IGN.com picks the PS3 as console of the year

[JustLikeHeaven1]

[QUOTE=Shawn]I think it comes down to what type of games you like. TP didn't blow me away, it didn't make me a Zelda nut. Personally, I would pick about a dozen games BEFORE TP to be game of the year; I don't think it is anything special. But that is just my opinion. I would go with either Okami, Gears or Oblivion. Heck, Syphon Filter for the PSP is a better game then TP. My point is that all of this is subjective so I can see why certain magazines would pick certain games. [/QUOTE]

You are correct in saying that its a matter of taste, but I think you are missing what people are trying to say.

 

Okami is a second rate Zelda...it steals everything from that series and only added a nice artistic coat of paint.  While Zelda is hardly an orginal game, Okami is just a sub-par Zelda clone.  So what they are saying is, why not pick the game that Okami obviously tried to copy?

 

Anyways, I think playing TP for an hour is = to playing Gears through the prison level.  The first hour and the first dungeon is basically a training for the game.  Its also slow and boring as hell.  You are normally correct in saying that you can judge a game in an hour, but I would have to disagree with that for TP.  Why you ask?  Because I really didn't like the game when I first played it.  If I hadn't stuck with it I probably would have written it off as you did.

[Atarifever1]

[QUOTE=JustLikeHeaven]

You are normally correct in saying that you can judge a game in an hour, but I would have to disagree with that for TP.  Why you ask?  Because I really didn't like the game when I first played it.  If I hadn't stuck with it I probably would have written it off as you did.

[/QUOTE]
I think it's fair to judge it on that first hour.  I hated the first hour gameplay-wise.  The only thing that kept me involved past that was the Zelda name, and the fact that I really love the look of the game.  I really think the fun should have been improved a little in that first hour though, as a lot of people will decide 1 hour of tedium = a bad game.  That assumption is, in fact, somewhat true.  Much as I am now loving Twilight Princess (it is eating all my gaming time), I have to admit that being forced to trudge through a boring hour of gameplay is both annoying and insulting, and is not something I'd aim to do again.
The way I look at it is this: if I went to a movie and the first hour was just a still picture of a house with happy birthday playing in the background, even if the last hour was the greatest action movie of all time, I'd think the creator was a moron and that the movie had wasted one full hour of my life.
So Shawn, the game does get good after that point, but I understand having to quit because of that hour.

[Shawn]

[QUOTE=Atarifever][QUOTE=JustLikeHeaven]

You are normally correct in saying that you can judge a game in an hour, but I would have to disagree with that for TP.  Why you ask?  Because I really didn't like the game when I first played it.  If I hadn't stuck with it I probably would have written it off as you did.

[/QUOTE]
I think it's fair to judge it on that first hour.  I hated the first hour gameplay-wise.  The only thing that kept me involved past that was the Zelda name, and the fact that I really love the look of the game.  I really think the fun should have been improved a little in that first hour though, as a lot of people will decide 1 hour of tedium = a bad game.  That assumption is, in fact, somewhat true.  Much as I am now loving Twilight Princess (it is eating all my gaming time), I have to admit that being forced to trudge through a boring hour of gameplay is both annoying and insulting, and is not something I'd aim to do again.
The way I look at it is this: if I went to a movie and the first hour was just a still picture of a house with happy birthday playing in the background, even if the last hour was the greatest action movie of all time, I'd think the creator was a moron and that the movie had wasted one full hour of my life.
So Shawn, the game does get good after that point, but I understand having to quit because of that hour.
[/QUOTE]

 

Listen guys I am sure it is a great game. I know, an hour is not a lot of time but I was bored so it left a bad impression. If I ever get a Wii I would rent this game and give it a go for say 3 or 4 hours. If at that time it is still boring then I'll come back and let you guys know. That is the one thing I loved about Oblivion, it was off and running in five minutes.

 

Oh, I bought Rainbow Six: Vegas for the 360 last night and played for an hour...the game is total kick ass!

 

[Atarifever1]

[QUOTE=Shawn]

 

Listen guys I am sure it is a great game. I know, an hour is not a lot of time but I was bored so it left a bad impression. If I ever get a Wii I would rent this game and give it a go for say 3 or 4 hours. If at that time it is still boring then I'll come back and let you guys know. That is the one thing I loved about Oblivion, it was off and running in five minutes.

 

[/QUOTE]
It almost seems like you think I was disagreeing with you.  I wasn't.  If I was you, I don't know if I'd bother with it.  Bad enough to endure that intro section once, but doing it twice will be physically painful.  The game is worth getting through that section, as most of the rest of it is distilled awesomeness, but that first part is absolutely terrible, and doing it twice is even worse.  Given that you have so many systems, and if you get a Wii in the future you'll probably have a lot more games to play than are on the system right now, there won't be much of a reason for you to bother trying this one again. 

I think it is necesssary for a game to be at least enjoyable right out of the gate.  I love Killer 7, but it was awhile winning me over.  Just the same, while it was winning me over it did a lot of things to keep my interest intact.  If Twilight Princess had just been a game not in the Zelda series (and thus would not have gotten a free hour from me) I wouldn't have put up with the terrible intro section at all.

You've got lots of stuff to play on your 360, so don't worry yourself over Twilight Princess.

That aside, Okami was an odd pick for game of the year.  Gears looked like this year's winner to me.

[a1]

[QUOTE=JustLikeHeaven]

 

You are correct in saying that its a matter of taste, but I think you are missing what people are trying to say.

 

Okami is a second rate Zelda...it steals everything from that series and only added a nice artistic coat of paint.  While Zelda is hardly an orginal game, Okami is just a sub-par Zelda clone.  So what they are saying is, why not pick the game that Okami obviously tried to copy?

 

 

[/QUOTE]

That is exactly the point I'm trying to make. Shawn, I would completely understand if you didn't like Zelda because you didn't like that genre. But if you like Okami you would like Zelda more, if you actually played it. I will grant that the first hour of the game blew. Maybe even the first 2 hours. But if you take that out of the 50+ hourse that the game lasts it really isn't much. It mainly bores your ass off so once the game gets going it feels that much more exhilarating. If you do try the game again play through the first temple then try to say you're not hooked.