Gametrailers Editor-in-Chief sets his priorities straight...

Shane Satterfield in INVISIBLE WALL / Gametrailers, during Skyward Swords segment:

"If i could take a 20 hour game with super high production values and cinematic presentation over a 50 hour game [like Zelda], i would take it"

Christ, this is just...bad! But there is more:

"Twilight Princess was fine because it came before the HD era. [Zelda] Just feels old and outdated now (...) a dinosaur that needs to catch up with modern HD adventures like Assassins Creed"

What!?

"I'm glad the Wii is on its way out, when i'm playing a game like Assassins Creed with 500 NPC's on screen, its hard to go back to something like Skyward Sword"

And this my friends, is how far the influence of visual fluff and money fuelled Hollywood experiences have in the industry.

Pretty shells get the spotlight while complex and dense games are called old and outdated. Assassins Creed 2 and onward are great games but its pretty clear that when compared to another adventure game like Zelda, one team focused their resources on production values, and the other on maintaining their pedigree of top of the line "stage" design, and gameplay mechanics. One looks very expensive, the other one feels very clever - What talent should we be encouraging here?

That first quote is poison. Its just... terrible. Its basically telling studios to put their hard work and resources on looks, and undermining the much harder task of building complex, engaging and highly polished game worlds, ideas and mechanics. Something that, unlike impressive graphics, will stand the test of time.

Want proof? Look at A Link to the Past. A 2D game from "ancient times", that at its core is more complex and thought out than Assassins Creed and Uncharted put together.

For the sake of what makes this form of escapism so exiting, lets not think like stoners at a 7-Eleven; there is nothing deep about shiny tin-foil wrapper. The primitive-like, low brain activity makes it look that way.

What do you think?

I would rather have basic gameplay instead of overly scripted games. Games like Uncharted look good but feel less interactive to me. I have a ps3 and a wii and I'm buying Zelda instead of Uncharted this month.

I have 80 games for my PS3 but for some reason I find Zelda Wind Waker more fun then any of them.

Did he state that he played the game?

"If i could take a 20 hour game with super high production values and cinematic presentation over a 50 hour game [like Zelda], i would take it"

Thunderdrone

Thats just his opinion, which I think is completely wrong. I don't see why we can't have a cinematic presentation AND a game over 50 hours.

timesplitters > all

I've heard that he is biased in favour of the 360.

Critics always feel like they can and should affect the industry they critique. Sad really. Only one person compared to millions who have the purchasing power.

Of course, those who follow review numbers rather than demos of the games will be swayed.

You took those quotes out of context. Zeldas towns are barren, with zero atmosphere due to 1 or 2 NPCs standing there doing nothing. :lol:

Zelda is outdated. This isn't 2003 anymore.

That is funny because I got Twilight Princess while the HD era had already kicked off and finished it 100%. Then I got Assassin's Creed and quit playing after a few hours because the shallowness of the cinema-driven "gameplay" started to become too obvious.

Did he state that he played the game?

greenskittles

I kind of agree OP.

I want Zelda to have even higher production values and modern levels of presentation and polish but I really don't want it to have that over the superior underlying gameplay that it clearly has, and that is based on my own time with the demo.

You took those quotes out of context. Zeldas towns are barren, with zero atmosphere due to 1 or 2 NPCs standing there doing nothing. :lol:

Zelda is outdated. This isn't 2003 anymore.

Peredith

TC is overreacting. It's his opinion in what he likes and dislikes.

I like Project Reality where you typically get maybe 5-8 kills per round which last around a hour to an hour and a half where you're strategically traversing massive maps with your squad to outmanuever and outsmart the players on the other team, and can be killed or have your squad wiped very easily. To me that full game conversion mod is the best FPS I ever played due to the depth, teamwork, learning curve, and realism. Do I care if someone tells me otherwise? No, because it's a matter of preference, which is something you cannot be wrong with.

He isn't wrong with one of his points, if a game doesn't feel alive then it doesn't. You can't argue with something like that when if the next Zelda comes out has hugely populated cities with plenty to do in them, you squeal like a little girl. You'd be basically conceding that his point was valid.

They should judge the game based on what it set out to do, whether or not it accomplishes that and how it is as a title on the Wii.

I hate hate hate when critics and gamers get pissed about a game because it's not what their vision of the title should be. It's totally unfair to the game and no one thinks about what the developer wants the player to play.

[QUOTE="greenskittles"]

Did he state that he played the game?

