[sonicam]

Zelda II: Adventures of Link is a totally different kind of game. Obviously it's a formula that didn't stick with the Zelda series, which makes it unique. But think, why didn't the formula stick? I've played AoL only recently, around the time that Zelda Collector's Edition came out for the cube. I HATED the game. but this is because I despise frustrating games. AoL had a very steep learning curve and LIVES. What semi-RPG type game needs lives? I admire your joy for difficult games, but not everyone likes that and that's why later Zelda games needed to be easier. Zelda II, will always be for the hardcore, but remember, it's not typical Zelda formula. That's just my opinion.

Ocarina of Time is very overrated, but it's a good game. It's a nice transition for Link to 3D. Game isn't perfect, but it was done right. Majora's Mask grows on it, growing so far to make Zelda only have a cameo and Ganon no where in sight. This is also a different game, but it keeps the working formula, introduces 4 additional playable forms, a darker storyline, sidequests to introduce more story, plenty of items and humor to go around. Different, yet not frustrating. I'd prefer that any day. I like to enjoy my games, not hate them. Again, just my opinion.

[MechaAshura]

Zelda II: Adventures of Link is a totally different kind of game. Obviously it's a formula that didn't stick with the Zelda series, which makes it unique. But think, why didn't the formula stick? I've played AoL only recently, around the time that Zelda Collector's Edition came out for the cube. I HATED the game. but this is because I despise frustrating games. AoL had a very steep learning curve and LIVES. What semi-RPG type game needs lives? I admire your joy for difficult games, but not everyone likes that and that's why later Zelda games needed to be easier. Zelda II, will always be for the hardcore, but remember, it's not typical Zelda formula. That's just my opinion.

Ocarina of Time is very overrated, but it's a good game. It's a nice transition for Link to 3D. Game isn't perfect, but it was done right. Majora's Mask grows on it, growing so far to make Zelda only have a cameo and Ganon no where in sight. This is also a different game, but it keeps the working formula, introduces 4 additional playable forms, a darker storyline, sidequests to introduce more story, plenty of items and humor to go around. Different, yet not frustrating. I'd prefer that any day. I like to enjoy my games, not hate them. Again, just my opinion.

agreed

[Aitamen]

To me, if a game isn't hard, it has much less value.

RPGs are the exception to this... I usually play them a split between enjoying them with my gf and imposing restrictions to make them rediculously hard. 

However, if I'm going to play a platformer/ARPG, it has to be hard.  I would prefer to refine my skills as a gamer by speedrunning some games or playing on the hardest difficulty for others (whichever applies).

Ever gotten to Ganon without a sword?  I have.  And then I did it again in about 2:30 (terrible bomb luck, but a very good run otherwise)

I like games that have an arcade-style learning curve, from time to time.  Bangai-O (DC) was probably one of the best games for learning curve and enjoyment that moved at the pace of most of the levels.  Beat that, and perhaps you'll understand what I mean by shardpening of skills.

Which brings about the question that plagues gaming as a whole: What kind of gamer are you?

I'm a competition gamer, but in a less head-2-head sense.  I compete against myself, increasing my skill in all games, my HEC, and the types of lateral thinking it takes to get through still other games.  Yes, I kick back and enjoy RPGs with my gf or the like, but if I'm gaming for my own entertainment, I have to be doing something that makes me better at what I do: Game.

There are a ton of games that focus too much on flash and glammer, and sadly, most of them are broken to the point that completion is pathetically easy.  Halo 3 fell victem to this, and H2 didn't do much better.  I will give Legendary it's props, but honestly, it's easier to annihilate Legendary in a week than it is to 100% hit-rate Contra: Shattered Soldier in a month. 

A fair example of this is would be my genre organization:
Platformers
TRPG (Grind)
Run'n'gun
Shmup
RPG
TRPG (stage)
Other*
Fighter
---------
ARPG (only because there are so few of them and only a handful of those are any good... I actually enjoy the genre a lot, but can't find enough to validate my views...)
Racer
TPS
FPS
---------
Freeroam
---------
-------
-----
Storybook
------
-------
--------
"Laserdisc-adventure"

* This is a slot reserved for games like Panic! that don't really fall into any other category, but they still fucking rock (I only know of two, and I couldn't tell you the title of the other because it's JPN)

the categories given above, and the order of their placement,l is only a general rule.    the blanks are there to note the difference between one ground and another (for example, LDAs are the worst peices of shit ever to be called gaming...

