• Welcome to ZD Forums! You must create an account and log in to see and participate in the Shoutbox chat on this main index page.

What Does PS4 Have Compared to the Xbox One?

DarkestLink

Darkest of all Dark Links
Joined
Oct 28, 2012
@Sroa Link

I wouldn't call it exploration if you're being told in the main quest where to go. For example, Impa telling us to go to Kakariko isn't exploration....going to Lon Lon Ranch, however, is exploration.

Zelda may have been founded on exploration and Mario may have been founded on sidescrolling...but they've evolved from that. I haven't seen heavy emphasis on exploration since Wind Waker...and before that, the last exploration based game I remember is aLttP.
 

Justac00lguy

BooBoo
Joined
Jul 1, 2012
Location
NZ
Gender
Shewhale
Goodness knows how we got so off topic but before I answer the thread I wanted to address something...

The Jade Fist said:
Ok this isn't my inner fan boy coming out but that is a heavily biased statement.

The Jade Fist said:
not just because it was easy (certaintly didn't help its case) but you couldn't just go explore, you were so forced to do everything they wanted when they wanted, and even how they wanted.*

Zelda is about exploration,TP wasn't.
Ok, most modern 3D Zelda games are relatively easy and frankly I'd only label 2 or 3 games in the series as being remotely difficult and they were the earlier franchise - the series has advanced and has succumbed to a more casual experience to suit the nature of the wide audience that Nintendo has built. Sure more games should he challenging but I'm afraid this is the route that the series has took, singling out Twilight Princess is naive.

Exploration is just a part of what Zelda is about, when the series first began it was young, it wasn't going to be that way in the future, gaming series' adapt as has Zelda, while the first aim for Miyamoto was to bring the aspect of adventure into a game that wasn't going to be the whole picture. Frankly the Zelda series isn't even exploration based anymore, gameplay seems to be a large focus, puzzles are another main focus (despite diminishing) as well as combat and controls (check Skyward Sword). You simply can't label this series down to being about "exploration" because that's bit the case.

Now my favourite thing about Zelda would be the adventuring aspect as that's what I generally look for in a game, but frankly Zelda doesn't emphasise that. Now you seem to label Twilight Princess as it lacked in exploration - implying that most games had exploration in the first place. This is unjustified in my opinion.

I think you're hinting at linearity being the sole reason, well Zelda is a linear series, yet again this isn't just TP, but linearity doesn't halt exploration, in fact linearity is important for a series like Zelda. Linearity allows for a more structured progression, which can mean a more story focused game - that is what Nintendo aimed for with Twilight Princess . However, where is the lack of exploration in this game because I really font see it... The overworld was sparse, yes, it was empty in parts, yes but all for good reason. This made for an overworld with a realistic spatial differentiation. You had compact areas, hallways and large expansive areas. The large expansive areas were needed in order to "add" to exploration.

You can't just have one overworld that is compact as that puts less emphasis on escaping the main structure and exploring, the overworld in TP allowed you room to breath. It wasn't perfect by any means but it certainly had exploration that if which I feel games should follow suit. One could go off in search of Golden Bugs, these were quite difficult to find when tackling the game blind, they were small and only a flickering light would alert attention, in such a vast overworld it allowed for much searching. Then we have Poes that appeared at night, and given the sheer multitude, it was a task in exploring Hyrule and finding them all. Not to mention the overworld had a large amount of treasure chests to find, hidden caverns as well as many enemies to keep occupied.

=The Jade Fist]Skyrim is so akin to the first Zelda, after you get out of the cave from Helgen, you're free to go any where you want, sure you could go just down the road to the first town which is the obvious place to go, or not.
To be honest it really feels like you want Skyrim mashed in with Zelda, which isn't bad by any means but it's not right to pit up two completely different games. Skyrim does allow free exploration, but Zedla shouldn't in my opinion. Skyrim is a fill fledged RPG and Zelda is not, Zedla can adopt certain elements that's for sure but at its core it's an action/adventure but more importantly it forces other aspects together to create a diverse experience. Having an openly free RPG Zelda would greatly affect its charm, the formula that us fans seem to want change but are somewhat wary if it does.


Now don't get me wrong Skyrim is a great game and I feel Zelda could benefit from its grandeur and scale but I don't want Zelda to just switch up its core. Zedla should first and foremost focus on what makes it great; puzzles, stylistic graphics, charm, music, combat combined with a top notch control scheme, a progressive narrative and exploration. However, exploration can be achieved without taking a U-Turn, nonlinearity could become more present but in moderation and that's the key word "moderation". We should have these sections where the plot is linear but then allow for certain periods were we get a certain sense of freedom. Over with think Zelda is series that can learn from Skyrim but not "be" Skyrim.



So back on topic...

Overall I think Sony took this one, I was most excited for this console anyway so that may caused a biased opinion but I'll just explain my reasoning here. Microsoft have got a huge disadvantage with their decisions in my opinion but since that doesn't affect me I judged the personally on their conference alone. It was pretty solid all round, some great titles in there, probably the stand out being Titanfall, but I feel the price was slightly high and I expected just that bit extra to make up for negative perceptions.

