I was one of the people who blasted the art for this game. In magazine photos, the art looks horrible. I was afraid that Wind Waker would be like playing an episode of South Park.
Thankfully, in motion, Link looks much better. The only thing I'd change about Wind Waker graphics now is to give Link a more normal set of eyes and a less lemony Family Circus head. At least Link's eyes served a purpose, they tended to look towards the key to your current puzzle.
With the latest Zelda it seemed like I was always exploring, fighting or working on a puzzle. I had two accidental all-nighters playing it from losing track of time. With Wind Waker this wasn't a problem... That said, while I was battling in Wind Waker I greatly enjoyed the game. If each island had a warp gate that let you go back to a central area (but you had to sail to each island once to activate it) the sailing wouldn't have been nearly the chore.
I'm really looking forward to seeing the VR helmet or 3D glasses come back to put things in your peripheral vision. A helmet would be great with a series of small speakers built around it for surround sound to cue you into to when a glance behind you might be a good thing. Flashing arrows or triangles on the edge of the screen don't really fit the bill. Maybe taking about 10 pixels off each side of the TV border and devoting them to a squashed view of what's a little to your side to simulate peripheral vision would work nicely.
A small flicker through the border might be something at a distance while a larger shape moving could indicate something close. The first flicker MIGHT be a smaller close enemy, you'd never know until you turn.
The Wii could work great with this if rolling the Wiimote slightly made you peer slightly sideways like turning your eyes a bit, maybe holding a button to make the twist a full head turning motion.
James Bond gets remade with new actors and toys, but I don't think he's going to quit the spy business for a sitcomy movie running a pizza joint with no action to speak of in the near future.
There are certain key concepts without which you don't have the same game.
The expectation of more-of-the-same is what sells Nintendo's consoles generation after generation.
The big problem I've seen with Zelda and MANY MANY other games is mini-game-itis.
If you're good at the core engine, why should your ability to complete the game, getting all the hearts, the biggest wallet and bomb bag depend on how well you can play some mindless but insanely difficult minigame?
The worst I've seen was a Goemon game where periodically you have to beat a minigame to move on, period. You could be kept from winning the game, just because someone decided to base progession on something OTHER THAN the mechanics you paid fifty dollars to play. Is anyone surprised at the existence of Game Genies and Game Sharks in light of this?
If you want unlockable bonuses on disc connected to the mini-games (unlocking soundtracks, concept art) fine, but no part of the main game should hinge on it.
People are perfectly happy watching the same Star Trek series for years on end. How long have the same staple comics been in the papers? Everything does not need a grand reenvisioning.
If you got a great meal at a restaurant, would you refuse to go out again until you heard a friend talking about an even better meal he had somewhere, then go only there, and only once? To expect EVERYTHING to trump what went before (besides audio and video on a more powerful machine, FF10 SHOULD look and sound much better than FF7) is absurd.
I would like to see more episodic games. There's a reason Mega Man was able to last six games on the NES alone, five more on the original Game Boy while the move to 3D was widely blasted. (This may have more to do with a poor implementation than anything else though.)
> however the friendly AI leaves.... alot to be desired
AI for your allies is going to tend to stink. People like to kick butt, and it won't do if your ally kicks it all before you get into position.
While some games may be made for vets of a genre, if you want to attract everyone as a potential player, the default setting will probably be for them to do as badly as possible (at least early on) to not show the player up.
There's also the problem with more experienced players that having competant friendly AI could lessen the challenge. Perhaps you're SUPPOSED to think as a member of a team and not take out all the enemies yourself, but is that how people want to play?
Most sports have an area of focus. If there's a ball, the area immediately surrounding the ball is all you need to look at at any given time. Capture the flag would be easy to get good shots of. Other games would best be watched afterwards, when someone's gone over the game, picking the best angles for everything that happened, prettying it up for the audience.
Boring? Football is a few seconds play, a minute watching them walk slowly back and stand around doing nothing, repeat. On the other hand this means you can grab a drink quickly w/o missing anything many times throughout a game.
Bomberman could be good for deathmatches, or Powerstone where the field is relatively limited.
Contra and Super C were a blast to match, constantly different powerups keeping the game interesting. Any begin to end game would need new levels each week. Games that featured high quirk factors could appeal to surprisingly large audiences. Turn the corner and a friendly Gecko offers you car insurances. The occasional player who stops to gawk gets creamed. Players shooting each other might be reduced to a pie in the face of a mascot, who if not defused loudly trails the player around, staying behind the player until someone else disposes of it.
