Single Player and Multi player Zelda

[FallenAngelAzazel]

Four Swords DS would be nice, but personally, I was never a fan of either FS or FSA. The latter could have been better or the Nintendo DS. It felt odd playing it on a console.

Why? Because today has to be all HD, 3D realistic looking games? What is so bad about playing a classic, 2D Zelda on today's consoles? Or rather, a classic-style game on any of today's systems? I bought Muramasa back in the fall, for the Wii. Great game, and guess what? It has an artistic feel to it, and is a sidescroller. I've also downloaded a WiiWare game called LostWinds. Same deal. My question is, what's wrong with having both? Why can't we have classic-style games alongside our 3D, realistic, whatever games?

That's because original Four Swords was supposed to an ALTTP like terrain.

Actually, it still is. The whole game map is modeled after ALttP. The only difference are the character sprites, as somewhere along development, they swapped the ALttP Link for the Link we see in FS and TMC. Also, the effects such as explosions or puffs of smoke were taken straight out of TWW, but judging from that video, it seems those were always on there.

Honestly, as for people doing the whole FS thing, I'm one of the ones that supports it. I don't know why people were against it, such as this:

And FS has the obvious problem of a mostly worthless multiplayer mode on a multiplayer-only game.

How is it worthless? I'll admit, playing these games multiplayer is a bit of a pain, as you need all the tools for it. But have you actually played them? I've played both of the multiplayer FS games, and it's a blast. I'd rank FSA up there with Smash Bros. and Mario Kart. I'm dead f*cking serious. It's that fun. As for worthless? On the GBA ALttP/FS, FS did a lot. It was mostly a sidestory, yes, but did it take anything away from ALttP? No. In fact, if you played FS, it added to it. It was designed because the Zelda series has always been a solo experience, and Nintendo thought they could appeal to the people who have friends that want to play together. Nothing wrong with that. FSA only took what the original did, and made it possibly a million times better, with multiple modes, minigames, a whole adventure that CAN be taken single or multiplayer, and a unique, frantic battle mode and the ability to switch between the TV and GBA screens.

Honestly, while the multiplayer modes in PH and ST were decent, they're just that: decent. It's just a quick minigame of collecting shit for a few minutes, then you're done. There's no depth.

Obviously, I want Nintendo to keep making regular Zelda games. But while they're at it, why not make more multiplayer games on the scale of FS and FSA? Especially with the Wii and DS' tech, it's quite possible to do it easily without all the tools you needed for last generations systems. Maybe we could even do single card (Hey, Kirby did it...). Once again, I stress the question, "Why not have both?". Multiple development teams work on different games as well, so it's not like you'll be losing development time on Zelda Wii or anything. The only thing the games would share would be Aonuma and Miyamoto, most likely. So you can throw that excuse out the window.

Also, with the way gaming's going, you see more and more multiplayer and more and more online gamers. Don't know if anyone has heard the news, but Zelda is no longer in the top 10 best selling game franchises anymore. In order to keep up the momentum, Zelda will have to appeal to an ever-growing market. So yes, there's gamers who want the classic, solo Zelda experiences, but there's other gamers getting up and leaving because they can't play it with their friends. There's no reason not to support both types.

[Alter]

Why? Because today has to be all HD, 3D realistic looking games? What is so bad about playing a classic, 2D Zelda on today's consoles? Or rather, a classic-style game on any of today's systems? I bought Muramasa back in the fall, for the Wii. Great game, and guess what? It has an artistic feel to it, and is a sidescroller. I've also downloaded a WiiWare game called LostWinds. Same deal. My question is, what's wrong with having both? Why can't we have classic-style games alongside our 3D, realistic, whatever games?

You would do well to take a look at the website I run, Zelda in my Pocket (http://www.zeldainmypocket.com/). I think that will make it clear on how I feel about 2D, handheld games. :P

How is it worthless? I'll admit, playing these games multiplayer is a bit of a pain, as you need all the tools for it.

Are you aware of the cost associated with purchasing four GBAs, Three Link Cables, and Four FS/ALttP games? You're looking at over $500 by the prices back then.

