THE CRAVE GAMING CHANNEL
V'lanna
 






Affiliates
metacritic
AnimeBooks
Play-Asia.com

  Ask LordBrian  

   The Morning After  
LordBrian - August 27th '01- 1:15 Eastern Standard Time

Back at Lehigh, once again. I'm glad to see you followed directions and sent me lots of mail, and since there's some really good stuff let's just move on to the letters.

Recent Q&A's

08-26-01
08-25-01
08-24-01
08-23-01
08-22-01

The Archives
This Month
Full Archives
Have a common question?
FAQ Etc.

One last attempt

(Pre-script: Sorry my formatting was ass in the last letter; my e-mail was set up to send things html-tagged...) "There's one small difference between Zelda and the games you listed: Zelda didn't start out dark and serious." But it's been going this way for a long time, and people seem to dig it.

LordBrian:
And by a long time (discounting the last two GBC games) you mean limited to the N64 games, obviously. One of which, the far darker of the two, wasn't directly developed by Miyamoto.

"However (and I hate to have to keep stressing this point), Zelda is mostly a lighthearted adventure. Your health is replenished by colorful fairies with a ring of hearts circling around you. You hop through the world in the pouch of a boxing kangaroo. A rupee-loving monkey helps you get inside a dungeon. For crying out loud, how many times must the words "pink bunny" be spoken? You like realistic Link? Fine. But don't try to say he's always been that way like the characters in the other games have." First of all, I don't consider the handheld versions (or the CD-i versions, for that matter) canon. Besides, the recent Oracles set was developed by Capcom. Secondly, there's plenty of things to counter your non-handheld examples. Many of the dungeons and enemies in Zelda games take themselves quite seriously. Look at the music, dungeon, and enemy design of basically every console Zelda game, especially Ocarina of Time and Link to the Past. Pink Bunny? What about the Manticore lookalikes in Link to the Past? Or the Bully on Death Mountain who kicks around the Wimp like a Soccer Ball? What about the kid that turns into a tree, and the father that lost him? Your slain (yet revived) Uncle? The diseased boy that gives you the net? The priest that was murdered for hiding Zelda? I'm sorry, but you can't say it's all light-hearted, either.

LordBrian:
And I didn't, thus the disclaimer "mostly." However, some of your examples are specious. You mean the bully who kicked around a pink ball that made the delightful "boing" sound as it bounced around? Also, revival of characters is usually the biggest cop-out in order to make a game less dark. "Oh, look, he's alive! Well I don't feel so bad anymore then." Imagine if Aeris had been revived at the end of the game -- her death would have lost all its impact, much as Link's Uncle's did. The supposed diseased boy...what did he have, a terminal case of brain cancer? I was under the impression that he was just too sick (most likely, the Hylian version of the common cold) to go outside and play, so he wanted Link to have fun catching bugs with his net. But I suppose next you'll counter with thinking about how those poor bees felt, being thrown into slavery to do Link's bidding at his whim.

The priest example I like, though. I'll accept that one.

"I honestly don't see how Nintendo making games focused towards kids hurts their 3rd-party support." They get pigeonholed as having a certain demographic. What's the point in releasing a game like Halo on a system, if the majority of its constituents are pre-pubescent?

LordBrian:
Hmm...let me think about that one. Aside from the fact that Halo is currently console exclusive to Xbox, if I were a game developer I'd want to make my game avaiable on every system out there. Just because Nintendo's main demographic is younger than it is on the PS2 and Xbox doesn't mean that everyone who owns the system is under the age of 8. From everything I heard, when Capcom made Resident Evil for the N64 (how odd, on a kiddie system) it sold well enough to be worth the trouble. Making games console exclusive works for companies like Nintendo who make their own hardware, but unless I'm getting a really sweet deal from Sony or Microsoft, I'm gonna cover my assets.