They are fun, and when I bother to play them, I enjoy them... further, they are typically made well, but they target a different audience, so of course I won't really like them.

I wish I could get into a game that's more "fun" than "hard"...  But alas, it seems tastes are something that not even I have control over ^_^

HOWEVER: In accordance with the first writ of gamer law, I will give LoZ (as well as Mario, 3D sonic, and a few others) credit for their ease of play, or difficulty curve if one can be said to exist.  I do enjoy the fact that it pulls many gamers who enjoyed the more lightly-handled newer games into the harder prior games (because they wanted to know where it started).  Further, I did enjoy OoT at the time, but when I found that I had just beaten the game, I was wondering "that was it?" 

To be perfectly honest, I never did finish MM, but that's because 1) my N64 broke while I was playing through it and 2) I had just gotten a membership at the local arcade that gave me unlimited plays as long as I toppled one cabinet a week.

Like OoT, it was enjoyable, insofar as I played (about 8 hours, iirc)

So I take back my insults to the series, and to 3D as a whole.  They are not what I prefer to better myself with, but even in my most opinionated state, I cannot dispute that OoT was "Done Right" as far as gamers of the day were concerned... if it wasn't for OoT being a game that I couldn't pick up a second time, I wouldn't presently have my best friend (long story, just accept it)

EDIT: MA, if you can't write something that offers an argument for or against the current position, please refrain from posting in topics that are engaging in debate or common exchange of information.

[Zeupar]

Main Reason I don't like OoT: I was 9 when I first played it, and I beat it without dying and without going "what do I do next?"

Like OoT, it was enjoyable, insofar as I played (about 8 hours, iirc)

Are you saying you beat OoT in about 8 hours when you were 9 years old without dying and not getting stuck? I think you don't remember correctly...

[P.P.A.]

Zelda 2 was an utterly awesome concept but poorly executed.

[Crowbar]

Aita, while I don't necessarily share some of your specific tastes (very much liked OoT and MM, played ALttP after those and found it utterly underwhelming) I do know what you mean about the "self-competitive" gaming thing, and, as I've said before, I tend not to like games that don't piss me off at least a bit. However, I'm nowhere near as dedicated as you as, sadly, I no longer have so much time for gaming.

Where do RTS games fit into that list?

[Aitamen]

You misread me:

"To be perfectly honest, I never did finish MM, but that's because 1) my N64 broke while I was playing through it and 2) I had just gotten a membership at the local arcade that gave me unlimited plays as long as I toppled one cabinet a week.

Like OoT, it was enjoyable, insofar as I played (about 8 hours, iirc)"

I was saying that both MM and OoT were enjoyable, but I only played MM for about 8-hours...

I apologize if it was confusing at all...

RTS and SRPG are usually about the same rank, based on execution...

also, how was Z2:AoL poor execution?

[Zeupar]

I was saying that both MM and OoT were enjoyable, but I only played MM for about 8-hours...

I apologize if it was confusing at all...

My bad. Remember, I'm the misunderstander. :P

[Alondite]

?

FE blows, RPG and I established such a thing...

How about a picture I have of Link's intestines being ripped out by Vega (SFA) while that painter chick from FF6 is dipping her brush into Link's open gut while painting a picture of Bowser eating Mario Vore style?

Yes, I am a twisted individual...

You should go look up stuff from Star Ocean, on a more serious point, as I think you'd rather enjoy it...

So you established your  that the best SRPG series in existence sucks? 

Also OoT is not only the best Zelda, but the best video game to every appear on any platform in history. FACT. don't bother arguing with me, I will ignore you.

[Aitamen]

are you lying about your age, or are you really older than me and a newbie still?

Further, SF is the best-made SRPG and Disgaea has the best storyline...

FE comes after those, tactics, and the rest of the Atlus family

[Alondite]

are you lying about your age, or are you really older than me and a newbie still?

Further, SF is the best-made SRPG and Disgaea has the best storyline...