Since I already own a Wii U I was of course going to be interested with what Nintendo was offering this year and in was frankly dissapointed. I've owned my Wii U for around 6 months now and Iver barley touched it, lack of definitive titles is the reason and the key that were showcased at E3 didn't really capture my attention as I thought they would. 3D Mario didn't look all that new, it didn't have that same "wow" factor that Galaxy or Sunshine brought when they first dawned, essentially it felt like a more toned down and largely similar experience. The SSB trailer was great don't get me wrong, but it just seemed that little too familiar in my opinion, I'm sure the devs said they were going to mix up the gameplay to create a fresh expert and that wasn't evident in the trailer as far as I'm concerned. The rest of the titles looked rather lacklustre apart from "Zelda BLT" and funnily enough a remake ( The Wind Waker HD stole the show for me.

Sony was just all round great, the games that were announced earlier this year already intrigued me and better look at E3 validated my initial opinion on the console. Killzone, Infamous , Beyond , Destiny (yeah I know this isn't an exclusive), Elder Scrolls Online etc. Just give the console the edge in my opinion. Even though Sony did low blow Microsoft it was pretty funny and a great E3 moment. The console looks great, it's features look amazing, the library, at first sight, looks great and the price is more than reasonable as far as I can see. So yes Sony without a doubt for me.
 

Ventus

Mad haters lmao
Joined
May 26, 2010
Location
Akkala
Gender
Hylian Champion
Sorry but linear plot lines are incredibly boring, so that shouldn't ever touch Zelda again :I


Eh like I said, the PS4 is starting to become an Xbox 360 in many ways, it's really strong, more affordable than its immediate competition, and also implemented the stupid "pay to fully enjoy your games" model that the 360 did way back when.

As of now the PS4 doesn't have much in the way of exclusives but we will surely see things hapepn in the future. :yes:
 

Salem

SICK
Joined
May 18, 2013
If you look at the two consoles specs, you'll notice that they're extremely similar, so there really isn't much difference from a developer's perspective to begin with.

From my knowledge, in the 7th generation, xbox 360 was used as the lead platform to make console games on and then they get ported to ps3, so usually the ps3 version of games tend to be of lower quality than xbox 360, although there're exemptions of course.

Which brings me to my original point. since the platforms are now so similar, porting games from one console to another may be easier than before. The xbox had this edge before, but not anymore.

@Sroa Link

I wouldn't call it exploration if you're being told in the main quest where to go. For example, Impa telling us to go to Kakariko isn't exploration....going to Lon Lon Ranch, however, is exploration.

Zelda may have been founded on exploration and Mario may have been founded on sidescrolling...but they've evolved from that. I haven't seen heavy emphasis on exploration since Wind Waker...and before that, the last exploration based game I remember is aLttP.
What I meant was, it can be obvious, without it being told outright, the path to the next several areas can be clear, and the deviate path witch leads to secrets and whatnot can also be clear.

We're getting awfully off-topic here. Why don't you guys create a new thread for your discussion?
We probably have our own Godwin's law here except without the Nazis....:S
 
Last edited:

The Jade Fist

Kung Fu Master
Joined
Jul 16, 2012
Goodness knows how we got so off topic but before I answer the thread I wanted to address something...


Ok this isn't my inner fan boy coming out but that is a heavily biased statement.


Ok, most modern 3D Zelda games are relatively easy and frankly I'd only label 2 or 3 games in the series as being remotely difficult and they were the earlier franchise - the series has advanced and has succumbed to a more casual experience to suit the nature of the wide audience that Nintendo has built. Sure more games should he challenging but I'm afraid this is the route that the series has took, singling out Twilight Princess is naive.

Exploration is just a part of what Zelda is about, when the series first began it was young, it wasn't going to be that way in the future, gaming series' adapt as has Zelda, while the first aim for Miyamoto was to bring the aspect of adventure into a game that wasn't going to be the whole picture. Frankly the Zelda series isn't even exploration based anymore, gameplay seems to be a large focus, puzzles are another main focus (despite diminishing) as well as combat and controls (check Skyward Sword). You simply can't label this series down to being about "exploration" because that's bit the case.

Now my favourite thing about Zelda would be the adventuring aspect as that's what I generally look for in a game, but frankly Zelda doesn't emphasise that. Now you seem to label Twilight Princess as it lacked in exploration - implying that most games had exploration in the first place. This is unjustified in my opinion.

I think you're hinting at linearity being the sole reason, well Zelda is a linear series, yet again this isn't just TP, but linearity doesn't halt exploration, in fact linearity is important for a series like Zelda. Linearity allows for a more structured progression, which can mean a more story focused game - that is what Nintendo aimed for with Twilight Princess . However, where is the lack of exploration in this game because I really font see it... The overworld was sparse, yes, it was empty in parts, yes but all for good reason. This made for an overworld with a realistic spatial differentiation. You had compact areas, hallways and large expansive areas. The large expansive areas were needed in order to "add" to exploration.