But have you actually played them? I've played both of the multiplayer FS games, and it's a blast. I'd rank FSA up there with Smash Bros. and Mario Kart. I'm dead f*cking serious. It's that fun. As for worthless? On the GBA ALttP/FS, FS did a lot. It was mostly a sidestory, yes, but did it take anything away from ALttP? No. In fact, if you played FS, it added to it. It was designed because the Zelda series has always been a solo experience, and Nintendo thought they could appeal to the people who have friends that want to play together. Nothing wrong with that. FSA only took what the original did, and made it possibly a million times better, with multiple modes, minigames, a whole adventure that CAN be taken single or multiplayer, and a unique, frantic battle mode and the ability to switch between the TV and GBA screens.

Nintendo made a valiant effort, but they failed miserably for the time they were in. Very few of my friends who had the game had a link cable as well, not to mention that it was hard to find another -much less four- players to actually enjoy the game the way it was intended. And also, if they had really wanted the fans to buy and play the game, they could have included a single-player mode.

I myself was only about to play it a handful of times, and only for a few moments.

Honestly, while the multiplayer modes in PH and ST were decent, they're just that: decent. It's just a quick minigame of collecting shit for a few minutes, then you're done. There's no depth.

I have yet to play the ST mini-game mode, as there's no Wi-Fi support. I've got to say that the PH multi-player mode was one of the least rewarding experiences of my life. x_x

Obviously, I want Nintendo to keep making regular Zelda games. But while they're at it, why not make more multiplayer games on the scale of FS and FSA? Especially with the Wii and DS' tech, it's quite possible to do it easily without all the tools you needed for last generations systems. Maybe we could even do single card (Hey, Kirby did it...). Once again, I stress the question, "Why not have both?". Multiple development teams work on different games as well, so it's not like you'll be losing development time on Zelda Wii or anything. The only thing the games would share would be Aonuma and Miyamoto, most likely. So you can throw that excuse out the window.

Also, with the way gaming's going, you see more and more multiplayer and more and more online gamers. Don't know if anyone has heard the news, but Zelda is no longer in the top 10 best selling game franchises anymore. In order to keep up the momentum, Zelda will have to appeal to an ever-growing market. So yes, there's gamers who want the classic, solo Zelda experiences, but there's other gamers getting up and leaving because they can't play it with their friends. There's no reason not to support both types.

There's not, but Nintendo -and gaming companies in general- has a bad track record of adding multi-player to games, and letting the game series fall down as a whole. I think they need to work more on the multi-player aspect, but even more so on the single-player parts. The "gotta have multi-player" addicts aren't the kind who would play Zelda, at least until Link's wielding a gun, blowing heads off, and getting laid by Zelda. Those are the games that the Halo fanatics want to see and play. They're mostly casual gamers, who have never owned a Nintendo-created system.

The bottom line is that they need to work on both, but I'd say they've lost thier chances of claiming the "rough-and-tumble" Halo/Call of Duty crowd.

[FallenAngelAzazel]

...You completely missed my point.

You would do well to take a look at the website I run, Zelda in my Pocket. I think that will make it clear on how I feel about 2D, handheld games. :P

...Or you could just tell me here, instead of posting an advert on a debate topic. Besides, what is wrong with 2D on a console? Just because consoles are capable of more these days doesn't mean we should only do that. 2D games, sidescrollers, etc. have a unique charm that can't be matched with 3D, just as 3D has that depth that can't be matched with 2D. Once again, why not have both? There's no reason not to.

Are you aware of the cost associated with purchasing four GBAs, Three Link Cables, and Four FS/ALttP games? You're looking at over $500 by the prices back then.

Why else would I state it's a pain in the ass, meaning I agree with you, and then go on to say how it could be much easier set up on the DS or the Wii these days? Besides, back in the Gameboy days, almost everyone had link cables, as Pokemon was always the big handheld thing and people were trading. Not to mention, either you worded yourself wrong, or you got the wrong impression, because as far as I know, I'm not going to buy 4 GBAs, 4 copies of the game, and a link cable myself just to gather people and say, "Hey, let's play!" I'd obviously seek out others with the game and system. Nowadays it's a bit harder, but back then, mm, not so much, as the GBA, Zelda, and Link cables were popular as hell back then, and were EVERYWHERE.