FE comes after those, tactics, and the rest of the Atlus family

SF is nothing but a stripped down FE. Seriously, have you even played FE? SF is practically a carbon copy, minus supports, weapon triangle, and perma-death.  I haven't played enough of Disgaea to really formulate an opinion, but that's only because I couldn't be arsed to keep playing, it didn't seem all that compelling to me.  Also if by Tactics you mean FFT, um no. Those battles are drawn out, slow, and just generally boring. As for Atlus, what games to they make again? >_>

[Aitamen]

Um... have YOU ever played FE?  remember that SF is an IMPROVED VERSION OF FE...  It even shares a few individuals in the credits...

in SF, you CAN trade items between characters, it supports beefier graphics, it's about 8-10 hours longer than FE, stats have fewer randoms attatched to them, the cast is more varied, and so on...

Oh, or are you comparing games universally, instead of against what was out at a given time...  SF was better than FE in all catagories at the time it was discontinued... or are you being a newbie and measuring a much older game against a newer game to make your argument seem stronger?

The ONLY thing that FE had over SF was a fanbase, because it piggy-backed off of the then-popular FF2j-3j in it's advertising campaign (Though they actually took bits of their overworld code straight from DQ)...

Oh, you haven't played all 3(5?) SF core games?  how about the 3 spinoffs?

Further, if you're going to say that SF is a watered down version of FE, then I suppose I could say that FE is a watered down version of DQ, or perhaps that all RPGs everywhere are watered down versions of ADVENT....

SF was an improvement to a good thing to make it better...  FE tried to stick to a formula, whereas SF tried to go for the better quality in their games by sticking with SEGA, who quite obviously had superior hardware to all it's competitors...

I will give FE it's credit, but when comparing it to the rest of the SRPGs/TRPGs out there, it's not moving ahead fast enough...

It's not as varied as FFT, nor as deep
It's not as difficult as SF, nor as complex
It's not as comical as Disgaea (Or other NIS/ATLUS Games), not as long...

It succeeds in being middle-of-the-road on everything, which makes it superior in the mind of people who like balance-built games... however, there are only a few things I look for, and doing any two of them properly makes a good game....

I await your rebuttal

[Alondite]

Um... have YOU ever played FE?  remember that SF is an IMPROVED VERSION OF FE...  It even shares a few individuals in the credits...

I wouldn't call SF an improved version.  Honestly, SF was good, it was my first SRPG, but compared to FE ( I think it was FE4 at the time SF 1 and 2 were out, maybe FE5 even) it seemed...empty? I guess that's the closest word I can come up with that describes it.

in SF, you CAN trade items between characters, it supports beefier graphics, it's about 8-10 hours longer than FE, stats have fewer randoms attatched to them, the cast is more varied, and so on...

You can trade in FE too.  I believe it started in FE5...though I'm not positive.  Previous FEs didn't really need to trade, because for the most part, any item you wanted on a certain character was automatically given to them, and there were ways to trade, however they were a bit round-about. 

Visually SF is more colorful and cartoony, and I would say it looks better than FE4, but not FE5 As for length...SF is not longer than  FE.  FE4 has 2 stories, each spanning at least 6-12 hours. 

I also prefer FEs RNG.  SF stats seem less random, more "this character always sucks" (like Hans) whereas FE characters can be very different every time.  They can suck one play, and be monstrous another.

The cast in SF is only more varied in design (at least compared to older FEs). SF uses fantasy-like classes, and those give rise to unique characters, but none of the characters in SF are very well developed, or very compelling, whereas FE characters are significantly deeper.

Oh, or are you comparing games universally, instead of against what was out at a given time...  SF was better than FE in all catagories at the time it was discontinued... or are you being a newbie and measuring a much older game against a newer game to make your argument seem stronger?

I was comparing FE in general, but talking timeframes, it was the FE3 - FE5 era iirc when SF 1-3 were made.

The ONLY thing that FE had over SF was a fanbase, because it piggy-backed off of the then-popular FF2j-3j in it's advertising campaign (Though they actually took bits of their overworld code straight from DQ)...

Emulating something good is not always a bad thing, and it's advertisements at that.  FE plays nothing like FF.

Oh, you haven't played all 3(5?) SF core games?  how about the 3 spinoffs?

I beat SF1 and 2, played like....minutes of 3.  The spinoffs? Shining Soul? Shining in the Darkness? If those are what you mean by spinoffs, I played them all, and didn't care for any.

Further, if you're going to say that SF is a watered down version of FE, then I suppose I could say that FE is a watered down version of DQ, or perhaps that all RPGs everywhere are watered down versions of ADVENT....

FE plays nothing like DQ, it's a turn-based strategy game, not a full-on RPG.