Thunderdrone

Well then Thunderdrone there is nothing wrong with what he is saying. There is something wrong with your quotes though

"Assassins Creed 2 and onward are great games but its pretty clear that when compared to another adventure game like Zelda, one team focused their resources on production values, and the other on maintaining their pedigree of top of the line "stage" design, and gameplay mechanics. One looks very expensive, the other one feels very clever"

"That first quote is poison. Its just... terrible. Its basically telling studios to put their hard work and resources on looks, and undermining the much harder task of building complex, engaging and highly polished game worlds, ideas and mechanics. Something that, unlike impressive graphics, will stand the test of time."

Who's to say that the Assassin's Creed worlds don't have engaging, highly polished worlds that are complex. The critics and millions of fans would probably think they do. Plus where does he say that he wants all these things like production values before great gameplay?

Did he state that he played the game?

greenskittles

I kinda agree with him, I can't go back to my PS2, I would like to play GOW2, I never played it but the gfx, it hurts my eye .... skysword looks cool tho, the cel shedded style doesn't get old, but it would be much nicer if the game was on a HD console.

They should judge the game based on what it set out to do, whether or not it accomplishes that and how it is as a title on the Wii.

I hate hate hate when critics and gamers get pissed about a game because it's not what their vision of the title should be. It's totally unfair to the game and no one thinks about what the developer wants the player to play.

Well then Thunderdrone there is nothing wrong with what he is saying. There is something wrong with your quotes.

"..."

Who's to say that the Assassin's Creed worlds don't have engaging, highly polished worlds that are complex. The critics and millions of fans would probably think they do. Plus where does he say that he wants all these things to before great gameplay?

greenskittles

Who says it doesnt indeed? I didnt.

I did say however, that Zelda's core is alot more complex than AC's. I dont think thats really up for debate but hey, if you disagree, you disagree.

And there IS something wrong with what he is saying.

In the first quote he is not talking about AC, but big budget looking games in general, because presentation means that much to him.

The on-going complexity and craftmanship of building a Zelda game for more than half a decade, is relegated to second plan here (how many AC games did we get since TP?).

Its dumb and it sends the wrong message to an industry, that like any other, is trying to make its money by pleasing the crowd, or those that influence the crowd's buying habits - like game journalists and news outlets.

Its as bad as a movie critic dismissing slow-moving dramas with multiple layers of complexity to champion more edible flicks like The Avengers, because the flashier and uncompromising presentation keeps them interested.

So this is essentially a "one man likes Assassins Creed more than Zelda" thread?Crunchy_Nuts

I think you over reacting, he don't mentioned about gameplay at all, he only ay that Zelda is limited with Wii but it could be better with better hardware. If hardware is outdated (which Wii is) game also will be look outdated, ofcorse gameplay is diffrent matter

[QUOTE="Thunderdrone"]

"If i could take a 20 hour game with super high production values and cinematic presentation over a 50 hour game [like Zelda], i would take it"

GamerEye

Thats just his opinion, which I think is completely wrong. I don't see why we can't have a cinematic presentation AND a game over 50 hours.

Usually the budgets of developers are very limited.

You either prioritize on either cinematic presentation (Uncharted 3) or complex, expansive game worlds (Skyrim).

The two are mutually exclusive to one another.

Personally I prefer that all video games ditch cinematic presentation, as it adds nothing to the replay value of the game.

-

Exploring a massive world like in GTA, Just Cause 2, or Fallout can suck me in for hundreds (if not thousands) of hours.

A cinematic game takes me 20 hours maximum and maybe one replay if it's lucky.

I think you over reacting, he don't mentioned about gameplay at all, he only ay that Zelda is limited with Wii but it could be better with better hardware. If hardware is outdated (which Wii is) game also will be look outdated, ofcorse gameplay is diffrent matter

ShadowriverUB

[QUOTE="ShadowriverUB"]

I think you over reacting, he don't mentioned about gameplay at all, he only ay that Zelda is limited with Wii but it could be better with better hardware. If hardware is outdated (which Wii is) game also will be look outdated, ofcorse gameplay is diffrent matter

Thunderdrone

He mentions NPCs right? maybe it's right that Wii limits number of NPCs on the screen, maybe thats the problem that Zelda team really need to deal with, what if they had better hardware in disposal?

He mentions NPCs right? maybe it's right that Wii limits number of NPCs on the screen,ShadowriverUB

[QUOTE="ShadowriverUB"]He mentions NPCs right? maybe it's right that Wii limits number of NPCs on the screen,Thunderdrone

I think the lack of NPCs in Zelda is a design choice. It's supposed to mesh with the surrealistic fairy-tale atmosphere of the world.