Nintendo made a valiant effort, but they failed miserably for the time they were in. Very few of my friends who had the game had a link cable as well, not to mention that it was hard to find another -much less four- players to actually enjoy the game the way it was intended.

First off, you do realize I was talking about FSA on the Gamecube, right? In that case, I halfway agree with you, as the Gamecube-GBA cable didn't make much of a splash with gamers. However, I knew, and still know, quite a bit of people who had them. As for hard to find other players, it's a matter of who your friends are. Throughout my life, the majority (and by majority, I mean roughly 90-95%) of my friends have been gamers, and a big majority of THOSE gamers were Nintendo fans or owned a Nintendo console. Naturally, they'd be interested in Nintendo franchises, such as Zelda for example. Then, it's just a matter of hanging one day and saying, "Hey, want to play some Four Swords?" "Sure, let me get my cables!".

Honestly, I think the idea was a bit ahead of its time, but when you got it going, it worked. Which is why I think it can be done even better on the Wii or DS, for obvious reasons.

And also, if they had really wanted the fans to buy and play the game, they could have included a single-player mode.

...Okay, this was in the paragraph above, which was directed at my FSA comment, so if you're talking about that...you do know that FSA's story mode could be played single player or with friends? 1-4 people pretty much? FS on the GBA was multiplayer-only, but it wasn't the main game on the cartridge to begin with. But FSA was single player and multiplayer, and, in my opinion, it's great either way.

I myself was only about to play it a handful of times, and only for a few moments.

...Then you really don't have a lot of evidence to go on. Go out and buy a used copy of FSA for the Gamecube from Gamestop, play it through, get a few Gamecube cables if you want (they're cheap as hell) and invite friends over with GBAs, and play it.

Or if you mean FS, well, same deal, but that one is harder, as obviously we're well into the DS era, so you're not going to find many people with a GBA, link cables, and FS. Should've tried it back then, or try finding a friend nowadays to play with.

But honestly, you can't make a structured opinion on just a few tries that were a few moments at a time. That's like downloading a demo, and saying the entire game is bad from that one demo. It's a bias opinion stemming from a lack of knowledge.

I have yet to play the ST mini-game mode, as there's no Wi-Fi support. I've got to say that the PH multi-player mode was one of the least rewarding experiences of my life. x_x

Exactly what I said. The PH and ST multiplayers are shallow minigame battles with friends, nothing more. At least FS and FSA were made with multiplayer in mind.

There's not, but Nintendo -and gaming companies in general- has a bad track record of adding multi-player to games, and letting the game series fall down as a whole. I think they need to work more on the multi-player aspect, but even more so on the single-player parts.

Despite the fact that Mario did it. Like, about a billion times. Yet his games get 10/10, 5 stars, constantly. Why can't Zelda, or any other franchise? Adding multiplayer is just something on the side. It's not going to take away from the single player. Obviously, a series like Zelda, the single player is what needs the full attention. I can't argue with that. But I never said, "Cool, let's convert Zelda into a total multiplayer series!" What I said was, what's so bad about making a new FS game here and again, alongside their main Zelda lineup on the consoles and handhelds? Nintendo has plenty of development teams at their disposal, all capable of producing great games. They could easily have one team make another FS game on DS or Wii while the main team works on Zelda Wii, or another team works on the next DS Zelda, or something.

The "gotta have multi-player" addicts aren't the kind who would play Zelda, at least until Link's wielding a gun, blowing heads off, and getting laid by Zelda. Those are the games that the Halo fanatics want to see and play. They're mostly casual gamers, who have never owned a Nintendo-created system.

That wasn't what I was even going for. You're talking about the Online shooter crowd, something I wasn't even talking about. I was talking much bigger, the industry as a whole. Games nowadays are incorporating more multiplayer elements, more online elements. Nintendo themselves, in recent years, has started stepping into the online ring more and more (Miyamoto even went as far, recently, as to say they should start charging for Wi-Fi as XBL does), with games such as Mario Kart Wii, Monster Hunter Tri, and the current generation Pokemon games. Nintendo tried to stay out of it, which you could obviously see in the Gamecube days, but as the industry itself evolves, everyone, including Nintendo, will have to keep up or they're out of the race (Atari and SEGA are prime examples of this).