"The choice is now up to the developers whether or not they want to make games for the GameCube." No, it's the money peoples' choice, the publishers. "Oh, Gamecube is for kids, so they don't get this game." Don't tell me it doesn't happen; look at MGS2 and Silent Hill 2 -- the developers expressly voiced concerns about the Nintendo demographic. This sort of mindset is even more congealed on the mind of executives.

LordBrian:
And this is exactly the sort of mindset that will change. You can't expect it to change overnight, though. There's still a lot of bad blood between Nintendo and 3rd parties because of the N64 (among other reasons), and announcing a new system doesn't automatically change things around. Nintendo still has to prove its worth to these developers, but as it does and it recruits more, more will follow.

I've been a devout NGC fanboy for a year now, and I've seen the execs say good things about Nintendo. I'm not seeing the games. Neither is Nintendo; I think a 60:40 ratio (first-to-third party game quantity) speaks for itself.

Bartikus

LordBrian:
And what's the ratio between quality and crap on the system (that we've seen so far and is playable), when compared to, oh, say the Xbox? I've said my piece.

 
Now this is an argument

Hail and well met, Lord Brian! I for one, find your approach to the whole Zelda-Art-design thing refreshing, if a tad heavy-handed. It should be pointed out that all opinions, by their very nature, are heavy handed. So here's my take. Keep in mind this is just my opinion, so you may take it with as many or as few grains of salt as you feel necessary. I'm not outraged in the least about Link's character design, as I trust that Shigeru Miyamoto will make this a top-notch adventure game, and I am not of the opinion that said character designs make the game "kiddy" in any way. I believe that it is content, overall feel, and presentation, not graphics, that should set a game's audience. I also love the idea of cel shading, and this new trailer showed it off beautifully. Yes, I believe this will be one of the (hopefully many) Killer Apps the GC has to offer. However, I must say that this insistence that "Link should not grow up" is somewhat baffling. Barring the first half of Ocarina of Time, and all of Majora's Mask, in every Zelda game, Link is anywhere between mid-adolescent to early adult in age. Sure, the sprites in Legend of Zelda, Link to The Past, and Link's Awakening had an SD/Chibi/Kawaii look to them, but how easily can one make a 32x32 (or was it 32x24?) sprite look anything BUT Kawaii? "A perfect 3D representation" of a Link to The Past sprite, while a perfectly valid aesthetic choice, seems to me anything BUT a return to the Zelda series' roots, in spirit if not graphically. In other, more slimely words: Link has never looked "cute" for any reason other than hardware limitations. Your memory is just fuzzy. Go play The Adventure of Link on the NES and look at Link's sprite if you don't believe me. (I realize that lots of people think of it as the worst game. I am not inclined to disagree with this, but sprites don't lie. Though they do force you to "obey your thirst" at times.)

LordBrian:
I wonder, though, had the game not been a sidescroller, would Link have still been as tall? It would look kinda silly with the whole vertical resolution of the screen to work with and still have a 32-pixel-tall Link running around with a sword, of not downright hard to play. If you'll remember the overworld mode of the game, he was still small and dumpy like the other NES, SNES, and Game Boy games. And if you think back (and can remember), the first images and videos of the N64 Zelda game had a more abstract quality as well, which got more realistic over time.

I must also say that my respective takes on Ocarina of Time and the "E3 trailer" differ slightly. I fail to see how Ocarina of Time, and thus, the E3 trailer, are "dark" or "angsty" or even "less lighthearted" than in Link's previous outings. I don't remember Link spewing four-letter words and going on about the plight of the underpriveledged masses of Kakariko village. Zelda never did drugs or contemplated abortion. Was there a scene I missed with Ganondorf in his room with white facepaint, crying about the misery of life and blaring Marylin Manson in the background? Perhaps that is a bit extreme, but you get my point. The Zelda series has never been a serious, gritty, thought-provoking undertaking (for which I am glad), but nor is it the Rainbow Brite of console adventure games. Sure, there are pink bunnies and fairies, but there is also the theme of evil; and in case you forgot, the swords our hero so frequently sports are sharp metallic objects that, while drawing no vis! ible blood, cause death and prob able pain to the myriad living creatures he thrusts them (the swords) into.

