love the film District 9, and most of these people fail to realize that it's a film about apartheid. Does that make District 9 a thematic failure? I don't think so. I just think it means that some people don't want to think deeper about things. There was an initial backlash against Majora's Mask, I believe, because people just wanted to play OoT 2 and when they got something radical instead they disregarded it.
Your solution to this problem seems to be to "dumb down" storytelling in games by making them something easier to digest for the average layman. There's nothing wrong with that mind you but video games will never blossom into a true art form when people are so attached to the status quo and resistant to experimentation. I'm just speaking from an idealist perspective. I know I may be coming across as some kind of classicist weirdo whose favorite game is Pong but it's just that I would love to see more games take risks.
The beauty of art is that there not a definite meaning to any one piece. It is the epitome of irrelevance if another player derives a different meaning (or no meaning at all) from a story/piece of art. I think it does one good to discard all extraneous things when analyzing. So, forget the fanbase, forget other players, forget the developers, forget Miyamoto, forget everything except the game. Then, you begin to see the game really take to life by your own interpretation. I'm sure many people would not agree with me that "MM is about the futility of omniscience" and I myself don't think the game is solely about that. However, that doesn't make my interpretation invalid, because I can support it with things that are in the game itself. You'll be surprised at the wide variety of different perspectives that different people can view a piece of art from. I once read a brilliant essay on the film Inception that claimed that at its heart the film was about homosexual longing. I definitely do not agree with that analysis, but the author did support his points with scenes and lines from the movie so I can't in good conscience call that interpretation wrong.
You could be right. It's hard to say either way, really. I just know that out of all my irl friends/family who love Zelda, the vast majority of them would not be able to recount the plot of any of those games beyond "the little elf guy goes through dungeons, uses items, kills monsters, kills Ganon, saves Zelda...and soemthing about a Triforce" When Zelda is brought up in discussion with most of these people, it's more often reminiscing about riding Epona across a giant Hyrule field in OoT/TP, coming across the haunted ghost ship for the first time in WW, the Ancient Cistern in SS, the Yeti's house in TP, etc. etc. I'm willing to concede that your general experience differs from mine though.
and oh yeah, I ****ing LOVE Zelda 2 for the record...and not out of nostalgia because I first played it like 2 years ago.
majora's mask and link's awakening don't follow this formula and are the best games in the series IMO
this is also true and it's something you lose a lot of the more heavy handed you go with dialogue and spoon feeding everything to the player, to me the best games are usually ones that leave a good amount to my own imagination as it is more personal, as well as being more immersive because you spend more of your time playing instead of watching and reading. to your point, here's another interpretation of MM that is quite different
http://www.zeldauniverse.net/articles/the-message-of-majoras-mask/
I wouldn't say either are wrong, it just goes to show that it's a versatile game that can mean different things to different people.
I don't have a problem with more cutscene oriented games, I'm a big fan of the metal gear solid series which is notorious for long cutscenes, but I think to discredit more minimalist games as being too confusing or "ineffective" is just silly, not every story needs to be so direct. yes a game like MM or ICO is going to be unappreciated by many of the people who play it, but these games are also very highly respected by those that do like them. not everything needs to be "appeal to the largest possible audience", otherwise we wouldn't even have zelda, we'd all be playing call of duty.
MuraRengan
Banned via Warnings
The term "everyone" was just a way for me to apply importance to story for Zelda as a franchise. That is to say, a large portion of why people play the game is because of the story.
And really, do you think Zelda's fanbase would be as big as it is if there wasn't a heavy emphasis on story? Do you think people would be content with going through temple after temple, using the same weapons over and over again, seeing the same bosses over and over again, etc without a story? To you think people would remain as interested in Zelda's repetitive gameplay formula without a fresh story to hold it down? I never said story was an immediate anchor, but immediacy does not imply superiority. Story may not be the first thing that attracts a player, but I'd argue that it's what keeps the player playing. [/QUOTE]
Perdictable plot eh? I'll challenge you on that.
Did you predict Hyrule being submerged under water? Did you predict the existence of the Twilight Realm? Did you predict that gathering the spiritual stones in OoT was part of Ganon's plan to manipulate you into helping him find the Triforce? Are you really saying that these things are predictable?
On the contrary, I think you're simply mixing up event structure with plot. A lot of people say that Zelda is predictable because of recurring enemies, items, and events, but all of those have very little to do with the plot. Sure, Link gets the Master Sword in a lot of the games, but that's not some major plot line, but making the Master Sword to combat Demise is, and it certainly isn;t somethign predictable.
MuraRengan
Banned via Warnings
Derp, didn't mean to double post.
I take exception to the idea that direct story telling is "watered down." I find nothign inherently more intelligent about direct storytelling as opposed to indirect storytelling. Initially, discovering the secrets about MM made me feel like a big boy with some secret knowledge that not everyone can get, but I got over that feeling because regardless of whether the story is told directly or not, the story is still the same. Even though I personally prefer MM's interactive form of storytelling, that doesn't make OoT's direct style a less intelligent or less meaningful form of storytelling.