Notice how Nintendo has incorporated some sort of multiplayer into their big-name series in the past few years, series that were once...single player-only? Yet they still kept single player intact. Notice how much emphasis was on the multiplayer for NSMB Wii, yet the game could be played just fine on single player as well. Didn't that get Wii Game of the Year awards in multiple sites and magazines and shows, if I recall correctly? Yet they're still releasing Galaxy 2 this month, and I can guarantee it will go on to be a top seller and probably be one of the best games of the year. Yet, it's single player. This is what I'm talking about, balancing the styles. This can also go along with my 2D-3D argument earlier.

So once again, I ask...Why not have both?

[Alter]

First, I apologize. I was randomly placing and mixing statements about FS vs. FSA. Let me indicate which I'm talking about, and when.

...You completely missed my point.
...Or you could just tell me here, instead of posting an advert on a debate topic. Besides, what is wrong with 2D on a console? Just because consoles are capable of more these days doesn't mean we should only do that. 2D games, sidescrollers, etc. have a unique charm that can't be matched with 3D, just as 3D has that depth that can't be matched with 2D. Once again, why not have both? There's no reason not to.

Because a 2D game can be just as good on a handheld system, making them cheaper and more convenient. I prefer the 2D games, but as a college student, how often do you think I actually sit down and play the Wii? It's quite easy to whip out a GBA/SP or Nintendo DS and play when you have the time. It may be different for younger people (I assume you live at home) to waste their time in front of a TV playing a game. When I have access to a dorm that has those kind of luxuries, I prefer to be doing something else, likely that needs to be done.

Why else would I state it's a pain in the ass, meaning I agree with you, and then go on to say how it could be much easier set up on the DS or the Wii these days?

I'm implying (as you say later) that FS was ahead of it's time. It was a great idea, but quite frankly, they didn't have the resources or consumers to set it up with ease.

Besides, back in the Gameboy days, almost everyone had link cables, as Pokemon was always the big handheld thing and people were trading. Not to mention, either you worded yourself wrong, or you got the wrong impression, because as far as I know, I'm not going to buy 4 GBAs, 4 copies of the game, and a link cable myself just to gather people and say, "Hey, let's play!" I'd obviously seek out others with the game and system. Nowadays it's a bit harder, but back then, mm, not so much, as the GBA, Zelda, and Link cables were popular as hell back then, and were EVERYWHERE.

A lot of my friends had Zelda (LA, OoS, OoA), but very few of them had the link cables. I grew up in a poorer group of people, so that may be the There was one boy who did have three copies of ALttP/FS and link cables, thus how I was able to play it a few times with others

I guess we lived in different circles.

First off, you do realize I was talking about FSA on the Gamecube, right? In that case, I halfway agree with you, as the Gamecube-GBA cable didn't make much of a splash with gamers. However, I knew, and still know, quite a bit of people who had them. As for hard to find other players, it's a matter of who your friends are. Throughout my life, the majority (and by majority, I mean roughly 90-95%) of my friends have been gamers, and a big majority of THOSE gamers were Nintendo fans or owned a Nintendo console. Naturally, they'd be interested in Nintendo franchises, such as Zelda for example. Then, it's just a matter of hanging one day and saying, "Hey, want to play some Four Swords?" "Sure, let me get my cables!".

Yes, I'm talking about FSA. It was created in order to be a multi-played game, though thank goodness it had support for a single player. Most of my friends did not play games too often, many weren't able to afford them or had the time. The bottom line is that if your friends didn't have the games, you were just out of luck.

Honestly, I think the idea was a bit ahead of its time, but when you got it going, it worked. Which is why I think it can be done even better on the Wii or DS, for obvious reasons.

I agree; it worked when it got going, but for myself, it was pretty darn hard to "get going".

...Okay, this was in the paragraph above, which was directed at my FSA comment, so if you're talking about that...you do know that FSA's story mode could be played single player or with friends? 1-4 people pretty much? FS on the GBA was multiplayer-only, but it wasn't the main game on the cartridge to begin with. But FSA was single player and multiplayer, and, in my opinion, it's great either way.

