Gotta type this quick since it's 3 minutes freom school!! What should I do? I only have 50 bucks to spend and no moer! Shold I buy TActics Ogre or Grandia? Which do you think will go out of stock the quickest?

- FlamingVK (I have a name!)

I'm...I'm not the only one who wasn't obsessed overZ:OoT? Yahoo! *ahem* either way, The reason I wasn'tobsessed of it was:

1) The camera system was clumsy, confusing, and hard tohandle in the heat of battle. This plauges many an RPGtoday, such as Xenogears and Breath of Fire 3. And Idare not mention FF7, where American gamers neededMickey Mouse to point out where Cloud was.

2) The Z-Targeting was completely clunky for it'snessessity. I've seen games that have done it muchbetter, especially in the past few months (*coughcough* Syphon Filter *cough*)

3) It suffers the same problem Brave Fencer Musashidid...what voice acting it had, was annoying. And ontop of that, it's repetitive enough to drive postalworkers to their uzis. I hear Navi squeak out "Listen!"one more time I SWEAR I'm gonna break a few walls :P

4) Overall, it just didn't live up to the hype. Fewgames do, so this isn't as vital in a normal case.However, it magnifies for Zelda. Why? Because 3 monthsbefore the freakin game came out, people were ALREADYclaiming "This is going to be the best game (some evendare said RPG.. I pity dem foos) ever!" Two comments onthat: It's defintely not the best game ever... True, Iwill admit that many people will find it a classic, butIt's just like any other game... it has it's strongpoints, it has it's flaws. It's a great game, butbetter will come along. And for the 3 other reasonsabove, I believe better will come along soon.

--Bryann

I've always been slightly afraid of voicing my opinion on Zelda 64. It was being called "The Greatest Game of All Time" etc., and as much as I would have like to agree with the people who say that, I can't. This is the second game that I have disagreed with the all the hype in a series I love; the first was FF7. However, there was already (and still are) tons of people disagreeing about that game, so no need to contribute to the flood. :)

There were some nagging parts in Zelda 64 I had some real issues with... Foremost, the music. Music is very important to me, and I was very disappointed in Z64's soundtrack. Most of the tracks didn't sound like they were of any better quality than Zelda:LttP, they didn't sound like they were even *from* the Zelda series, or as memorable, either. I especially hated the music in Kakariko Village!! It was catchy at first, but time after time after time of restarting my game in that village made me want to bang my head on the wall! I think Mr. Miyamoto, for the *most part*, sort of "forgot" about the games music...It didn't even seem like a Zelda game sometimes because of the music... (Uh-oh, I'm sensing blood pressures rising...)

Also, the introduction gave me a bad taste in my mouth. In LttP, the intro was great...You wake up, and follow your Uncle (when you're not supposed to!) to rescue Zelda. But the rain was what made it really memorable. The rain made it feel truly cool, much more cooler than having some annoying fairy coming to wake you up in a tree hut... Also, you were sneaking in a big, slightly scary castle...In Z64 you just walked around the village, and after a while you walked into a talking tree...

But my main problem with the game was that it was too different from Zelda: A Link to the Past. This was one of my first SNES games, and one of my first games that I seriously became addicted too. (Sure, I loved Zelda I, but I was too little then to be any good at it). Zelda: LttP was, to me, about hardcore gameplay. While Zelda 64 seemed more about.....immersion. Granted, this had its advantages; I remember gazing in awe when I watched the sun set over Lake Hylia, it was truly beautiful. And being able to SWIM in the fully 3D lake, diving deep and then coming back up for air, not doing anything in particular, was fun in itself! Yes....Zelda 64 had many good points, which is why I am not very vocal about my opinion on the game; I can understand why so many people love this game. In fact, if it wasn't a Zelda game, or I had never played any of the other Zeldas, I would probably love the game, too.

- Ice_Man_Ash

I think Zelda is a great game. But I'm not going to get into detailabout why, because that's not my bag, baby! I want to say that it isfully possible to have a great game that you don't really like.

So I can make some sense, I'll use Tekken as an example. I don't likeTekken. Does it have a lot of really cool options? Yep. Does it havea really good engine? Yep. Does it have Gon? Yep. Pretty coolcharacter design? Yep. But for some reason, it just doesn't float myboat. I have a lot more fun playing as Ryu in Street Fighter games thanI do Tekken. However, I do not think Tekken unworthy of the high praiseit gets from fans and critics. It is a great fighting series. It'sjust not my cup o' vodka, so to speak.

