About the Wii itself:
I like the concept, but some of it needs improvement. You see, I got one last Friday and have already beaten Metroid Prime 3: Corruption.
My biggest problem is that the controller movement is relative movement. I would really like to play a game like Metroid and point at the screen to aim. Or if I can't do that, point my controller around like her gun arm and have that mimic in-game. But if you make such a large motion, the Wii has a hernia and you go out of scope for the sensor and then lots of crying .. or I mean dying. Or something.
As it is, you more or less "tilt" the controller and that does the in game aiming etc. This is not a problem with Metroid, it's a problem with the Wii.
In Zelda, the box says "Swing your controller and Link swings his sword!" Now, that sounds like all kinds of cool, no?
Until you get in the game and realize "swing" means "rattle" and that if you actually DO swing your controller arm, you go off-screen (which the game buzzes you for) and it doesn't register a swing at all.
I hope that some second gen input devices will at least widen the field of view and/or solve these issues.
Now, that said, the Wii does have some nice features. The input method in other ways is quite unique. I really liked the switch puzzles in Metroid, where you rotate your Wii-mote (the controller pad) and the switches in game rotate with it. That sort of thing.
WiiConnect24 is an online service where you can download games. The NES and SNES titles cost 5 to 8 dollars each. That's really handy. =)
The Mii concept needs some polish. They look ridiculous and I don't see any self-respecting game really using them seriously. Metroid has a "bonus" mode that lets you put your Mii on Samus's spaceship's dash as a bobble-head. Looks like they feel it's silly too. =)
About Zelda:
Disappointed. The controller issue I described is part of it. I really want to swing my sword arm and have my swing mirrored in game. Angle, speed, all of it. That would be cool.
But even outside the controller issues, what is with making the series a kiddie game? I feel like I have to lower myself to Zelda's level as a gamer. I want a mature Zelda. You know, those of us who actually remember spending countless hours inside castles, breaking blocks, dodging enemies, to save the princess? Not throwing chickens, shooting slingshots at spiders and tumbling through grass.
WindWaker was a step in the right direction. Too bad they reverted to N64-Zelda style.
Ugh.
About Metroid:
Awesome. Totally awesome.
Even awesomer than that. (Spelling Nazis - I know that the word I just typed isn't in the dictionary. You'll live.)
Whew, where do I begin....
This game really stream lines pointless running around. Almost none. Objectives are clear and marked. Pick ups are (eventually) marked on the maps for you.
Each room feels like it flows properly and has purpose.
The maps are beautiful.
But the best is the epic feeling of the fights. You really feel like you are running around, dodging, weaving, and in short, out-gunning your opposition.
Hyper mode is fun.as.hell. It's a whole lot of whup-ass in a neat little package.
Only one boss feels like cheeze. The rest feel more refined.
The music is appropriate and underscores the areas you go through nicely.
The scripted enemy sequences don't really feel so scripted and the feeling that gives is of some large force actually out to stop you. Like it should.
My only disappointment would have to be that I felt the metroids themselves should have been more populous and more deadly (thus scary opponents). But I'll live. Maybe next time.
This game was so much fun, I am restarting it tonight. Few games grab me like that.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Actually, the aiming in Metroid (and the Wii overall) has nothing to do with tilt, and it's not relative. The Wiimote detects the positions of the two ends of the sensor bar and uses that to triangulate its own angle relative to the TV screen, then the game positions the cursor based on that. In other words, you point at the screen to aim.
Naturally, that's not going to translate into you making the exact same motions as Samus does, because the TV screen doesn't take up your entire field of vision. Not to mention that, if you want Samus makes a 90-degree turn, for example, it obviously wouldn't work to require you to physically make a 90-degree turn, because then you would no longer be facing the screen.
As for Zelda, that game ONLY uses the accelerometers to detect a sword swing, not the sensor. The only time you have to point the remote at the screen in Zelda is for aiming the boomerang, bow, etc. (Though I'll admit the "point the Wii remote at the screen" message is annoying.)
I wasn't going to address the thing about "kiddie" Zelda, but now that I see you're almost 30, it does strike me as odd, considering that the "kiddie" thing is typically only tossed around by actual kids. How is "breaking blocks, dodging enemies, to save the princess" any more "mature" than the other stuff you mentioned (especially considering that you do all of those things in Twilight Princess as well)? I'm not trying to suggest that Twilight Princess is "mature" (whatever that's supposed to mean), but it's certainly no less so than any other Zelda game.
Thanks for responding. Here is a bit of clarification on things:
1) You don't point at the screen to aim. I wish you did. You point from the middle of the sensor bar's field of view. By tilting the sensor bar itself I can bring that censor close to center of screen, but it still has no actual awareness of the screen itself. Left is left from center, but not by a measurable amount that translates to screen real-estate.
And that's why it's relative.
2) 90-degree turn. You turn Samus (since it is first-person perspective) by pointing the cursor toward the left end of the screen. In terms of real-world turning, you would move about 30 degrees to either side until the in-game Samus completes her turn.
Some games it would have to operate differently obviously, especially those based on a third-person perspective.
But in the case of Metroid, that's definitely not the case.