LordBrian:
The reason I keep saying the N64 games were darker is directly because it was more realistic. You could more easily visualize the death and destruction caused by Ganon, therefore lending it more urgency. Majora's Mask, however, was definitely darker. There was a tension spread throughout the entire game, which involved nothing short of the END OF THE WORLD. Not something you can take lightly, especially when the death of everyone on the planet is only 72 hours away and it's up to one small boy. Even darker, it still sounds pretty stupid.

As for your death comment, true, Link does kill an obscenely large amount of creatures in his travels. But he's not hacking off limbs with blood shooting everywhere, they disappear in a clean little puff of smoke to wherever they come from (in the case of the cartoon, Ganon's giant enemy jar o' goodness).

While I would prefer a higher-resolution version of the Link we saw in OoT, I am disgusted by the constant "D00D LIKN R LOOK GAY GAEMCUB ESUX0r!!!" I keep hearing. It is a simple aesthetic choice, nothing more. Sure, his character design brought horrible images of an unholy mating between Buttercup of the Powerpuff girls and Felix the Cat, but I don't think this will make the game any less of a masterpiece than it would be if it featured the same Link we saw in the E3 trailer. It also bears repeating that THE MOBLINS ARE BACK. Nuff said, if you ask me. Which you didn't. But if you did, that's what I'd say. Thank you for your time. May your children be tall and sweet natured and may your camel always be downwind. -Trav "Gee, I hope, I didn't, use, too, many, commas again, ."

LordBrian:
The Moblins only went away for one game, really. They were there in Ocarina of Time, and they were there in the recent GBC installments. True, they're back. But you could say the same for Link as well, and presumably a whole slew of the rest. Good letter, by the way.

 
Looking at things from a different angle

"But at this point, your opinion can only realistically be based on the art." (Lord Brian)

That's not exactly true. Aside from seeing the neat cell graphics they have for the new Zelda, I personally like the idea of how the enemy reactions and battle system seem to work. Watching the fights with Moblins closely in the Spaceworld movie, you can tell that Link appears to sidestep around as per Z-Targeting in Zelda 64.

In addition, at what seem to be key moments in the battle (e.g.. Moblin swings at Link), a "B" button symbol appears next to the sword icon in the top-right of the screen. It only stays for a moment before Link pulls off some kind of special move: specifically, he blocks with his shield, jumps over the Moblin (and hits from behind), and darts under the Moblin. We can't be sure if the B button symbol is some sort of trigger for special moves like these, but I think it's pretty cool that you can pull off maneuvers like that. You certainly couldn't jump over the enemy and hit him from behind in Zelda 64. It looks like Shiggy & Friends are adding new and interesting aspects to fighting in this new Zelda installment, and from what I've seen, I like it.

On a lesser note, it's pretty cool that you can sneak up behind things and hit them from behind (with or without the the "Ow Ow" ::grabs butt and jumps comically:: animation). This wasn't exactly prominent procedure in Zelda 64 or Majora's Mask, but I do remember being able to do such things in A Link to the Past (the critically acclaimed Best Zelda Game), especially with the Hyrulian Guards. In fact, I remember setting up distinct advances to try and get behind enemies to take them by surprise and hopefully kick the stuffing out of them before they could turn around, such as jumping down a ledge when an enemy is turning around or hiding behind trees and bushes. As far as I can remember, this was notoriously absent in the 64 games, and I'm certainly glad you will be able to do at least some of this sort of fun stuff in ZGC.

Zeldariffically yours,
- Mag Roader

LordBrian:
All right, if you want to do a frame-by-frame analysis of the movie, I suppose you could come up with certain other things to argue about (as you so deftly did). The concepts you bring to light are interesting to say the least, and show that in addition to the new graphics style they're further refining an excellent battle and control system. Good eye.