Now with Zelda, I think it's well-nigh impossible to say that it's notdesigned well. The game looks great, feels great and sounds great. Nowthere are several games that I play more than Zelda, mostly becauseZelda requires a lot of time to get through the latter dungeons, andbeing a student and employee I often simply don't have that kind oftime. But I do think it worthy of the accolades that have been heapedupon it. Now there are a lot of people who for various reasons don'tlike Zelda, but can an argument really be made that an aspect of thegame downright sucks and/or wasn't thought out at all? Just because agame is damn good doesn't mean every person will like it. Everyone hasdifferent opinions, so let's not start calling each other morons forthinking differently.

- Eric Denney

As the Earth rotates and the heavens guide us, we have seen the tides of timetake their toll on Sega's history. The Master System was in the shadow of theNES. The Genesis shared a similar fate, but it still had some ground, modestas it was. Upon this ground, Sega added SegaCD and 32-X, both flops, bothlessons to learn from. Then Sega introduced Sega Saturn. Perhaps the tragicflaw of this particular system was its steep debut pricing. Nevertheless,through this console we saw the wonders of great classics, especially Grandiaand Shining Force III. Despite this, Sega remained in the dust. Sony emergedas the victor, leaving even Nintendo behind it. It was a dark time forSega...

Now, on the verge of the new millennium, Sega has "gone big" and released itsdream incarnate - the Dreamcast. It is the forerunner for the new generationof consoles, with an impressive 128-bit system and 200 Mhz. It even includesa 56K modem (for the U.S.).

Why should this console be any different from the rest of Sega's tragicalhistory tour? Perhaps it is because Sega has spent quite some time composingthis orchestra that is the Dreamcast. Furthermore, DC is debuting not onlywith typical racing and sports games but with RPGs!! This is a great turn ofevents in Sega's marketing campaign. Squaresoft carried the PSX after leavingN64 out in the cold. We need competition! And DC is our answer.

The RPGs that will indeed revolutionize the gaming system include Sting'sEvolution, Gaming Age's Grandia II, Climax's Climax Landers, and Suzuki's ShenMue. The latter is particularly revolutionary in that it is introducing a newgenre braching from RPGism - FREE (Full Reactive Eyes Entertainment).

Sega has learned from its past mistakes and has focused more of its gamingindustry in truly satisfying us customers with what we truly want - RPGs. Ifyou have looked at the specs and pics of some of these titles, you will allreach a consensus that indeed DC is an incredible vehicle for delivering RPGwonders. As my friend so accurately stated, "It is playing playing an FMV forthe whole time."

However, this is merely an opinion. Who knows what the future has in storefor Dreamcast? No one does. Sega can only hope, plan, and act. We asconsumers can only wait and research. Nevertheless, the success of theDreamcast, or any console for that matter, depends on one tumultuous source -the consumers. It is up to us to determine whether Dreamcast will rise orfall. Shall we give it the chance it deserves, or will we submit ourselves tothe virtual monopoly imposed by the PSX and now the advancing PSX-2. "Thecustomer is always right." Without consumers, no gaming product wouldsurvive. Keep this in mind whenever you come across Dreamcast-affiliatedmatters. Treat this system impartially, and truly open your eyes to thepotential splendor that this console can and will deliver.

- Carlo Levy

Hey, remember back a year ago, a few months after the hype and furor aboutFinal Fantasy VII had died down? Remember how after everyone stopped ravingabout it, finished discussing how to beat the Weapons, and beat down BenLansing's rumor for the thousandth time -- how after the unbridled praisedwindled down, the bashing began? Well, it seems as though it's Zelda'sturn. The backlash has begun. And frankly, I couldn't be happier - in fact,I want to jump on the bandwagon before it ever leaves the station.

You see, I was not impressed by Zelda V. I reserved a copy, got it overThanksgiving, and spent the better part of the Thanksgiving holiday playingit. I enjoyed it, but there were some problems that grew increasinglygrating the longer I played. Then I spent a couple of days with my N64disconnected for various reasons, and when I plugged it back in, I realizedsomething: I was sick of Zelda. I made it as far as the Fire Temple andsaid, "Forget it" and picked up Xenogears instead (of course, I ended updisliking Xenogears even more than Zelda, but that's another rant entirely).

But I'd like to go a step further than simply saying Zelda V is not perfect- rather, I'd like to take a swing at the most sacred cow of all and saysomething bound to shock the frenzied media and their sheeplike acolytes:Shigeru Miyamoto is not a perfect game designer. In fact, many of his gamesare terribly flawed. I have nothing but respect for the man, and of courseI recognize the incredible scope of his imagination and the wonderfulcontributions he's made to gaming. But I think people are unwilling to lookpast the mythic persona built by others around the man and see thatsometimes, even the games touched by his majestic hand have criticalproblems. Zelda is one of those.