Sorry, I'm failing to see your point. I didn't say anything otherwise. However, I think that FSA (as I said above) was created primarily as a multi-player game.

...Then you really don't have a lot of evidence to go on. Go out and buy a used copy of FSA for the Gamecube from Gamestop, play it through, get a few Gamecube cables if you want (they're cheap as hell) and invite friends over with GBAs, and play it.

Honestly, I don't have that kind of money to buy them. They're still going at around $10.00 a piece. Not to mention that most of my friends wouldn't be too excited to play it. :P

Or if you mean FS, well, same deal, but that one is harder, as obviously we're well into the DS era, so you're not going to find many people with a GBA, link cables, and FS. Should've tried it back then, or try finding a friend nowadays to play with.

As I stated, that wasn't an option for me.

But honestly, you can't make a structured opinion on just a few tries that were a few moments at a time. That's like downloading a demo, and saying the entire game is bad from that one demo. It's a bias opinion stemming from a lack of knowledge.

You do know that "demo" is short for "demonstration". The idea is to showcase the best parts that a game has to offer. But that's not really the point. I've played FSA enough to enjoy it, but I wish it were on a handheld. system, as I would have an opportunity to play it much more often.

But I never said, "Cool, let's convert Zelda into a total multiplayer series!" What I said was, what's so bad about making a new FS game here and again, alongside their main Zelda lineup on the consoles and handhelds?

I didn't say that you said it. I'm implying that the Zelda fans will enjoy a nice multi-player experience, so long as it doesn't take away from the single-player game. As of now, Zelda will never be able to satisfy the online shooter gaming crowd, because that's not what Zelda is.

Nintendo has plenty of development teams at their disposal, all capable of producing great games. They could easily have one team make another FS game on DS or Wii while the main team works on Zelda Wii, or another team works on the next DS Zelda, or something.

That's what they are doing, from what they're claiming. Personally, I like this idea very much, and wish that they would implement it a bit more often.

That wasn't what I was even going for. You're talking about the Online shooter crowd, something I wasn't even talking about. I was talking much bigger, the industry as a whole. Games nowadays are incorporating more multiplayer elements, more online elements. Nintendo themselves, in recent years, has started stepping into the online ring more and more (Miyamoto even went as far, recently, as to say they should start charging for Wi-Fi as XBL does), with games such as Mario Kart Wii, Monster Hunter Tri, and the current generation Pokemon games. Nintendo tried to stay out of it, which you could obviously see in the Gamecube days, but as the industry itself evolves, everyone, including Nintendo, will have to keep up or they're out of the race (Atari and SEGA are prime examples of this).


Haven't you kept up on the news (http://www.zeldauniverse.net/zelda-news/zelda-ranks-third-in-top-50-series/)? Zelda dropped behind Halo and Call of Duty. Those games have little-to-no good single-played modes. It's all about the online. Until that crowd dies out, my point stands, and it's quite relevant to what you were implying.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you were saying that Zelda is losing ground because of its failure to correctly implement a multi-player mode. I'm saying that they will have to give Zelda a full-body plastic surgery to appease the multi-player fanatic crown, which has caused [I]Halo /I] and Call of Duty to take the place of Zelda.

Notice how Nintendo has incorporated some sort of multiplayer into their big-name series in the past few years, series that were once...single player-only? Yet they still kept single player intact. Notice how much emphasis was on the multiplayer for NSMB Wii, yet the game could be played just fine on single player as well. Didn't that get Wii Game of the Year awards in multiple sites and magazines and shows, if I recall correctly? Yet they're still releasing Galaxy 2 this month, and I can guarantee it will go on to be a top seller and probably be one of the best games of the year. Yet, it's single player. This is what I'm talking about, balancing the styles. This can also go along with my 2D-3D argument earlier.

All I have to say is that Zelda was a much better series before they injected the multi-player into it. Look at PH and ST; crap, in my opinion. Some of the best DS games out there? Yes. But they don't even come close to Oracle of Seasons/Ages, Link's Awakening, or even The Minish Cap.

