Gaming Versus: Local Multiplayer Edition

3D.
They're two different types of games really - 3D Zelda is the best thing ever; 2D Zelda is the second best thing ever.

Sure Jim, but take it like this if I said you can have a new 3D or 2D Zelda which would you take.

3D.

The clue was when I wrote 3D.

Hmm, I think you were a bit ambiguous Jim. When you said "3D games" did you mean the cartridges and/ or disks were three dimensional? Were you referring to the way, in so-called 2D Zeldas, you can go up and down hills and floors? I think you should painstakingly type out which Zelda games you classify as 2D and which as 3D, then compare each one to each other one and say which is bestest.

I know Jim what you were saying.

Jimbob wrote:

3D.

The clue was when I wrote 3D.

Come on Jimmers, no need to leave us a puzzle - this isn't The Witness! Tell us your thoughts on Zelda, I can't decipher how you really feel.

2D.

For me Zelda has always been about the sense of adventure/exploration & I feel the 2d games do that a little better with their worlds, while being smaller they are packed with way more detail & things to see. It says it all for me really when BoTW is taking most of it's freedom influence from the original game.

2D for me too. Having thought about it for a few days, I have no more specific reasons for this than "I always have" and "I get on better with them". Having said that, Drunka is totally right when he says that 3D Zeldas better realise the ambition of Zelda.

Jimbob with another classic post, and another Massist.

3D for me. That basically applies to everything. Ironically, it's for the same reason as Jas: Zelda has always been about adventure/exploration for me too, but for me that means bigger worlds usually = better worlds. Because of, y'know, the extra dimension to explore and that.

3D games tend to be meatier, so they have my vote. More is definitely More with Zelda.

The 3D games are usually larger games with a more fully realised world (thanks to the closer view you get with a 3D camera). 3D zelda releases are bigger events and have more impact as benchmark releases.

The 2D games are tighter in design and more perfected in gameplay. The 3D games have changed a lot more than the 2D games because of this - although some of the ideas the 3D games have explored have been both great and only possible in the third dimension, like Skyward Sword's motion controls.

It's a bit of an impossible choice for me because I love both styles and wouldn't be happy losing either.

It seems 3D wins, we change topic rather quick from a Zero inspired idea to a Balla inspired one with a touch of TOH.

Local Multiplayer

The TOH bit for this, is everyone gives 5 reasons why your system of choice is the best for local multiplayer and which ever system like before has the most saying it,  is the winner.

I will start of with my choice


My 5 reasons for the GameCube

1) The Mario effect - Parties, Kart, Tennis, Golf, Football, Baseball, Dancing and most of them are still the best in the series

2) Fighters - Melee, for me and a lot of people this is yet to be topped and yes will someone just coming around having some fun notice the difference on how it and SMASH4U plays No but if their not going to notice the difference then why not play this. I said on the Podcast if this comes to the Switch then SMASH4S to me is utterly pointless part from online but that's not the question here.

Then you've got Soul Calibur 2, Capcom vs SNK if you want a decent 3D or 2D fighter.

3) Sports - The Cube has FIFA, ISS, Virtua Striker, NHL, NBA, WWE, NFL, Tony Hawks, Beach Spikers along with a load more

4) Shooters - Timesplitters 2 and Red Faction II is all you really need

5) Other - F-Zero GX, Warioware, Super Monkey Ball, Burnout 2

The GameCube is the best as no matter the mate or mates, you have something in pretty much every genre and some are still the best to this day.

Quote :

Not bad reasons but we can come back to this, somewhere else as I've got a idea

If basically switching the chat about local multiplayer from someone else's thread into your own thread was your idea, and I'm telling you that that idea is pure jobby. You've rifled through four topics here in about a fortnight - what chance is there of any decent dialogue if you're not giving folk much of a chance, or letting the conversation develop naturally and take it's own course?

