Zelda:WW Demo at Target (1 Viewer)

[JamesH]

Just to let you all know, many Targets have a playable demo of Zelda set up in the kiosks if you want to check it out. I only played a few minutes of it, but I found it VERY underwhelming. What I saw of the graphics was definately not up to par, and the game only runs at 30FPS. It plays just like the older games though, so that's sure to please most people. There are also some videos of Wario World(looking pretty good, hopefully better than Mario Sunshine), and 1080 White Storm(looked OK).

 

[Jeffrey Forner]

You may have found it underwhelming because you only played a few minutes of it.

 

[Andy Sheets]

I played it at EBX yesterday. It's not an *eye-popping* graphic experience but I think the graphics are very charming. Mostly I felt that the game was like the N64 Zelda games with a new paint job and a few added tweaks to the gameplay, so people who dig Zelda will probably be happy and people who can take or leave the series probably won't miss much.

 

[Joe michaels]

I can usually tell a game in a few minutes whether or not I am impressed or it will be one that will grab my attention. There are a few games that I played longer and became more impressed by but usually I can tell in a few minutes.
One Kiosk example is Munch's Odyssey. Microsoft didn't put the best of that game up for demo and it WAS better than the demo was able to show but ultimately it was an average game.
I still want to try the Zelda game but I will rent it first.

 

[Camp]

He may have found it underwhelming because he's the same guy who thought the music and textures in Metroid Prime sucked. http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htfo...hreadid=123440

 

[Rob Lutter]

And also he played it on a 10" monitor with mono sound and a composite video connection.

 

[Dave F]

It's funny how if someone posts a positive review of a demo, everyone nods their heads in approval of how the game is shaping up. But if someone posts a negative review of a demo, it is assumed that the review is inherently flawed. :/

-Dave

 

[Romier S]

James, I've spoken to a few other folks that feel much the same as you. In fact several friends I have at EB have commented on how they disliked the demo so your not alone with some of your feeling towards the game.

With that, I have the demo at home and have played through it extensively (Perk of having those retail friends) and I've enjoyed what I have played so far. Back when Wind Waker was first announced, I was one of the folks that was very worried about the new look and I'll come right out and say it...I really disliked Links new character model.

After having played the demo I can say that I have fallen in love with the new cel-shaded look of the game. Its fits the atmosphere so well and it actually feels like your playing a cartoon (How many remember that old Zelda cartoon that ran with the live action Mario show?). As for framerate, its rock solid. I noticed no instance of slowdown in my time with the demo so I don't see the framerate being an issue at all.

The gameplay is very close to Ocarina and Majora with some nice tweaks such as the ability to pick up enemy weapons and some neat counter moves (which I'm still trying to get the timing down for). At this point the game is a blast to play. I'm loving the sense of exploration and the combat is still as fun as it was in the previous 64 games.

I am hoping that more new gameplay elements are added to the game to keep Wind Waker as "fresh" as possible. I can not make any judgements in that department however because well, its only a demo. I Haven't really been exposed to much of the game as of yet so it would be unfair to knock Wind Waker in that regard.

Some sour points. The camera in my opinion could use a little more attention. Its no where near as problematic as say Super Mario Sunshine but there are some instances where I felt the camera was being less than intuitive. Especially during the platforming section (of which there are a lot more than I expected!)

My final dislike stems from my comment above. I still don't like Links character model as much as the next guy. Its grown on me over time partly because I think the expressiveness in his eyes and face are rather good and do add to the game but I am one of those that would have prefferred a cel-shaded but more traditional looking Link in the end.

Come March I don't think many Zelda fans will be disappointed. The demo shot my anticipation meter WAY up (especially since the demo is so short and in store can even be timed!!:frowning and I'm looking forward to using Links boat and seeing how the Wind Wand plays into the game. March can't come soon enough!

 

[Michael St. Clair]

Did the Panzer Dragoon Orta demo not teach anyone that demos aren't always the best indicator of the game?

 

[Camp]

It's funny how if someone posts a positive review of a demo, everyone nods their heads in approval of how the game is shaping up. But if someone posts a negative review of a demo, it is assumed that the review is inherently flawed. :/

It's not funny at all.
The same thing happens every time someone mentions something remotely negative about Xbox. On this board Microsoft's hardware and Nintendo's games have holy status.

Right or wrong that's how it works.

 

[DaveF]

and the game only runs at 30FPS

A TV runs provides 60 interlaced frames per second, or 30 full frames per second. So 30 FPS is about what it should run at...

Regardless, how do you know it's 30FPS? Does it have an on-screen meter?

 

[Scott L]

Gamers can usually just tell. Example- GT3 = 60 fps, GTA3 = 30 fps. If you can't tell the difference you need a new pair of specs.

 

[Michael St. Clair]

Even if the demo does run at 30fps, that doesn't mean the game won't run at 60fps.

 

[Camp]

Gamers can usually just tell. Example- GT3 = 60 fps, GTA3 = 30 fps. If you can't tell the difference you need a new pair of specs.

