[My Profile] [My Settings] [Exit]  

Home Blog My Games Reviews Friends Exit
mariner Welcome to my blog. I'm sort of new to this whole blogging thing, so I haven't figured out how to update my custom greeting. That, or I am just lazy and don't really care. Either way, you're stuck looking at this stupid message and you know what? I don't care! That's right: I don't care! Otherwise, I'd obviously edit this out. But, uh... yeah. I didn't. Or did I?

Title: Sunshine and the night
Posted: July 08, 2006 (10:02 AM)
Super Mario Sunshine review

This is the "shortened" version, as it's, uh, only 9.5 KB long. There were a couple paragraphs I took out since they seemed kind of awkward and were only mentioned for completeness sake. And since when am I ever complete? But if you really want to read the long version, it'll be up on GameFAQs sometime next week. As it stands, I'm kinda happy with the way it turned out even without them. What I'm not happy about is that it took so long to write. Then again, a computer dying on you would do that, wouldn't it? Sigh... Maybe I should write a short, easy review next instead of anothr massive one on a popular franchise...

Yeah right.

So next up, I think, will be Castlevania: Symphony of the Night. I've been putting this one off for awhile, unsure of exactly how to approach it. But after playing through it again, I realized something I never noticed before. In many ways, this game is the spiritual sequel to Zelda. The original Zelda. My favorite game of all time Zelda. The Zelda that Nintendo seemingly forgot about, preferring to redo LttP over and over again. Small wonder I like SotN so much.
[reply]

bluberryUser: bluberry
Title:
Posted: July 08, 2006 (12:20 PM)
Shouldn't it be "manta" instead of "mantra", or do I have an extra chromosome?

Either way, neat review, though 6 seemed too high considering the amount of new assholes you tore it. I agree completely, though I liked Mario 64 a bit more than you seemed to have--SMS was dull and repetitive.
[reply]

GenjUser: Genj
Title:
Posted: July 08, 2006 (12:40 PM)
I don't see SotN as a spiritual sequel to the first Zelda because Alucard doesn't have to burn every bush he encounters to find the next dungeon.
[reply]

zigfriedUser: zigfried
Title:
Posted: July 08, 2006 (12:48 PM)
Genj pretty much hit it on the head. Whereas the original Zelda is inaccessible to people with jobs and limited time (because a LOT of repetition is involved to get anywhere), SOTN is designed in such a way that people with limited time can still see something new each time they play.

//Zig
[reply]

janusUser: janus
Title:
Posted: July 08, 2006 (01:26 PM)
This is exactly why it's good that New Super Mario Bros. didn't bother with yoshi or too much pointless coin collecting.
[reply]

honestgamerUser: honestgamer
Title:
Posted: July 08, 2006 (02:29 PM)
The original Zelda was great in that it was non-linear. If you wanted to, sure... you could burn every bush and bomb every rock, but that wasn't necessary to beat the game. Instead, you just explored, found dungeons and beat them... in whatever order you liked. It's one game that's exciting whether you play it five minutes or two or three hours. I really wish the future Zelda games hadn't branched away so much from what made the first game great. They're good too, of course, but the original Zelda is still the best.
[reply]

zigfriedUser: zigfried
Title:
Posted: July 08, 2006 (02:52 PM)
However, unless you know where the dungeons are, there's a lot of bombing and burning involved to find them.

//Zig
[reply]

HalonUser: Halon
Title:
Posted: July 08, 2006 (03:05 PM)
The original Zelda is EASILY the best and definitely one of my ten favorite games of all time. I didn't mind the bush burning because it wasn't required at any point, and if there was a place in which you had to do something like that it was hinted somewhere else in a sign, shop, etc. The only flaw in the game is the repetetive room patterns, but that can be forgiven because of the hardware back then.
[reply]

marinerUser: mariner
Title:
Posted: July 08, 2006 (03:54 PM)
No zig, there really wasn't. Three of the nine dungeon locations were hidden; the rest were all out in the open.

Level 7 was hidden beneath a pond with no fairy in it. Both the game and the instruction manual beat you over the head that there were secrets in such places. Does it really take that much effort to put two and two together?

Level 8 was hidden in a tree that was right smack in the middle of the road. If there was one tree a person would try to burn, that's it. Oh yeah, and there were hints about that one, too. And the fact that it comes right after the level that gives you an item allowing you to burn stuff with impunity, making you more likely to try torching the woodlands.