If FPSs were used, they might have to be edited for mass audiences, removing some of the more vulgar moments / taunts. As much as Tiger Woods was griped at over having mouthed a curse word, the average FPS run is NOT ready for prime time.
There's always protection in saying less, at least from a company policy perspective. Any time you open your mouth for anything you open the company to liability. The less you say the less chance of you have of saying something you shouldn't. My company has a policy that none of us are allowed to talk to the press about company plans, no matter how well known the plans are to the general public. Any reporter attempting to interview anyone must be directed to one of several people authorized to speak on the companies behalf to the world at large. Even if we offend no one we may gush about hopes for a product, leaving customers angry over us not living up to what we supposedly promised to deliver.
I've come to the conclusion that what some higher ups are paid for is to know how to talk "freely" without saying anything that can possibly be taken wrong to project the image of an ethical company with nothing to hide. The higher up with a press release is a secondary mascot. Mr Peanut looking good doesn't tell you much about Planters. Bill Gates starting a philanthropic organization is actual good press for the company. Of course when you have a group whose stock in trade is being devoid of content no one will notice them unless they do something really bad, or really really good.
Rambling aside, it would be nice if there was a standard "If you'd like to comment on my performance, I promise not to sue" form that would let companies leave feedback without fear. I expect most companies would consider this not worth the hassle / expense of keeping the forms on file in case they're needed later, or risking an inside job where someone "loses" the form so someone else can sue.
As far as telling someone "no" if they didn't get the job, if you make a point to tell someone no (or yes), do it promptly. Six months after applying to one company (and 3 months into my current job) the 1st company sends a letter telling me that they have no applicable positions at this time. Well, even if they did, it's likely moot now... Another company I applied for on two occasions called me in for interviews both times, but 2-3 months later each time, after I'd gotten a job elsewhere.
The best advice I recieved was on building resumes. A potential employer who said I was rejected for lack of experience (upfront and pleasently) suggested I change my resume from talking about what skills I technically had (through various courses in college I ended up spending several months each in about a dozen computer languages, all of which I listed, figuring that whatever I was hired for I'd absorb quickly) to listing only those skills I'd used at my last job, along with descriptions of specfic things I'd used them for. After this I was called in for many more interviews.
If a company doesn't call you back, call back yourself. The company may want to know who REALLY wants the job.
Slashdot Mirror
I was one of the people who blasted the art for this game. In magazine photos, the art looks horrible. I was afraid that Wind Waker would be like playing an episode of South Park.
Thankfully, in motion, Link looks much better. The only thing I'd change about Wind Waker graphics now is to give Link a more normal set of eyes and a less lemony Family Circus head. At least Link's eyes served a purpose, they tended to look towards the key to your current puzzle.
With the latest Zelda it seemed like I was always exploring, fighting or working on a puzzle. I had two accidental all-nighters playing it from losing track of time. With Wind Waker this wasn't a problem... That said, while I was battling in Wind Waker I greatly enjoyed the game. If each island had a warp gate that let you go back to a central area (but you had to sail to each island once to activate it) the sailing wouldn't have been nearly the chore.
Lack of combat:
I'm really looking forward to seeing the VR helmet or 3D glasses come back to put things in your peripheral vision. A helmet would be great with a series of small speakers built around it for surround sound to cue you into to when a glance behind you might be a good thing. Flashing arrows or triangles on the edge of the screen don't really fit the bill. Maybe taking about 10 pixels off each side of the TV border and devoting them to a squashed view of what's a little to your side to simulate peripheral vision would work nicely.
A small flicker through the border might be something at a distance while a larger shape moving could indicate something close. The first flicker MIGHT be a smaller close enemy, you'd never know until you turn.
The Wii could work great with this if rolling the Wiimote slightly made you peer slightly sideways like turning your eyes a bit, maybe holding a button to make the twist a full head turning motion.
On Don't reinvent the wheel:
James Bond gets remade with new actors and toys, but I don't think he's going to quit the spy business for a sitcomy movie running a pizza joint with no action to speak of in the near future.
There are certain key concepts without which you don't have the same game.
The expectation of more-of-the-same is what sells Nintendo's consoles generation after generation.
Concerning Sidequest Nonsese I completely agree.
The big problem I've seen with Zelda and MANY MANY other games is mini-game-itis.
If you're good at the core engine, why should your ability to complete the game, getting all the hearts, the biggest wallet and bomb bag depend on how well you can play some mindless but insanely difficult minigame?
The worst I've seen was a Goemon game where periodically you have to beat a minigame to move on, period. You could be kept from winning the game, just because someone decided to base progession on something OTHER THAN the mechanics you paid fifty dollars to play. Is anyone surprised at the existence of Game Genies and Game Sharks in light of this?