 
Back to basics

Okay okay okay. Yes, I too have shared that disappointment and sheer shock when I first saw the so called "new" Zelda. My initial reaction was whining phrases, "What have they done to Link? His hair looks like melted cheese!" etc.... (and I was also peeved that Nintendo is catering to kids...why do that if they already rule that market but start to go to new territories like mature gaming?) But after a second on afterthought, (okay, maybe two hours instead), I started to take a look at the bigger picture that is The Legend of Zelda.

Anyone ever REALLY thought of why they liked Zelda? (For me it was the fact that Link is cute, but I digress) The main feature and catch that everyone practically loves about our beloved series is the gameplay. If you think back to back in the day when the games were on the NES and SNES, and even the GameBoy, who really cared about the graphics, when the gameplay made up for it? That's what makes Zelda so special, it's gameplay, as well as the atmosphere it creates that is the land of Hyrule. And if you think about it some more, the only real mature looking games were for the N64, as the rest were spriteful 2-D experiences.

But then again on the flip-side of this I argue why isn't Nintendo taking advantage of the newer technology? Is it that the preconception is already mashed in our heads that eyecandy rules all? Whatever happened to recalling a game by its gameplay rather than the luscious graphics? It seems that nowadays graphics are all that matter, but it's human nature. When we first look at something, one wouldn't think about the contents of a person, place or thing, but rather the looks of them.

On the flip-side of this (oh how many flip-sides there are...) The animation used is top notch compared to earlier tries of cel-shading. (not the best character models, but still) If you've seen the video, (I know most of you refused to see it because of the cartoony preconception), the animation flows along pretty well, and seeing Link do a flip above and enemy and slicing it in the air is pretty cool all in itself. Of course it would have been cooler if it was the Ocarina styled kid Link, but I digress yet again. Just think about the eyecandy thing I mentioned before. It's mashed into my head too ;)

But if you think about it, if it were the Ocarina kid Link spiced up for the GC, that did the same actions that the 'cartoony' Link did with a real-looking setting and enemies, everyone would have been amazed. And if you think about it some more (yes, more thinking :) if Nintendo went the way we saw at last year's Spaceworld, it would have just been another Ocarina of Time, just prettier. Which would you prefer...something which you already played but just spiced up, or a totally new game with, shall I say a unique, style?

As for Link being younger and younger...first of all who created the series? Shiggy of course. And what did he first have in mind when creating this series? To make a game where a boy with endless courage braves through dungeons and monsters to reach his goal. (what I think, anyway) And where did he come up with the idea? As a boy he was too afraid to enter a cave in his younger days, and one day he mustered up his courage to go in only with a lamp to light his way. And who is Link? A hero who has endless courage who just happens to grow up, of course. So the root of every single Zelda game is not just a kid who fights monsters and foes, but of a hero (Hylian preferably) who is fearless with his unending courage as he braves the land of Hyrule to save the Princess Zelda (or just having courage as he fights evil to reach his goals, either or). This is should still retained in the GC Zelda, whether he is 5-years-old or not.

So as a devoted Zelda lover I am on both sides of the fence. As great gameplay the new Zelda says it is and should be, the graphics and character models are...pretty "eh" by my 15-year-old standards. But I keep reiterating in my mind that this is the series I grew up on with not only gameplay in mind, but the fearless hero whose name is Link. What really surprises me is that the people who were with the series throughout their whole lives, ever since the NES, are suddenly turning their backs from this Zelda game. It seems they forgotten the Legend called Zelda... All I ask is for those hardcore Zelda gamers to look into the big picture...and if you think about it, the only complaint all you disbelievers have is cartoon style of the game. If you look past that then you should start to remember the magic that started it all, and why it is called a Legend...

