th

[QUOTE="efrucht"]Majora's mask pretty much trumped Ocarina of Time in nearly every way. Although I played MM before OoT, so I'm slightly biased.DeathScape666

I was really liking MM but that 3 day stuff started to really annoy me. I ended up beating a boss 4 times, he was an awesomely fun boss but i started to get sick of it

Just face it... the wii is just a gamecube with a different controller ;)mvlbr

By that logic i am going to say the ps3 is just a ps2 with better graphics. But that could also mean the ps2 is a ps1 with better graphics but then that means the ps3 is a ps1 with better graphics. Hmmmmm

The Forest Temple theme in OoT, and also a lot of the songs you learned on your ocarina, like the Bolero of Fire.Cherokee_Jack

Those songs are pretty awesome. I also love the music in the donkey kong country series

Zelda games all fell the exact same. Same story, same characters, same items to use (hookshot, etc...). I htink it's a great series, but it could do with a little diversity and story depth.

As for FF, they also have problems where they feel the same, but not to the extent of zelda. Also, their stories tend to be about a billion times better. The gameplay itself it apples and oranges, and can't be compared. My personal vote goes to FF, but this is a matter of personal taste.

osirisomeomi

For me thats a great a thing. The games are so awesome i wouldn't want them to change

[QUOTE="halo_killer345"]It's just a game. If you enjoy it who cares if it's simple

Dystopian-X

fair enough

[QUOTE="skrat_01"]

The game sets you simple objectives. And lets you go about how do complete them, in any way you see fit (minus the linear levels in the last third of the game, which limit the freedom of choice, and simply aren't nearly as enjoyable as the others, despite the change of environment).

Creativity in the weapons? Its the creativity in the USE of the weapons. They stay relatively real world, some sci fi, however they are versatile enough for you to experiment. Such as the weapon modifications. Sneaking into a house and setting C4 charges - luring NK soldiers in, then sneaking out? Attaching C4 to a barrel or crate and hurling them at a helicopter? Besides this makes the game average? In this regard Call of Duty 4 would be a horrible game. Besides you can use your surroundings as weapons e.g. death by spade, or chicken.

Its far from a 'normal modern war shooter'. That statement alone pretty much solidifies you don't know much about the games design.Dystopian-X

Again none of this is new or all that special, other shooters have all this with a better execution and even more creative options in terms of how you go around your objectives and enemies. Crysis just showed it in technically better manner.

The alien killing in Crysis is admittedly not as enjoyable (though in Warhead is very enjoyable), due to the change in design structure and level design, however the expansive level design, nano suit, and freedom of choice in the majority of the game, makes it something different entirely. For most of the part you have the complete freedom of switching gameplay styles on the fly, choosing how you want to play, adapting to the situation, and choice in how you wish to proceed, or complete what seems like a simple objective.

skrat_01

Don't get me started on the nanosuit which was a big dissapoint ment you could barely use it without it going low on energy and some of it's features that I though could've been used for solving progression issues like stealth or super strenght were wasted in things like ''bring down aircraft carrier door'' or just ''hide from combat''. True, the game gives you a lot of freedom and options but all that freedom is boring if the options are so generic.

Not sure why you brought COD4 up since that's another good but overhyped game I don't find all that great for similar reasons.

It's just a game. If you enjoy it who cares if it's simple

I always wonder why people don't like crysis much, Its so god damn fun.

Everyone :|Taalon

I sense sarcasm in your post.