Majora's Mask!


Can we not define "rules" and "win conditions" for life? Is it not fair to say that you "win" at video game design when your game is complete? And you "win more" when it is well accepted? If I've got two libraries, one does 2D only, the other does 3D but can project onto a 2D plane, with no other differences between them (including learning curve of the 2D aspects) is it not better to choose the one which gives you more options, even if you ultimately only use the 2D planar portions of it?


Perhaps "better" is the wrong word then. "Better" is a generic catch-all term easily understood, but there are perhaps more specific terms that could be used. I could have said "strictly more powerful" in the 2D vs 3D comparison, if it suits, but for the rules of development, "strictly more powerful" == "better".
 
Can we not define "rules" and "win conditions" for life? Is it not fair to say that you "win" at video game design when your game is complete? And you "win more" when it is well accepted? If I've got two libraries, one does 2D only, the other does 3D but can project onto a 2D plane, with no other differences between them (including learning curve of the 2D aspects) is it not better to choose the one which gives you more options, even if you ultimately only use the 2D planar portions of it?


Perhaps "better" is the wrong word then. "Better" is a generic catch-all term easily understood, but there are perhaps more specific terms that could be used. I could have said "strictly more powerful" in the 2D vs 3D comparison, if it suits, but for the rules of development, "strictly more powerful" == "better".
What if the only decision variable the dev team had was cost (for their "rules")? The cheaper solution, but maybe not the most powerful solution, would be the "better" solution based on their objective function.
 
What if the only decision variable the dev team had was cost (for their "rules")? The cheaper solution, but maybe not the most powerful solution, would be the "better" solution based on their objective function.
Yes, in my mind it would be better, if that was how they defined their goal, and if there weren't libraries of equal cost for both systems. That's why I specified that all other things were equal between these two theoretical libraries.


Of course, if their challenge is monetary cost, then there are entirely free engines in both 2D and 3D which can both be used to accomplish a 2D sprite based game.
 
Majora's Mask is an odd game. I enjoyed Ocarina of Time (though it isn't my favourite zelda game) but although I don't like games to necessarily be easy, I found there to be an unnecessary and slightly redundant level of forced difficulty in some of the challenges in Majora's Mask. In many ways it felt like it was Link and the infuriating side quests. The Zora link section was incredibly difficult to control at times and though I understand part of the point of the game is to explore and find everything out, it would not have been unreasonable to have a little more guidance. I had to spend so much time replaying dungeons or going through entire sections because I missed something I didn't realise (I did the Zora temple 3 times, once due to a crash) it became quite infuriating. I have to admit to resorting to a walkthrough to get through it numerous times.


I guess I do have an internal idea of just how long I expect to be spending on any given section of a game. If the mechanics are futzed or the challenge too obscure I will lose patience. I have similar feelings towards the sandbird in super mario sunshine (never been able to get past it) and a speed shine ball part in metroid/metroid zero mission (also never gotten past it). Of all the Zelda games I've played (ALTTP, LA, OOT, TP, MM, WW) it had a much higher level of frustration and in the end the payoff didn't feel worth it. I am definitely looking forward to seeing where OoS, OoA, MC, LoZ and Z2 fit in my thoughts on it all.
 
LOL, that's not Archon.
ARCHON!


That was one of my favourite games as a wee little lad. Every couple of years I get a pang of nostalgia and go out trying to remember what this game was called, but I can never remember the name. Sometimes I do stumble upon it and think "man, I gotta play it again, it was so fun" but by the time I've finally found it, my nostalgia has subsided, and so it becomes a low priority. Probably for the best, I'm fairly certain it won't hold up well with my memories of it.


That being said, "man, I gotta play this again sometime, it was so fun!" :D
 
Going 3D does not make a game the "best ever"

Absolutely not - there may be other 3D games out there that are better. However, I can assure you that re-making a 2D game in 3D will make the game much, much better. It works very well indeed for movies, and that goes double for video games. Hence, as our friendly mod Sony points out, SM64 is far better than the 2D versions that preceded it. If you feel otherwise then that's ok, but it does need to be pointed out (in the nicest possible way) how wrong you are - lest soe of our younger readers get the wrong idea.


D.

Technical superiority does not guarantee abstract (gameplay, fun, etc) superiority. 3-D opens up possibilities, but not all game series will translate well to 3-D. Sonic and Castlevania, for instance, suffered by going into 3-D. There's also those of us who grew up with pixelated 2-D graphics and don't mind (or prefer) 2-D. I prefer 2-D mainly because the level of artistic dedication actually shows. Today's 3-D graphics are created with filters, photoshopping, and various graphic APIs/features to produce the intended effect. In 2-D, the most advanced tech you have to work with is alpha blending and sprite scaling/resizing. Looking back, it's incredible to see what has been accomplished on such "gimped" hardware, and how developers squeezed every last ounce of performance out of the system. Today, developers use prefabbed engines on bloated operating systems and release half-finished games for retail pricing. The love of making (good) games is lost on American developers and publishers. It's all about the money instead of the art.