(On a far side note I devised a way in which everyone could, I repeat could, be happy with this Zelda...a CG animated kid Link dreams about this adventure, as his mind is of a child's, creating the cartoony appearance. Also Link dreams a lot...think of it a la Link's Awakening. Just speculation of course...what do you think?) (Another side note is the show South Park. A very 'mature' cartoon. 'Nuff said.)

~PrincessLinty~ (no relation to Princess Zelda, I don't have pointy ears :)

LordBrian:
Well said. Zelda for me has always been about the sense of adventure the game manages to instill, despite the lack of a strong storyline. I love the ability to just wander around and explore the lands, not knowing what I'll find next. If the next Zelda was ultra realistic, I'd be just as happy as with the cartoon look if it managed to fill me with the same wonder that I had when I played the original game, or A Link to the Past. The looks are just a means to that end, and if you give it half a chance, I'm sure the ends will justfy the means.

 
Logical tangents

Hey there. After reading all the arguing about childish vs. non-childish games out there, I came up with a quick idea that might help. Would it be fair to say that video games were originally intended for children? I think so. Now, I am certainly not a child anymore, but I am still comfortable enough with myself to admit that I play with something originally geared toward children; but it doesn’t really bother me. No one gets made fun of for playing video games in a dorm room. So anyway, my point is, if these “older” kids are comfortable with spending a great deal of their time playing video games, and wouldn’t want someone calling them a dork for playing video games even though they are older than the age 13, why should they be biased toward other video games and try to exclude them based on their apparent design? I personally think that all video games, no matter who they’re meant for, have the ability to produce a lot of entertainment for anyone. If an adult is comfortable enough to play video games, then they should certainly be comfortable enough to be open-minded about playing “kiddy” games.
Just a thought,
TeknoLux
P.S. C’mon people! Banjo Kazooie was SO fun (if you ever bothered to try it out).

LordBrian:
We're the video game generation -- nobody our age is going to make fun of us for playing games, because we all grew up with them. Last year, someone brought an original NES and tons of games to school with them. You wouldn't believe (or maybe you would) the amount of time we spent playing all those old games, despite the fact that they were more than 10 years old. We all have memories of playing them when we were younger, and are always eager to relive those memories, whether or not they were originally intended to be played by children.

And if someone laughs at me for playing with my GBA or GameCube this fall, then there will be issues. And we don't want issues.

 
And now for something completely different

Hello Lord Brian,whom I most apreciate for pointing out obvious things I missed. I have a few questions for you.

1.)First things first,how you doin?

LordBrian:
Peachy keen. And yourself?

2.)Have you ever heard of a band called Mindless Self Indulgence? They're a really cool Atari rock group from NYC.

LordBrian:
No, but maybe I'll check them out sometime.

3.)Do you think a South Park RPG would corrupt the delicate ballance of RPGs? That's it The Masked Mystere

LordBrian:
It wouldn't corrupt anything...it would just suck.

 
Assuming, of course, it's not delayed again...

Dear LordBrian,

Does Hoshigami have a set release date yet? One must note that release dates set for the first of a month are negligible - for example, every time Working Designs needs more time on a game, they set its release for the first of a month and then delay it.

Also, what happened to Cheshire Catalyst?

-Traks

LordBrian:
I'm not sure if there's a final release date as of yet, but last I heard mid-to-late October is the time you'll want to start expecting it.

And Chesh is still here, lurking in the darkness as usual. Well, not here here, but around.

 
And speaking of Hoshigami...

Hail, LordBrian, Lord of the Brians...

I've got a pretty simple question:

This year I plan to get one more PS game (my first non-Square game, too...), and I'm having trouble deciding if that game should be Hoshigami or Dragon Warrior 7. I've never played any of the DW games, nor have I played FFT (I started it, liked it, but it was a rental, so I had to return it...).

Also, I prefer games with a strong story over gameplay... in fact, as long as it's got a really good plot, the gameplay could be utter crap, for all I care. So which should I get?