You were told level 9 was in Spectacle Rock on Death Mountain. Even if you had no idea what spectacle meant, you knew it was in a rock in the upper regions of the game. And lo and behold, you come to a screen with two giant rocks on it, guarded by a different monster set than any other screen in the game. Dontcha think there might be something here?

Anyone who couldn't figure out how to beat the original Zelda doesn't deserve to play it.

And yeah, it should've been "manta." I suppose I'll go change that now. Thanks for catching it bluberry.
[reply]

honestgamerUser: honestgamer
Title:
Posted: July 08, 2006 (04:00 PM)
The second quest was guilty of the deviously hidden dungeons with arbitrary requirements to reach them, but it made up for that by having some of the greatest dungeons any game has ever had... ever. Dang it, guys! Now I want to play through yet again. Like the first forty or so times weren't enough...
[reply]

GenjUser: Genj
Title:
Posted: July 08, 2006 (04:08 PM)
Sorry I haven't played Zelda since Junior High. Let me fix this:

I don't see SotN as a spiritual sequel to the first Zelda because Alucard doesn't have to bomb every wall to progress through a dungeon.
[reply]

zigfriedUser: zigfried
Title:
Posted: July 08, 2006 (04:53 PM)
Venter brings up another of my issues with the original... you had to play through the game once to get to the really cool dungeons. I made it through three of the second quest dungeons, and they were genuinely neat, but I never finished because I just couldn't take any more of the same enemies, the same play mechanics, and the same music.

SOTN did a better job of mixing things up in its second quest.

//Zig
[reply]

honestgamerUser: honestgamer
Title:
Posted: July 08, 2006 (06:10 PM)
Symphony of the Night didn't have a second quest, just the inverted castle that you had to beat before you could truly say you beat the game. The battle atop the crumbled staircase was just the halfway point. Was it cool? Yes, but we're talking apples and oranges now.
[reply]

zigfriedUser: zigfried
Title:
Posted: July 08, 2006 (07:21 PM)
I don't understand. I thought you had to beat both quests to truly win Zelda.

//Zig
[reply]

jiggsUser: jiggs
Title:
Posted: July 08, 2006 (11:51 PM)
one thing subsequential Zelda games haven't matched is the frantic arcade style action of the original. the original was littered with tons of enemies onscreen at once for you to dispose of while other Zelda games had half that number. they also moved unpredictably too, not to mention being relentless and fast at times. it can't get much better than a battle with a dozen blue Darknuts in Lv. 8 or the blue WizRobes in Lv. 6 in a cramped room. while the exploration and dungeoun design have been superseded by the later Zelda games, it's the intense action that seperates the original from the other Zelda games.

The Legend of Zelda > Zelda Sequels

[reply]

magicjugglerUser: magicjuggler
Title:
Posted: July 14, 2006 (07:30 PM)
Never finished A Link to The Past. I got to the part where I defeated Aghanim and he teleported me into the Dark World...and I just stopped caring.

My main problem with Ocarina of Time was the dungeons were for the most part linear. You had to beat some dungeons before the rest would open up due to a cinematic. The combat engine was good for it's time though, what with the Z-targeting system and all.

My problem with Wind Waker was when the Counter ability was introduced in the game. Basically, right before an enemy would attack, a chime would sound and the A button icon would flash. You press A and Link would perform some super-stylish counter-move to do lots of damage while avoiding the hit he normally would have taken. The problem with this countering system is that for the most part, it kills the defensive game that Ocarina of Time was; while in OOT you would have to keep your guard up until you found an opportunity to attack, with Wind Waker, you could theoretically play combat blindfolded. This of course is my major gripe, as my other gripes include the game's complete dungeon linearity, the vast oceans you sail with nothing to do in them (think Suikoden IV), and that quite a few of the bosses were recycled from previous Zelda games. Tired of creating such inspired monsters like Volvagia or Phantom Ganon, Miyamoto? Just bring back the Moldorm yet ANOTHER time.
[reply]

eXTReMe Tracker
2005-2012 HonestGamers
Opinions expressed in this blog represent the opinions of those expressing them and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of site staff, users and/or sponsors. Unless otherwise stated, content above belongs to its copyright holders and may not be reproduced without express written permission.