So no, improving technology doesn't always mean the 3-D version of a game is better than it's 2-D counterpart. If your opinion is swayed that much by graphics then I feel sorry for you.


EDIT: As much as I like Mario 64, Nintendo has yet to match the masterpiece known as Super Mario Bros 3. No Mario game to date has offered so many fun and memorable levels, varied and charming worlds, and awesome power-ups.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So, in your mind, more money is better than less money. I agree, wholeheartedly. But this is still an opinion, and certainly not everyone agrees with it.
No it isn't. I suppose it could be an opinion in the same way that "the sun is yellow*" or "gravity makes things fall down*" can be stated as an opinion, but challenging it requires a certain level of belief so contrary that I wouldn't even begin to argue with such a person. If someone genuinely believes that having less is better than having more with no perceivable sacrifice, then I have absolutely no way of countering such a thought.


(*)and for the sake of simplification, I'm omitting the obvious specifics.
To be fair, look at it from a risk-analysis perspective. If you have more money, you are likely to live better, and if people _know_ you have money, you or your possessions may be targeted for robbery. More is not always better. There are pros and cons to both.
 
Majora's Mask is an odd game. I enjoyed Ocarina of Time (though it isn't my favourite zelda game) but although I don't like games to necessarily be easy, I found there to be an unnecessary and slightly redundant level of forced difficulty in some of the challenges in Majora's Mask. In many ways it felt like it was Link and the infuriating side quests. The Zora link section was incredibly difficult to control at times and though I understand part of the point of the game is to explore and find everything out, it would not have been unreasonable to have a little more guidance. I had to spend so much time replaying dungeons or going through entire sections because I missed something I didn't realise (I did the Zora temple 3 times, once due to a crash) it became quite infuriating. I have to admit to resorting to a walkthrough to get through it numerous times.


I guess I do have an internal idea of just how long I expect to be spending on any given section of a game. If the mechanics are futzed or the challenge too obscure I will lose patience. I have similar feelings towards the sandbird in super mario sunshine (never been able to get past it) and a speed shine ball part in metroid/metroid zero mission (also never gotten past it). Of all the Zelda games I've played (ALTTP, LA, OOT, TP, MM, WW) it had a much higher level of frustration and in the end the payoff didn't feel worth it. I am definitely looking forward to seeing where OoS, OoA, MC, LoZ and Z2 fit in my thoughts on it all.

lmao. Majora's Mask is about average for Zelda difficulty.


You will not like the Oracles, LoZ, or Z2. Don't even bother if you aren't prepared to be challenged. You'll like MC because it's easy and short.


May I ask why you want your hand held by a [Zelda] game? The series isn't even all that hard compared to the likes of Mega Man, Castlevania, Metal Slug, etc. It's really fun to play through a Zelda with only 3 hearts and no deaths. I did it in OoA, OoT, MM, WW, MC, and TP (proof). Great fun to be had. Can't wait to do the same with PH and ST. One of these days I'll go full-masochist and try LoZ with 3 hearts.


Anyway, to end my stream of posts and actually comment on the game, Majora's Mask is the best 3-D Zelda imo. It brought so many great things to the series that we haven't really seen since. OoT was just ALttP in 3-D. TP ruined the design that MM laid down with a medium sized overworld jam-packed with grottos, sidequests, and cool stuff. MM has the most content of any Zelda game, period. 52 pieces of heart, 60 Skulltulas, 24 masks, over 30 sidequests, and 7 dungeons (I count Ikana Castle and the Pirate's Fortress). Can you believe the game was developed in 12 months? Sure, the engine and a lot of the models were already there, but it's still amazing how much work was done in such little time.


I really hope Skyward Sword will topple Majora's Mask. I have high hopes for that game, and it has a lot of promise.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
To be fair, look at it from a risk-analysis perspective. If you have more money, you are likely to live better, and if people _know_ you have money, you or your possessions may be targeted for robbery. More is not always better. There are pros and cons to both.
True, if you spend or keep that money there is the increased risk, but who said you had to keep it?


If you have more money, you have the option of using, not using, or even simply disposing of any excess in any way you choose. There is no necessary downside to having more, provided the cost to get the extra was exactly the same as getting the lesser.
 