The first and most noticeable problem (as mentioned by Legion007) issomething I call "Myst Syndrome." Remember the game Myst? How beautiful itwas, how no game at the time offered such a gorgeously-conceived world?Well, the designers sure were proud of their creation - their reward forbeating the game was not to tie up the plot elements, but simply to say"Feel free to look around these lovely renders we've created." Seeing ashow I had *already* looked around trying to solve vague and illogicalpuzzles until I was sick to death of Myst Island, this wasn't much of areward for me. Zelda seems to have the same problem. "Look what an amazingworld we've designed," said the creators. "You can watch the sun rise andsee the mountains in the distance! Let us offer the player as muchopportunity to view this beauty as possible!" And so you spend a hugeamount of time wandering the overworld, over and over. Geez... at leastZelda 1 & 3 had the decency to offer warp zones pretty early in the game.

And did I mention vague and illogical puzzles? Zelda has 'em. Of course,poorly presented puzzles have always been a trademark of the Zelda series -actually, of many Miyamoto games. The difference here is that while it wasonly mildly tedious to walk around the entire Zelda I overworld bombingevery rock (and touching every tombstone and guard statue and burning everybush), making that effort in the world of Zelda V is a monumental andutterly boring task because the world is so enormous and you have so manyitems to work with. And you also have to consider day & night and past &future when trying to solve puzzles. We gush about the original Zelda now,but remember that when it was new people would be stuck looking for theentrance to Level 5 for months. And how utterly annoying it was to bomb andpress against every single dungeon wall in the Second Quest, looking forthe path ahead. Zelda V revives this game design blast from the past, butbrings little nostalgia along with it. Mostly it just stirs dormant andannoying memories of finally blowing the flute in front of the proper fairyfountain to find the next level and thinking, "Who would have known to dothat?" I found myself asking the same question in Zelda V as I accidentallytumbled through an illusionary wall in an empty well, or ran around HyruleField wearing bunny ears at night to find a jogger.

And finally, the greatest design flaw I had to stomach to play Zelda - thecontextual action button. Not a bad idea in itself, but it's indicative ofhow the game frequently removes character control from the player. Case inpoint: auto-jump. Sorry, but they had it right in Zelda IV - tie theability to jump to an item, not to how fast you're walking when you come toa cliff's edge. There are a number of spots in the game where I found youhave to approach at the perfect angle and velocity or else Link thinks,"Hmm, I want to drop down rather than leap to the ledge over there." Thatwas not what I *wanted* Link to think, but it's hard to communicate yourintentions to an onscreen avatar with nothing but an analog control stick.And then there are the times when I needed to jump to snag a SkulltulaToken just above my head but can't without using an attack technique.That's just stupid. I would greatly prefer to press a jump button to beingforced to rely on "context." Actually, this and a number of other flawsstem from the fact that the game is probably a little too "immersive"(read: 3D) for its own good. One of the charms of the original Zelda wasthat it was so straightforward that anyone could pick it up and play. ButI've watched someone with little 3D gaming experience play Zelda, and itmost certainly wasn't intuitive for that person. Metal Gear Solid got itright - move to 3D visually, but let the action stick to a fairly flatplane. Oops, now I've done it - I've gone and compared Zelda unfavorably toMetal Gear. In Internet parlance, that makes me "a stupid biased Sonylover."

This is not to say I hated Zelda V. There were some truly awesome momentsin that game, like the twisting passage in the Forest Temple, or lookingdown the trunk of the Deku tree. But those moments of brilliance werespread thin between all the other crap I had to wade through to get there.I'll go back and beat the game someday... but for now, I have dozens ofother games I'd rather be playing. I will say that I'm looking forward toUra-Zelda - if it really is just a collection of dungeons and mazes, itwill undoubtedly be far more focused and enjoyable than Zelda V.

Well, this is probably a bit long to print, but I know it'll be hard for acontroversy lover like you to resist - after all, I'm attacking the GAME OFTHE CENTURY!!!! here, and people have killed each other over the Internetfor less. But to be totally honest, I had many times more fun playingMegaman Legends than I did playing Zelda. No, MML didn't have the amazinggraphics or immense world of Zelda. It didn't have the advanced lock-onsystem (just a watered-down version), causing combat to be little more than"run side to side and shoot as fast as you can." The puzzles were littlemore than "find three keys." But what MML had over Zelda was a lack ofpretention or developer self-satisfaction, offering instead a lot of funand focused gameplay. Perhaps I'm one of the few who still prefers playinggames to playing (cue angelic choir) EXPERIENCES, but I'll always choosestraightforward action or storytelling to trying to scrutinize what thedevelopers *think* I should be doing. There was entirely too much of thatin Zelda V, and if that's the future of gaming, I'll happily stick to thegames of less "immersive" days.

Well, crap, now I sound like some "hardcore" prick whining about FMV andhow much better gaming was in the "old days." Kill me.

J. Parish

parishj@nicanor.acu.edu

(Please note that any flames concerning this letter will be posted andridiculed on my website)