I didn't call MM's storytelling a failure, I called it ineffective. MM's storyline works, it just doesn't work for most people. It's not a failure, it does its job, but the way it does its job doesn't identify with the way most people are accustomed to the job being done. Don't get me wrong, I consider MM to be the best game ever made by a very large margin, but I can understand why it's not recognized for how good it is, and it has to do with it's incredibly secretive themeing strategies.
I take exception to the idea that direct story telling is "watered down." I find nothign inherently more intelligent about direct storytelling as opposed to indirect storytelling. Initially, discovering the secrets about MM made me feel like a big boy with some secret knowledge that not everyone can get, but I got over that feeling because regardless of whether the story is told directly or not, the story is still the same. Even though I personally prefer MM's interactive form of storytelling, that doesn't make OoT's direct style a less intelligent or less meaningful form of storytelling.
speak for yourself, it is actually a very well appreciated game. it wasn't particularly popular when it first came out because it wasn't OoT2(TP was immediately assailed for being OoT 2.0, go figure), it had little hype coming out so quickly and being pitted against the PS2, and because being less direct it is something that takes more time to resonate with a lot of people...and the game is trippy as hell, it's a curveball from what you expect out of zelda and it was going to be less popular than OoT no matter how much they simplified the storytelling. people came around on it though and thanks to rerelease on the GC collectors disc and VC people that missed it the first time have been able to play it. the fact that it builds over time instead of hitting you with everything on the first playthrough is not objectively ineffective, on the contrary I think it's a nice change when you play a game that you can actually get more out of on replays where half the games in the series the story simply becomes an obstacle once you've beaten the game once.
you would have to drastically change the game to change this, it wouldn't even be the same and likely would be worse. and MM is a pretty well recognized game, I've seen it top several "favorite zelda game" polls on zelda sites and even won a game of the decade contest on gamefaqs. it is a bit off the beaten path for a zelda game but lets not treat it as being more niche than it is, majora's mask has a very solid following, it's hardly a black sheep of the series or anything and it's disingenuous to treat it as such
the actual process of writing the game isn't any more intelligent but it does make the player think more. especially a game that can be interpreted in a number of different ways like MM, though I wouldn't even say that it's strength is being more intelligent so much as being more personal, you can identify with a lot of different things in it instead of having one dominant theme that is just constantly fed to you.
being ambiguous and leaving some things up to the players can create intrigue, you run the risk of destroying a lot of this by being too direct. look at what advent children did to FFVII, after seeing that I had to just think CMON MAN at all the people who want an FFVII remake. nicer graphics aside the square of today would ruin it
Matt07
Smash Master
That'd be awesome. I really loved how Retro handled the Metroid Prime series, so I'm not worried about how the new Zelda series will work out.
kupo15
Smash Hero
Well, I see amongst my traveling home from school I'm too late to continue with my debate with LT. I'll just say that maybe I am confusing SS's interactive movie status with simply being insecure with itself that it needs to hand hold the player the whole way. Now onto this current debate.
For the main quest of any Zelda game, the story really is not important because it essentially has been the same story retold in different ways. However, I feel the main emotion and attachment to story is not with the main story but with the sidequests and if the story of the side quests fall in harmony with the main story like in MM, then the story is very effective and adds to the game. This goes back to what I've said before, what you do in the game in of itself is a method of storytelling and is much more effective than having it being told like your watching a movie, detached from the gameplay. If you look back to LoZ, the game really had no extraneous storytelling besides what was in the manual or in the starting screen. I myself never bothered reading the manual or read the starting screen too much, just went straight to playing the game. Even though I skipped out any of gaming storytelling there was, I still understood the epicness of the story and quest through playing the game.
I am curious as to why you think MM was ineffective at storytelling because I think that game does the most powerful storytelling of all the LoZ games. I think the fact that MM targeted itself towards a particular crowd of gamers (aka, those who have played a Zelda game before) is what makes it exceptional. Whether or not this is bad because it wasn't how ppl are accustomed too is up in the air, but I think the fact that it doesn't treat you as a newb is refreshing to say the least not to mention it is what you need to do if you make a sequel. Just because a game is made for a smaller crowd doesn't detract in anyway from its storytelling success if its target audience understood it. I believe Nintendo succeeded with MM in this regardMuraRegan said:
Honestly, yes. I do believe that Zelda is as big as it is today because it didn't try to put a heavy emphasis on creating an epic story. In fact, in an interview with the developers of OOT, they specifically say that OOT never sought out to tell an epic story, but rather its epic story was a byproduct of development.
For the main quest of any Zelda game, the story really is not important because it essentially has been the same story retold in different ways. However, I feel the main emotion and attachment to story is not with the main story but with the sidequests and if the story of the side quests fall in harmony with the main story like in MM, then the story is very effective and adds to the game. This goes back to what I've said before, what you do in the game in of itself is a method of storytelling and is much more effective than having it being told like your watching a movie, detached from the gameplay. If you look back to LoZ, the game really had no extraneous storytelling besides what was in the manual or in the starting screen. I myself never bothered reading the manual or read the starting screen too much, just went straight to playing the game. Even though I skipped out any of gaming storytelling there was, I still understood the epicness of the story and quest through playing the game.