3) Zelda accelerometers. Regardless of the technical reason it works this way (which I do agree with the technical explanation given) the consumer expectation is different. When the delivery does not match expectation, disappointment ensues.
4) Maturity in this case is a measure of how satisfying it is to an adult player. I liken it to Episode 1 Star Wars. People hated JarJar because it was obvious he was tending to the young audience crowd - and as a result was annoying to people beyond that age.
Zelda has become largely the same. I think I only keep buying them hoping that one day they will surprise me. That and the title selection is pretty slim at the moment.
But in the terms of what is mature, the more mature games usually are not afraid to take themselves seriously, not only in terms of game play difficulty and dialog, but in terms of being no-nonsense.
The latest trend of characters who give meaningless quests (go round up the goats!), talk in vox, have you complete "cute quests" (go give these flowers to my girl friend!), etc are unnecessary chafe. Yet many are required. Furthermore, for the seasoned gamer, they are mere busy work.
WindWaker had it's share but it had more of the "go storm the castle to save us from danger" than the other latest titles.
Some of the cutsie is going to be there regardless. I accept that. But the trend has been lately to make the Zelda games revolve around that.
But rather than just complain, let me give you an idea of what I would like to see:
The main story line should be completable by people new to gaming, so for that purpose, the difficulty should be similar to the difficulty of the games now. But that story line needs to be pretty close to no-nonsense. Each point of the story should have purpose and the purpose should either be clear or become clear. Completing the main story line should be doable without side quests, even if difficult.
Then, there should be the share of the "kiddie" side quests. Throw the chickens around, round up the goats, deliver flowers. It is important that these are relegated to side quests because if you are being railroaded in to doing them, they speak volumes about the game designer expectations and about possible need for time wasting. (Artificial expansion of required play time)
Then there should be quests that require an astute or skillful player. Ideally, but optionally, they will give the same rewards that other, "kiddie" quests give or at least some of them. Some of these places should be required to get some of the best items available or for game completion (for those that track completion).
They should require (for those who do not rely on spoiler guides) good pattern matching, memorization and reasoning skills. Other places should be a nightmare for the regular hack-and-slash player but only moderately difficult for someone who grasps the combat system and uses it like a third hand.
And finally, on a side note, the environments have become more abstract in design. I'd almost say lazy on the part of the texture artists especially. Entire fields look like a texture and nothing more. Trees and buildings have the same look to them. Some things, like bricks, look almost like "We will give you a hint that this is brick, but we aren't going to bother with making it look realistic or even semi-realistic."
And it's that trend that really disappoints these days.
What was more "mature" about what I described before is that it was no-nonsense play. It had purpose and it didn't detract from the game at large.
On a final note, I don't know what you do for a living, so if you are tied in with any of this, please take my opinion to mind, but don't take it as an affront. It is after all, opinion. =)
Hope this follow up helps you.
Wow, that was a pretty classy response. I was expecting to just get bitched at. Kudos.
1) I suppose this is true, but in my experience the difference between this system and just literally pointing at the screen has been negligible. Your mileage may vary with screen size and distance between you and the screen, but for me it hasn't been a problem. So you're saying you'd prefer something more like an actual light gun? I guess I can see your point, but I'm not convinced it would be preferable, as making such large motions would get tiring and make it difficult to play for very long at a time.
Which is the same issue I have with 3). I agree that it would be cool to have 1:1 sword movement, and it would be a nice showcase of the Wii's abilities, and I'm sure someone will do it sooner or later... but would it actually be a game that I'd want to play for more than a few minutes? I'm not so sure. In Zelda's case, I don't think the motion control sword swings added much, and I'd just as soon push a button, since it's not a game about fancy swordplay in the first place.
I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree on the "kiddie" stuff. The thing is, all of the Zelda gameplay, sidequest or not, pretty much boils down to either fighting monsters, getting items, or giving items to other characters. So, even if it is "no nonsense," you'd still be doing basically the same things, only instead of giving flowers to somebody's girlfriend, you'd be delivering some sacred artifact to a sorcerer, or something like that. Personally, despite being in my mid-twenties, I enjoy most of the NPCs as they give the game some personality and occasional comic relief from whatever end-of-the-world scenario is the plot of the main game. I think a "no nonsense" Zelda would be a bit dull and lifeless, although I suppose making the other stuff optional would be a possibility. Still, I've never felt like I had to "lower myself to Zelda's level."
I have no professional connection with any of these games; I'm just an enthusiast.
Cool enough and thanks for following up!
The extra motion it would require to be a full-motion gaming console I would welcome. It might actually get me to put down the controller a little more often. =)
As for Zelda, I was a bit harsh on it, I admit. And I haven't finished either. I admit I could find myself pleasantly surprised in time.
By the way, thanks for caring enough to write!
greetings, dracorat. :-) i have a couple of thoughts:
1. wii is a very progressive, futuristic idea, but as is often the case, someone else (sony?) will likely do a better job of it in the future after learning from nintendo's mistakes.
2. zelda has always been geared towards a younger audience, and based on the success of the series over the years, i doubt this will ever change.
messy
Oh indeed! But that doesn't mean a man can't express his dismay over it.
Post a Comment