-SP

LordBrian:
There's nothing simple about that question. By all accounts, DW7 is an excellent game, and if FFT is any indication of what to expect, Hoshigami will be just as good. Dragon Warrior games usually have good stories, and I believe that Hoshigami will as well. So it really comes down to this: do you like regular, turn-based RPGs, or do you like your games to have a more tactical battle approach?

Personally, I'd pick Hoshigami, but that's because I liked FFT and never really got into DW. Your results may vary.

 
Some FF9 spoilers to tickle your fancy, and other stuff

Alright, just a couple of things, Oh Lordy one:

1. For that guy who was asking about Zidane's weapons, there are two weapons better than the Orichalcon: The Tower and Ultima Weapon. The Tower is found in the final dungeon. Ultima Weapon is recieved in the Chocobo dive spot thing. Make the Chocobo dive right over where Terra used to be (you should still see ruins).

LordBrian:
I was aware of that, but since he seemed dead set on another Orichalcon, I didn't want to overload him with information. And the Ultima Weapon rocks.

2. Lunar 1 or Lunar 2?

LordBrian:
Lunar 1, then Lunar 2! But overall, Lunar 1.

3. Do you remember Working Designs mystery RPG? What do you think it is?

LordBrian:
If it's not Lunar 3, then it could just about be anything in the world. I'm betting that whatever it is, it'll be worth getting.

4. What is your favorite Dragon Quest?

LordBrian:
Since I only ever played the first all the way through, I'll have to pick that one by default.

5. Favorite soundtrack to a game?

LordBrian:
OST? There's just too many to choose from. I'll pick FF6 this time.

6. I'm playing through Xenogears for the first time. Who do you suggest I have in my party? I have Fei, Rico and Citan now, but I could also have Elly, Bart or Billy.

LordBrian:
I'd pick Fei, Elly, and Citan myself. I like to keep couples together for some reason. I'm weird like that.

 
LordBrian stares into the future...and makes something up

Hello Lord Brian. I have been replaying various games in my collection and noticed a quickie about Star Ocean 3 yesterday. is there going to be one? i personally enjoyed playing star ocean 2, despite the voices sounding like somebody ran over the actors.
One other question, I've been looking for vandal hearts 2 and haven't been able to find it in any retail stores. Do you know where I could find it for a relatively cheap price? and is it worth getting?

The Eternal Fire Justice

LordBrian:
There'll be a Star Ocean 3 at some point in the future, I have no doubt about that. As to when it'll be out, and when it will make it here, only time will tell. Don't hold your breath waiting for Star Ocean: Blue Sphere (for the GBC), however. We'll probably never get it.

I saw VH2 in a bargain bin at Software Etc. the other day for $15, and I wasn't even looking for it. So it can be found, but it's not really worth it. I'm not a fan of the first game, and it's worse than that one.

 
Despite its cutseyness, Paper Mario is an excellent game

Reading Sunday's column brought back fond memories of 2 fine games in my collection and I just felt like sharing:

1) "A Castlevania where Dracula shoots sparkly stars from his hands and you have to kill him by popping all the bright pink balloons he's using to float around the room with"

While the description isn't 100% accurate, would you believe that there IS a Castlevania game like this? It's called Kid Dracula, and it was for the Famicom in addition to Game Boy (the Game Boy version was released in the US in '93). It's got as much happiness and cutseyness as Paper Mario, but with the challenge of the earlier games in the series.

...and

2) Re: Shaking babies. If you've ever had the urge, better to do it in a game than in real life, no? Mischief Makers for N64 let you shake babies, bosses, and pretty much anything else you could get your hands on. Go Marina!!!

That's all; just goes to show now matter how far fetched an idea may seem, some developer has thought of it and possibly brought it to the consumer market.

--JDAV

LordBrian:
I've played neither and don't intend to, but if anyone has the urge to play a stupid Dracula game or seriously injure babies, here's some info to help start you off.