If you want unlockable bonuses on disc connected to the mini-games (unlocking soundtracks, concept art) fine, but no part of the main game should hinge on it.
People are perfectly happy watching the same Star Trek series for years on end. How long have the same staple comics been in the papers? Everything does not need a grand reenvisioning. If you got a great meal at a restaurant, would you refuse to go out again until you heard a friend talking about an even better meal he had somewhere, then go only there, and only once? To expect EVERYTHING to trump what went before (besides audio and video on a more powerful machine, FF10 SHOULD look and sound much better than FF7) is absurd. I would like to see more episodic games. There's a reason Mega Man was able to last six games on the NES alone, five more on the original Game Boy while the move to 3D was widely blasted. (This may have more to do with a poor implementation than anything else though.)
Talk? Who the hell wants to hear actors talk?
> however the friendly AI leaves.... alot to be desired
AI for your allies is going to tend to stink. People like to kick butt, and it won't do if your ally kicks it all before you get into position.
While some games may be made for vets of a genre, if you want to attract everyone as a potential player, the default setting will probably be for them to do as badly as possible (at least early on) to not show the player up.
There's also the problem with more experienced players that having competant friendly AI could lessen the challenge. Perhaps you're SUPPOSED to think as a member of a team and not take out all the enemies yourself, but is that how people want to play?
Most sports have an area of focus. If there's a ball, the area immediately surrounding the ball is all you need to look at at any given time. Capture the flag would be easy to get good shots of. Other games would best be watched afterwards, when someone's gone over the game, picking the best angles for everything that happened, prettying it up for the audience. Boring? Football is a few seconds play, a minute watching them walk slowly back and stand around doing nothing, repeat. On the other hand this means you can grab a drink quickly w/o missing anything many times throughout a game. Bomberman could be good for deathmatches, or Powerstone where the field is relatively limited. Contra and Super C were a blast to match, constantly different powerups keeping the game interesting. Any begin to end game would need new levels each week. Games that featured high quirk factors could appeal to surprisingly large audiences. Turn the corner and a friendly Gecko offers you car insurances. The occasional player who stops to gawk gets creamed. Players shooting each other might be reduced to a pie in the face of a mascot, who if not defused loudly trails the player around, staying behind the player until someone else disposes of it. If FPSs were used, they might have to be edited for mass audiences, removing some of the more vulgar moments / taunts. As much as Tiger Woods was griped at over having mouthed a curse word, the average FPS run is NOT ready for prime time.
There's always protection in saying less, at least from a company policy perspective. Any time you open your mouth for anything you open the company to liability. The less you say the less chance of you have of saying something you shouldn't. My company has a policy that none of us are allowed to talk to the press about company plans, no matter how well known the plans are to the general public. Any reporter attempting to interview anyone must be directed to one of several people authorized to speak on the companies behalf to the world at large. Even if we offend no one we may gush about hopes for a product, leaving customers angry over us not living up to what we supposedly promised to deliver.
I've come to the conclusion that what some higher ups are paid for is to know how to talk "freely" without saying anything that can possibly be taken wrong to project the image of an ethical company with nothing to hide. The higher up with a press release is a secondary mascot. Mr Peanut looking good doesn't tell you much about Planters. Bill Gates starting a philanthropic organization is actual good press for the company. Of course when you have a group whose stock in trade is being devoid of content no one will notice them unless they do something really bad, or really really good.
Rambling aside, it would be nice if there was a standard "If you'd like to comment on my performance, I promise not to sue" form that would let companies leave feedback without fear. I expect most companies would consider this not worth the hassle / expense of keeping the forms on file in case they're needed later, or risking an inside job where someone "loses" the form so someone else can sue.
As far as telling someone "no" if they didn't get the job, if you make a point to tell someone no (or yes), do it promptly. Six months after applying to one company (and 3 months into my current job) the 1st company sends a letter telling me that they have no applicable positions at this time. Well, even if they did, it's likely moot now... Another company I applied for on two occasions called me in for interviews both times, but 2-3 months later each time, after I'd gotten a job elsewhere.
The best advice I recieved was on building resumes. A potential employer who said I was rejected for lack of experience (upfront and pleasently) suggested I change my resume from talking about what skills I technically had (through various courses in college I ended up spending several months each in about a dozen computer languages, all of which I listed, figuring that whatever I was hired for I'd absorb quickly) to listing only those skills I'd used at my last job, along with descriptions of specfic things I'd used them for. After this I was called in for many more interviews.
If a company doesn't call you back, call back yourself. The company may want to know who REALLY wants the job.