[QUOTE="ShadowriverUB"]He mentions NPCs right? maybe it's right that Wii limits number of NPCs on the screen,Thunderdrone

Then it might be just misunderstanding, he surly reffer to technical limitations of Wii.

That's like saying because I ripped off a God's head in GOW III I can't go back and play FF VII. Just cos one is newer and better in some regards does not mean the older games are bad. He makes no sense

The Assassin's Creed comparisons are stupid. I don't even know why he brings up the NPC thing. In Assassin's Creed 2 at least, they don't do much; really, they're just there to get in your way while you're running or to provide cover when you're hiding. Every city in the game is lifeless actually.

But it's in HD, so I guess that makes it amazing. *shrugs*

Slashkice

Assassins Creeds towns are not lifeless. :? Assassins Creeds towns ooze atmosphere, while Zeldas (by todays standards, ya know, 2011, not 2002) are barren with no atmosphere.

[QUOTE="Thunderdrone"][QUOTE="ShadowriverUB"]He mentions NPCs right? maybe it's right that Wii limits number of NPCs on the screen,peterw007

I think the lack of NPCs in Zelda is a design choice. It's supposed to mesh with the surrealistic fairy-tale atmosphere of the world.

That's like saying because I ripped off a God's head in GOW III I can't go back and play FF VII. Just cos one is newer and better in some regards does not mean the older games are bad. He makes no sense

seanmcloughlin

FFVII is a huge epic RPG, while Zelda is an action adventure. FFVII is only dated when it comes to visuals, and maybe turn base battles which are still good imo, Zelda is dated when it comes to everything.

[QUOTE="peterw007"]

[QUOTE="Thunderdrone"] Xenoblade. And you actually interact with them so, not really.locopatho

I think the lack of NPCs in Zelda is a design choice. It's supposed to mesh with the surrealistic fairy-tale atmosphere of the world.

That wouldn't be Zelda then. The franchise is kind of like Shadow of the Colossus...it's more of a solitary, personal journey.

At least for me, the feeling of isolation is a part of the whole Zelda experience.

[QUOTE="greenskittles"]

Well then Thunderdrone there is nothing wrong with what he is saying. There is something wrong with your quotes.

"..."

Who's to say that the Assassin's Creed worlds don't have engaging, highly polished worlds that are complex. The critics and millions of fans would probably think they do. Plus where does he say that he wants all these things to before great gameplay?

Thunderdrone

Who says it doesnt indeed? I didnt.

I did say however, that Zelda's core is alot more complex than AC's. I dont think thats really up for debate but hey, if you disagree, you disagree.

And there IS something wrong with what he is saying.

"In the first quote he is not talking about AC, but big budget looking games in general, because presentation means that much to him."

"The on-going complexity and craftmanship of building a Zelda game for more than half a decade, is relegated to second plan here (how many AC games did we get since TP?)."

Its dumb and it sends the wrong message to an industry, that like any other, is trying to make its money by pleasing the crowd, or those that influence the crowd's buying habits - like game journalists and news outlets.

"Its as bad as a movie critic dismissing slow-moving dramas with multiple layers of complexity to champion more edible flicks like The Avengers, because the flashier and uncompromising presentation keeps them interested."

Quote number 1 - He might not be refering to Assassins Creed but those games are a prime example of a 20 hour game with high production values. That is what he is talking about, he even said he liked Assassins Creed more in the other quote.

Quote number 2 - Again, critics and fans might disagree, the amount of AC games are irrelevant

Quote number 3 - Nobody said they wanted flashy graphics at the expense of good gameplay.

[QUOTE="locopatho"][QUOTE="peterw007"]

I think the lack of NPCs in Zelda is a design choice. It's supposed to mesh with the surrealistic fairy-tale atmosphere of the world.

peterw007

That wouldn't be Zelda then. The franchise is kind of like Shadow of the Colossus...it's more of a solitary, personal journey.

At least for me, the feeling of isolation is a part of the whole Zelda experience.

"If i could take a 20 hour game with super high production values and cinematic presentation over a 50 hour game [like Zelda], i would take it"

Lttp is not that populated actually. And i will take less populated areas with more interesting characters over multiple "nice day huh?" npcs anyday. Thunderdrone

Is his opinions, let him have it. I think when you guys say Zelda is better than most of today's games out there, others will argue with you as well.

Telling this guy to play Zelda over Assassin's Creed is like telling a COD fanboy that COD sucks and tell him to try Skyrim instead.

Is his opinions, let him have it. I think when you guys say Zelda is better than most of today's games out there, others will argue with you as well.

Telling this guy to play Zelda over Assassin's Creed is like telling a COD fanboy that COD sucks and tell him to try Skyrim instead.

Khoo1992