So once again, I ask...Why not have both?[/QUOTE]

I'm all for having "both" as long as fans aren't gypped by Nintendo creating a difficult scenario in which people can play together.

It seems like you're trying to make an argument out of this, or something. Just calm down a little bit...

[Yusei]

FAA isn't angry at all. I would like to relook at his post. He never means any issues.

Now I would like this debate to settle a bit... If you want, I would take it to a new topic.

[FallenAngelAzazel]

It seems like you're trying to make an argument out of this, or something. Just calm down a little bit...

Um, what? I'm merely debating, comparing and contrasting opinions and factual evidence in a totally educative, mature manner. Why do I need to calm down? I like to debate on a forum. Did I get an attitude? Nope. Did I insult? Nope. Did I attack? Nope. I'm merely providing a counter to your points, just as you are to my points. Totally healthy, and what you're supposed to do on a forum, quite frankly. No need to accuse me of anything and tell me to 'calm down'. Just saying.

[Alter]

FAA isn't angry at all. I would like to relook at his post. He never means any issues.

Now I would like this debate to settle a bit... If you want, I would take it to a new topic.

I didn't say anyone was angry, Yusei. :P I like the idea of moving this, but I think we're more in agreeance that it's appearing.

Um, what? I'm merely debating, comparing and contrasting opinions and factual evidence in a totally educative, mature manner. Why do I need to calm down? I like to debate on a forum. Did I get an attitude? Nope. Did I insult? Nope. Did I attack? Nope. I'm merely providing a counter to your points, just as you are to my points. Totally healthy, and what you're supposed to do on a forum, quite frankly. No need to accuse me of anything and tell me to 'calm down'. Just saying.

I'm not saying you're doing any of those things. It just obvious that you're looking for a debate. In reality, all I did was a make a couple posts, and received a long-winded response. I'm perfectly happy debating, but I think we're largely in agreement. Most of what I said was supporting what you were saying, but you seem so... excited. :P I'm just saying to relax a little. We're talking about "games", not major political issues. :D

[FallenAngelAzazel]

I'm not saying you're doing any of those things. It just obvious that you're looking for a debate. In reality, all I did was a make a couple posts, and received a long-winded response. I'm perfectly happy debating, but I think we're largely in agreement. Most of what I said was supporting what you were saying, but you seem so... excited. :P I'm just saying to relax a little. We're talking about "games", not major political issues. :D

I'm not 'looking' for a debate. You presented a post that I disagreed with. Naturally, I present my own points in a comparing/contrasting nature. It's perfectly healthy.

It doesn't need to be a 'political issue'. I find this fun. I like to debate about a ton of things, it's who I am. I'm a person who likes to share his opinion. At least I'm not being a dick about it, or saying, "omg, your wrong!!!!" or something. I'm merely presenting my counter-argument to your own. That's all. What is so bad about this? As I said, I find it fun to debate about things. It's a good social technique to try and understand the other person's viewpoints, and vice versa, and is a great way to post on this thing called a forum. But when people accuse me of this and that, or try to do the 'calm down' excuse, well, that just takes the fun out of it.

So as for this topic...I'm out. Peace.

[Alter]

I'm not 'looking' for a debate. You presented a post that I disagreed with. Naturally, I present my own points in a comparing/contrasting nature. It's perfectly healthy.

It doesn't need to be a 'political issue'. I find this fun. I like to debate about a ton of things, it's who I am. I'm a person who likes to share his opinion. At least I'm not being a dick about it, or saying, "omg, your wrong!!!!" or something. I'm merely presenting my counter-argument to your own. That's all. What is so bad about this? As I said, I find it fun to debate about things. It's a good social technique to try and understand the other person's viewpoints, and vice versa, and is a great way to post on this thing called a forum. But when people accuse me of this and that, or try to do the 'calm down' excuse, well, that just takes the fun out of it.

So as for this topic...I'm out. Peace.

:(

Sorry... don't take it the wrong way. I enjoy debates to, but I just thought you were getting all excited over it. :P I'd appreciate if you would be willing to continue the discussion, and apologize if I came off the wrong way. :(