As a gamer I have the ability to count each field as it occurs in real time. My eyes are just that fast. I can also count the exact number of on-screen (and off-screen) polygons being rendered per second.

That ridiculous. Get real. A statement like "game X appears to have frame rate issues" is fair but once you begin to claim exact FPS numbers you sound like a newbie tossing out acronyms because it makes you feel smart.

I need more sleep...I'm feeling like an a-hole today.
:frowning:

 

[Michael St. Clair]

If you see it side-by-side, it isn't hard to tell 60 unique fields or frames per second from a lesser framerate. Some people can certainly tell without a side-by-side comparison. I think I can fairly accurately.

Being able to tell an exact framerate that is less is a lot harder.

Some developers will lock in 30fps to avoid the obvious drop in framerate from 60fps (if the drop will be happening a lot). There is a philosophy that a steady 30 (if you can achieve it) is better than a framerate that jumps around.

 

[JamesH]

That ridiculous. Get real. A statement like "game X appears to have frame rate issues" is fair but once you begin to claim exact FPS numbers you sound like a newbie tossing out acronyms because it makes you feel smart.

Should you really be attempting to take me to the task for my judgement of a game's graphics when you yourself cannot even discern a framerate? Games have 4 framerates that are easily discernable to a trained eye: below 30, right at 30, between 30 and 60, and 60+. The way the human eye resolves an image makes framerates that are not a multiple of 30 appear jittery. For a good example of each(in order), check out Perfect Dark, Silent Hill 2, Sega Rally 2(Dreamcast), and Metroid Prime.

It's always possible that Zelda could have been running at 37 FPS if that makes you feel better than 30, but since it looked smooth overall, it's probably running at a locked 30.
----------------------------------------------

Romier, I don't see the framerate being an ISSUE either, but it certainly makes the game less impressive than it could have been. The same thing happened to me with Mario Sunshine. Given the power of the Gamecube and the relative simplicity of the graphics shown in screenshots, I had automatically assumed it would be running at an ultra smooth 60FPS. First party games are usually the ones to push a system to the max, so I don't like seeing one not take full advantage of the hardware.

 

[Gary King]

Games have 4 framerates that are easily discernable to a trained eye: below 30, right at 30, between 30 and 60, and 60+. The way the human eye resolves an image makes framerates that are not a multiple of 30 appear jittery. For a good example of each(in order), check out Perfect Dark, Silent Hill 2, Sega Rally 2(Dreamcast), and Metroid Prime.

The human eye isn't the reason why -- it's the display's vertical sync.

A monitor (or TV) redraws a frame in a specific amount of time (the refresh rate). For TVs, this is locked at 60Hz, for monitors, the user has some control over it. Games generally only swap frames when the display is in a blanking period (the time it takes for the electron gun to scan from the bottom of the CRT back to the top). Since this only happens once every 60Hz or so, if a game misses a blanking period (because processing the frame took too long), your instantaneous framerate drops hyperbolically.

If the instantaneous framerate is jumping constantly (between 20 and 30Hz, between 36 and 72Hz, etc.), the game will appear jittery, and most people perceive it as less smooth than if the framerate were fixed at the higher blanking period.

This unfortunately means that if console game requires 1/50 sec of processing time per frame (barely missing the cutoff for 1 blanking period), it will run at a locked 30Hz, rather than 50. The only way to avoid this is to disable vertical sync -- rather than swapping frames during blanking periods, frames can be swapped whenever they are ready. This introduces frame tearing, though -- since the monitor still has the same refresh rate, swapping a frame partway through a refresh means that the top part of the screen will be from one frame, and the bottom part from the next. At

 

[Rob_Pierce]

Back to the subject...

I played the Zelda demo tonight at Circuit City after fighting off hordes of 6 year olds. I don't feel very good about myself right now, but it was worth it.

I thought the demo was fantastic. I only got to play about 5 minutes, but the game played just like OoT (yeah!) and the cel shading was not an issue for me. I didn't play enough to get to see the expressions or other subtle details, but I am extremely happy with my first impression. Considering the 9" screen was about 6" from my face and at an awkward angle, combined with a broken game pad, I can only be thrilled with the game so far. The risk of a first person Metroid paid off and it seems the same is true for the toon shaded Zelda. Come on, March 24!

 

[Jeffrey Forner]

Originally posted by Dave F:
It's funny how if someone posts a positive review of a demo, everyone nods their heads in approval of how the game is shaping up. But if someone posts a negative review of a demo, it is assumed that the review is inherently flawed. :/

Now, Dave, that's not what I meant. It has been my experience that you can't really appreciate the full brilliance of a great game when you only play its demo for a few minutes, especially if it's a +40-hour game like the last two Zelda titles. I only wanted to suggest that this might be the case for James. Something tells me that once you start playing the full game, with the full world available for you to explore, all of the elements that earned this game a perfect score in Famitsu magazine will come to light.

 

[Morgan Jolley]

I played a demo at a local CC but the controller was totally shot, so I didn't get to do much. The GameStop down the street will probably have a demo up.