Problem2
Smash Champion
I must have this game! ^^ I wish it was real. 
This would be better than the Wii version...
#HBC | ZoZo
Shocodoro Blagshidect
That's some pretty darn nice sprite art.
kupo15
Smash Hero
I'm going to drop this here
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/5148-The-Legend-of-Zelda-Skyward-Sword
*runs away*
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/5148-The-Legend-of-Zelda-Skyward-Sword
*runs away*
theeboredone
Smash Legend
I watched that earlier in the week. Gotta love the exaggeration he makes on Fi lol.
kupo15
Smash Hero
I thought the review was spot on.
The Real Gamer
Smash Hero
What happened to Skyward Sword being the "best Zelda ever?"
Different people have different opinions on things? The initial hype of the game has died down? People are stupid and quick to say anything new is the best or worst thing ever.
Also, Zero Punctuation is a comedic webcast, not an actual critic. It's more about entertainment then something to base your purchase on.
Not that I agree/disagree with him on this game. I haven't watched the video because I don't find Yahtzee funny or entertaining. I assume he says SS is the worst game of all time or something similar though.
Also, Zero Punctuation is a comedic webcast, not an actual critic. It's more about entertainment then something to base your purchase on.
Not that I agree/disagree with him on this game. I haven't watched the video because I don't find Yahtzee funny or entertaining. I assume he says SS is the worst game of all time or something similar though.
kupo15
Smash Hero
How did you guess? lol Why don't you find him entertaining? I find that so much of his criticism has a lot of backing to them. Even though he does add some nitpicky humor, his main points are valid....and I find this the case with all the games he reviews and not just SS.
I used to be a big fan. I guess it just got old to me , really. and while he does bring up valid points a lot of the time it just feels like he just says the contrary to what the majority of people feel just for more exposure and controversy...well and humor I guess. It's hard to make something positive truly funny.
Morin0
Smash Lord
I didn't want to look at the review because of potential spoilers (I haven't played SS yet) so I looked at another review on a game I did play.
...yeah, I didn't really like his style of reviewing at all. It's like if every other few words he's cracking another drawn out and forced joke. And they weren't really funny to be quite honest.
...yeah, I didn't really like his style of reviewing at all. It's like if every other few words he's cracking another drawn out and forced joke. And they weren't really funny to be quite honest.
Grim Tuesday
Smash Legend
So I got SS for Christmas.
Can someone who likes this game explain why? I can't get past the race in the beginning because the bird can't actually go up, so its kind-of killed all my enthusiasm to think that even if I get past this, the ****ty flying mechanics will come back to haunt me later on.
Can someone who likes this game explain why? I can't get past the race in the beginning because the bird can't actually go up, so its kind-of killed all my enthusiasm to think that even if I get past this, the ****ty flying mechanics will come back to haunt me later on.
#HBC | ZoZo
Shocodoro Blagshidect
Probably need to learn how to calibrate your wiimote because going up is doing with the simple act of pretending that you have wings
and flapping your wiimote up and down :/
it's natural, tbh
and flapping your wiimote up and down :/
it's natural, tbh
Grim Tuesday
Smash Legend
I ended up flapping the wiimote left to right to get it to work (not explained in the game at all...), so...
All you have to do is wag the wiimote up and down rhythmically . You don't have to move it horizontally, you don't have to flap like a bird (seriously, wtf?). you can make very small motions and it reads easily without much force required.
And you people complain about handholding lol XD
And you people complain about handholding lol XD
Grim Tuesday
Smash Legend
I moved it up and down, nothing happened. That was the first thing I tried and my bird was stuck nosediving into the clouds.
I didn't gain height until I did it horizontally.
I didn't gain height until I did it horizontally.
Then something is wrong. If recalibrating your wiimote properly doesn't work and new batteries don't work then something is wrong with your controller.
Grim Tuesday
Smash Legend
The controller and batteries are both brand new
Hmm. That's weird. Are you putting the wiimote facedown on a flat solid surface when you recalibrate? how far are you from the TV/where's the sensor bar? Is the swordplay extremely inaccurate as well or is it just the bird flying?
GwJ
Smash Hero
Distance to the TV doesn't matter for SS since it uses Wiimotion plus. Wiimotion plus doesn't use the sensor bar at all. Rather, it sets whatever position you had it in when calibrating as the center and moves the cursor in relation to that point, which is why you have to recenter after doing some serious wagging.
But yeah, make sure you set it on a truly flat surface when calibrating.
But yeah, make sure you set it on a truly flat surface when calibrating.
Grim Tuesday
Smash Legend
The surface isn't completely flat and I wasn't doing it in the middle of the TV... swordplay works fine though, a little inaccurate, but still fine. I had the wiimote face-up when I calibrated.
this is untrue, the sensor bar is used for calibration. and for some aiming/cursor calibration as well