SF was an improvement to a good thing to make it better...  FE tried to stick to a formula, whereas SF tried to go for the better quality in their games by sticking with SEGA, who quite obviously had superior hardware to all it's competitors...

Superior hardware? Didn't the SNES kill the Genesis visually? Like...Chrono Trigger, Super Metroid, F-Zero etc? The quality of SF wasn't a jump over FE at all, if anything it was a downgrade.  FE4 is much deeper, plays and sounds much better, has a better story, more, better characters, and more strategic gameplay.

I will give FE it's credit, but when comparing it to the rest of the SRPGs/TRPGs out there, it's not moving ahead fast enough...

I will agree that it's not moving ahead like it should, but it is making subtle, yet critical changes to improve it's already near-perfect formula.  These changes don't fundamentally change the way the games are played, but they add a level od depth.  The weapon triangle, 3rd tier and branching promotions, skills, supports, weapon forging, class changing, leadership bonuses, height advantages...The list goes on.  FE does need something big, but it's gameplay is still going strong, and it just keeps getting better.

It's not as varied as FFT, nor as deep
FT isn't exciting or compelling enough to play it to the point where it gets deep.

It's not as difficult as SF, nor as complex

Not as difficult? Go play FE5 (or FE9/10 on Maniac) and tell me it's not the hardest SRPG you have ever played, I dare you. And FE is FAR more complex than SF. SF is simplistic by comparison.

It's not as comical as Disgaea (Or other NIS/ATLUS Games), not as long...

Play an EXACT japanese translation of any FE and tell me it's not comical.  Of course, that doesn't even matter.  FE takes a serious tone, because it's a game about WAR. Life and death, etc. It has comedy to lighten it up a bit, but it's SUPPOSED to be serious.  Oh and not as long? FE10 is 40+ hours, which is pretty long for a SRPG I would say (and it's considerably longer on Maniac).  FE4 has single chapters that can take several hours, as does FE5, and even longer if Game Over.

It succeeds in being middle-of-the-road on everything, which makes it superior in the mind of people who like balance-built games... however, there are only a few things I look for, and doing any two of them properly makes a good game....

I'm not sure what relevance this has now, but I'll respond to it anyway.  FE is not middle of the road in any way (aside from the 3D games visually, but like that even matters).  The strategy is still top notch, as well as the characters, story and soundtrack.  It needs a big development, but it's still ahead of the SRPG curve.

I await your rebuttal

[Aitamen]

You're comparing series to series, and perhaps I was a little unfair in such a thing... I was comparing FE1 to SF1, for the most part...

For the latter games, I was comparing SF3(J)(Full) to all of the FE games...

To be fair, I couldn't play through FE:PoR, though I did try.

I apologize for looking down upon your views.  You make good points, to be perfectly fair...

You said yourself you can't trade in FE(original, which I thought was understood at this point, and I apologize if it wasn't), because it didn't start until FE5... this was the point I was making, as it was a rip from the SF ability to trade between characters.  Not that I was complaining, but I would like it acknowledged that FE took some of the better/best points of SF and incorporated them.

And yes, I know that FE isn't DQ, but it still stands that FE is based on DQ, much like FF is based on DQ (bit of trivia: The reason FF is called "Final" is because after the failure of RadRacer, Square had one oportunity to make it big... they looked at the current market, made a game based off the of the #1 selling title in Japan and marketed it to Americans (where it was noted that Enix wasn't really interested in US markets))  Both of them used code from DQ and adapted it for their own purposes. 

I wasn't saying FE was an RPG (or that DQ was an SRPG) but rather that both FF and FE used the method of success that ENIX had developed.

This is more of a personal gripe, and it's primarily because I HATE FF7/HALO/GH entering players...  with the notable exception aside, they're a ton of newbs/n00bs who know nothing of the gaming history, culture, or mindset...

Also, since reading your argument and posting my thoughts on it, I went back and played through SF1 and FE1-3 again.  I will readily admit that I was too harsh on FE, but I still find SF to be a better series, primarily for SF3.

Further, in honor of your chaging of my viewpoint, I'd like to offer you a trophy.  Pick something (somewhat simple, preferred, but I guess I can do anything, really, if I have the time) and send me a PM.  I'll build it in 3D, render it and mark it for you, and send it to you as my personal observation of a well-thought-out argument.