Doesn't matter. It was said that having more money was always better, and I provided a situation where having more isn't. If you want to go meta with it, knowing you have more money adds mental stress because then you have to decide what to do with the extra money.


Anyway, my point was the world isn't always black and white.
 
Doesn't matter. It was said that having more money was always better, and I provided a situation where having more isn't. If you want to go meta with it, knowing you have more money adds mental stress because then you have to decide what to do with the extra money.
Doesn't sound like a problem. If it causes you problems, just don't use it, pretend it doesn't exist, or even throw it away. No problem, no stress.


That was my point about 3D before I tried to give analogies: better to have a system capable of 3D (and 2D, of course) and not use it then to be stuck in a pure 2D environment and decide it would be useful to have some 3D capabilities but can't. That's what makes 3D strictly better than 2D.
 
Sure, if the libraries for doing 2-D are as good as the 3-D. Oftentimes, 3-D system manufacturers don't put as much effort into their 2-D libraries and effectively force devs into 3-D. And this argument over what's better is only derailing things. Any idiot can judge technology. If two CPUs of the same architecture are different clock speeds, the faster one wins. That's not how we judge art (books, movies, games), though. You can't dumb down things to a number when they're abstract and complex. So while the technology behind 3-D is more capable, the argument is moot and irrelevant to the quality of games. There are plenty of NES and SNES games that are much higher quality than a lot of modern games. If technical merit was a valid indicator of quality, games would only get better. But since creating a gaming experience is more art than numbers, there will be periods where games aren't as good, and periods of rennaissance and revolution. The science that powers gaming is only a fraction of the experience. It's a means to an end.


As far as stress is concerned with the choice, let's use logic.


I have $10 and am given $10 more -> I now start thinking about what to do with the extra money -> I am expending mental effort (however minute) on this decision -> I make a choice regarding the money (commitment) and do it -> I then see what happens (anxiety)


This does not mean that more money is bad. What it means is that more money is more responsibility and responsibility means more thought and effort is needed to manage it properly. The same is true of material possessions. More is not always better. Seriously I don't see how someone can argue against that. It's raw logic. Up the ante and it should be clear.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sure, if the libraries for doing 2-D are as good as the 3-D.
Well now you're arguing specific implementations. I was arguing theory, all other things being equal. Yes, you can pick a 2D library which handles things better than a 3D library, but for every 2D library it is theoretically possible for a 3D library to do exactly the same things with exactly the same effort with the addition of extra features should you choose to take advantage of them.


I'm still debating your money-causes-stress point in my head though. On the one hand, I understand where you're coming from: even deciding not to spend the money is still some form of effort. At the same time, I'm now visualizing a scenario where you don't decide to not spend the money, you simply don't do it; if I had plans to only spend $10, I go out and do it and, at the end of the trip, discover that I actually had two $10 bills, I have expended no additional energy. Or even a scenario where you know you have two $10, but don't need to think about the second because you had already set your mind on that which only cost $10: you simply have the extra $10 lying around, but if something comes up that requires it you have it available, even if you hadn't started out with a purpose or thought for it.


Anywho, what my mind was working towards with Kaepora Gaebora and I was hoping to get more of his opinions on before he sadly stopped posting was this: "better" must be a subjective word. One thing can only be made better than another based on a set of rules and goals. In some cases, as with games like poker, the rules are well defined and it is quite easy to say one hand is better than another within the bounds of the game. Of course, someone can be playing the game but acting outside the rules of the game: they are cheating, or they wish to lose for some reason, or probably a few other scenarios which would make the "better" hand actually worse (and vice versa). These are not the norm.


Where he and I differed was on that point: whether a sufficiently normal state exists where someone can make some specific points about one thing being better than another and have it be accepted.


Take the money example again. I don't know anyone who honestly believes that two $10 is not better than one $10. Maybe if you start getting into significant quantities, hundreds or thousands or more, you may get some debates, but if you ask random person on the street which they'd rather have, $10 or $20, they will by and large say $20. This is because society (and not just society as a whole, but sub-societies, such as your career, etc...) has established rules and goals which the vast majority accept and work toward that do not need to be expressed: they simply are, whether you've thought about them or not. It is better to eat than to not eat. It is better to not kill than it is to kill. It is better to have more available than less. Of course, it is possible to craft scenarios where these are not true, but those wouldn't be normal: ask random people on the street if they want to kill you, and for the most part I would hope you get "no" as an answer; if you get a lot of "yes" then you are that outlier :p . To that end, the point Kaepora Gaebora and I differed on, was that I believe that I can say "A is better than B" based on these unspoken rules and have it understood as accepted truth for society at large, whereas he believes that one can never dismiss the outliers and that "better" must always be expressed as an opinion.
 
Back
Top