 
Now that's bizarre

I just read today's (or yesterdays, depending on when this is being read) column and someone wrote about having problems with Final Fantasy Chronicles booting up. I own the game and have had a problem, but not that problem. Am I the only one, or does everyone's FFC manual have about a dozen pages printed twice, and another dozen pages missing? Thats all I have to say.


-GDO

LordBrian:
I remember saying something this weekend along the lines that I never look in my instruction books, so I really can't help you. However, I'd guess that this is a fairly unique problem. Maybe your instructions will be worth something on eBay one day.

 
Odin's Sword is just a nice way of describing...uh...you know...

Salutations.

I haven't visited RPGamer's Q&A since the days of the mighty Brad the Oracle, but I have a question that I just can't seem to find the answer to on FAQs.

In FF9, just what exactly does Dagger's "Odin's Sword" ability do? I've had it equipped for some time and haven't figured it out yet. Thanks.

"Life is like a mop."
--The Geek

LordBrian:
That's a good question, and one that took me a while to figure out myself. If you summon Odin, and he fails to kill the enemies in that oh-so-cool instant death way that he has, then he'll inflict a secondary wind attack as well, to make sure his coming wasn't a total waste.

 
Out of nowhere

Hey LB,

First I want to ask, why does Nintendo have a reputation for producing games for Kiddies? I looked through my old SNES games today, and found two games that have just as many religious overtones as Xenogears: Populous, and ActRaiser. And both of those were launch titles for the SNES! Furthermore, in the original Zelda, level 3 was shaped like a swastika. What happened to Nintendo that made them go from a normal game maker to the flop that everyone considers them now?

Second, regarding the new Zelda look. As RPGamers, we shouldn't care about graphics, we tout ourselves as "intellectual" because we expect more out of a game than "Pritty Pixurrz." I don't mind the new look, but if Nintendo was trying to go back to the roots of Zelda, they should have make Link look more like the pic in my attachment (which is from the original Zelda guidebook), not a cross between PaRappa and a Powerpuff Girl. Still, though, a fun (but deformed) Zelda game is better than a not-fun-but-pretty PS2 game.

--GoblinKing

LordBrian:
There's just so much wrong with your first paragraph, I don't know where to begin. Nintendo has a reputation for making games for kids because...that's what they do. I can't remember the last M-rated game they made -- oh, wait, they've never made one. And you seem to be mistaking games that show up on Nintendo consoles as being made by Nintendo, and this isn't the case. Populous was made by Bullfrog, and ActRaiser was an Enix game. And just because you play god (or a god-like being) doesn't mean it has heavy religious overtones, and not nearly of the same intensity of Xenogears.

The map for level three is not a swastika for two reasons. One, it's backwards. Two, it's on its side, not on a point.

And I don't know anyone who considers Nintendo a flop. The N64 may have been a less-than-spectacular system, but their games are consistently excellent. They seem to be continuing this tradition with the GameCube, as well as making an excellent new console as well.

For those of you that want to see, the picture he refers to is located here. And if Nintendo wanted to go back to their roots, then they can do it any way they want. But who said that's what they were doing?

 
Ending on a somewhat odd note

Another point about Zelda being "happy": In the first 64 Zelda game, that one girl calls you "fairy boy."

What kind of dark, brooding hero lets someone call him "fairy boy?"

Let them make the game goofy as they like. As long as it's a good, fun game, it'll be worth playing.

LordBrian:
And that's exactly the point of this weekend.




Before I Go:

Now that's what I call a column. I hope you all enjoyed this weekend as much as I did, and thanks for sending in such great mail. Aegis got lost in the shuffle this week, but he'll return for his new day on Monday. Goog's back tomorrow, so that's where your mail goes now.

LordBrian "The final word: GC Zelda's gonna kick ass and take names" @rpgamer.com
8 hours here, and I already have six entries on the screw list. Horrible.

   Have a question? Ask Goog  


© 1998-2013 RPGamer All Rights Reserved
Privacy Policy