"I know you find it physically painful to not type the first thing that comes into your brain" but, come on to fuck, simmer down.

I thought it was a good idea (Zero like my tweet   )and let the what have been playing on Wii U thread breath and be used what is for and we can go mad here, if you want to do.

I'm more than happy for admins to move my GameCube post where the chat was and delete the few posts about it.

Balladeer wrote:

Jimbob with another classic post, and another Massist.

3D for me.  That basically applies to everything.  Ironically, it's for the same reason as Jas: Zelda has always been about adventure/exploration for me too, but for me that means bigger worlds usually = better worlds.  Because of, y'know, the extra dimension to explore and that.

Even though I obviously still enjoy the 3d Zelda's I often find them to feel empty compared to the 2d games, Hyrule field in OoT comes to mind here.

The Cappuccino Kid wrote:

Quote :

Not bad reasons but we can come back to this, somewhere else as I've got a idea

If basically switching the chat about local multiplayer from someone else's thread into your own thread was your idea, and I'm telling you that that idea is pure jobby. You've rifled through four topics here in about a fortnight - what chance is there of any decent dialogue if you're not giving folk much of a chance, or letting the conversation develop naturally and take it's own course?

"I know you find it physically painful to not type the first thing that comes into your brain" but, come on to fuck, simmer down.

That's a bit harsh, Cappa. You could easily say that the discussion doesn't belong in the 'What are you playing on the Wii/Wii U?' thread, too. I'm not saying this is the right thing to do and it will be the way forward - but it's not a bad way to go about it, either.

I'm... just going to answer Jas' post, I think. Happy to come back to Mas' topic later.

The_Jaster wrote:

Even though I obviously still enjoy the 3d Zelda's I often find them to feel empty compared to the 2d games, Hyrule field in OoT comes to mind here.

You're not wrong, 3D Zeldas have struggled with their overworlds, and to my mind you pick out the second-worst of the bunch (I really didn't like SS' sky). But I still maintain that TP's had just the right features-to-scale ratio. If BotW can nail that I'll be a very happy man.

Yeah I can definitely agree with that.

---

Just had this article about 2D style Zelda games RT'd onto my timeline & it's great to see that they won't be disappearing any time soon.

http://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2017/02/14/a-2d-zelda-on-the-switch-is-definitely-a-possibility.aspx

TP felt far emptier than OoT if you ask me. Hyrule field was split into all these different parts for no real reason, and all that was in them was some caves and bugs

I think it's a difference between 'feel', and what was actually there. Sure, TP may not have had all that many things to actually do. But they shook the landscape up and played with the shape of things, so it felt like an actual place and not a flat expanse with some fences thrown in.

I'd like to say I can see the other point of view... but I can't, I really can't. I can see if you don't like TP's, but OoT's Hyrule Field what utterly flat 'n' drab 'n' awful. Not a single redeeming feature in my eyes. And it takes you longer to get the horse in OoT.

Takes you longer to get the horse, sure, but where are you traveling between? It's basically just castle town, kakariko, lon lon ranch and zora's domain - they are all within easy easy walking distance in one quarter/segment. The only proper trek you have to do is the initial one from the lost woods - and that's a standout iconic moment of the game.

OoT's hyrule field acts as a central spoke off which you can get to the other locations in the game, which gives the separate locations a real feel of being distant from each other and grounded in this world. You don't /actually/ spend much time there at all - whereas in TP you spend quite a while traveling through the empty fields, and I see no reason for it to be split into these different areas.

The Bridge of Eldin is badass though.

They're both a bit empty and drab I think, TP at least has 2 mega-bridges on it. I actually like the Bridge of Not Eldin better! I hope we're all going to be OK with BoTW being mostly Hyrule Field...

I swear OR and I have had this exact discussion before. To each their own sir, to each their own.

Although that moment is definitely standout - standoutside Hyrule Castle Town gate for ages because you didn't get there quick enough and it's night.