You can't just have one overworld that is compact as that puts less emphasis on escaping the main structure and exploring, the overworld in TP allowed you room to breath. It wasn't perfect by any means but it certainly had exploration that if which I feel games should follow suit. One could go off in search of Golden Bugs, these were quite difficult to find when tackling the game blind, they were small and only a flickering light would alert attention, in such a vast overworld it allowed for much searching. Then we have Poes that appeared at night, and given the sheer multitude, it was a task in exploring Hyrule and finding them all. Not to mention the overworld had a large amount of treasure chests to find, hidden caverns as well as many enemies to keep occupied.


To be honest it really feels like you want Skyrim mashed in with Zelda, which isn't bad by any means but it's not right to pit up two completely different games. Skyrim does allow free exploration, but Zedla shouldn't in my opinion. Skyrim is a fill fledged RPG and Zelda is not, Zedla can adopt certain elements that's for sure but at its core it's an action/adventure but more importantly it forces other aspects together to create a diverse experience. Having an openly free RPG Zelda would greatly affect its charm, the formula that us fans seem to want change but are somewhat wary if it does.


Now don't get me wrong Skyrim is a great game and I feel Zelda could benefit from its grandeur and scale but I don't want Zelda to just switch up its core. Zedla should first and foremost focus on what makes it great; puzzles, stylistic graphics, charm, music, combat combined with a top notch control scheme, a progressive narrative and exploration. However, exploration can be achieved without taking a U-Turn, nonlinearity could become more present but in moderation and that's the key word "moderation". We should have these sections where the plot is linear but then allow for certain periods were we get a certain sense of freedom. Over with think Zelda is series that can learn from Skyrim but not "be" Skyrim.
Like I said, Zelda has the more hand crafted and more involved puzzles, as I said, before keep the things that are good in both types of games, at their core the games aim for the same kind of focus.


Calling me naive for singling out TP? Excuse me but I didn't single it out. I mentioned other Wind Waker along with it, but explained the difference in 2 of the easiest games in the series, in how one still offered a more complete experience to the player despite still being easy.

Saying TP sucks for certain reasons is perhaps biased but not unfounded biased. I've stated many times before the core issues with the game's over all flow. Its a beautiful game, with a great art style and sound track, but that doesn't let it get away with 0 challenge and 0 freedom. And you're right about the bugs, but again, those alone didn't really give some one not going for 100% completion a reason to want to go explore, when they've been taught the entire game that exploration just waste there time because.

1 you wont' be allowed some where
2 there wont' be anything there anyways.
3 the game insults you for doing it via Midna

Its seriously negative re-enforcement for exploration, until the game decides, ok now you can go explore at the end of the game.

Wind Waker, rewarded you by a mini dungeon, or random mini game out on the ocean, or rupees, or heart pieces, or all the treasure charts, and even the triforce. It gave you the freedom to explore almost the entire map very early on in the game, even if you found an island you couldn't do anything at, you could still go there and be like "I should remember this place where I think need bombs or something".

TP, huge chunks of the map were literally missing because of Twilight, or bridge gone (seriously whats with TP and bridges?)


If you like TP thats your prerogative, I on the other hand can't look past the over all not fun i'm having when I play the game. I can still admire the artwork of the game, but I can't enjoy the way it leads you thru the game, thats not an adventure, thats doggy slavery.


======================
And at darklink, empowerment is anything to make the player feel better about themselves, like shooting lightning, slashing thru enemies. (though some games manage to make stealth an empowering feeling as you just vanish and insta kill some one) At the end of the journey you've over come, you feel stronger for it as you defeat the king of evil and what not.

Things like true stealth are more about dis empowerment, like in Metal Gear Solid games. Where the player is supposed to be weaker or feel weaker then the enemies and resort to turning what would normally be combat in an action game into a puzzle of avoiding the combat.

Looking at the what makes a person want to play a certain type of game. And you'll see how close they are at their base.

And I don't care if you aren't a fan of donkey kong country games, or other reference games, the points are still valid.


==========================================

And just because thats the direction the series has chosen to take, doesn't mean it needs to keep down a certain path.
I mean if you remove challenge, and freedom, what is left in the game?

I'm not saying Zelda should be skyrim, though skyrim is a very good model to consider what an fantasy adventure with a heavy focus of exploration could be. And has many core elements that one can't help but be reminded of early zelda in its design.



Maybe when the franchise was young, but Zelda being about exploration isn't really the case anymore. Most newer Zelda games are quite linear, with relatively instances of true exploration.



Agreed. However, if Nintendo does that, they'd be directly competing with the Elder Scrolls. If they did that, I doubt they would be able to emerge on top. Why do something which has already been done and done well?

It wouldn't be a direct competition. It could still very much be Zelda. Zelda offers those unique dungeons. Skyrim really had 3 dungeons model sets with copy pasted room parts for the entirety of it. Again if you wanted to go straight down the middle and do the main quest only, you could easily do that, but you'd be missing out on all the heart pieces and other upgrades. And yes I know the direction the series is going, I can just only hope it changes it, to take the best of the old and the new.

We'll see what Between Worlds and Zelda U end up doing eventually.
========================================

On topic of the ps4? Frankly it offers almost everything the X1 does except cheaper, less DRM and less Kinect, plays almost all the same games. And if what you've seen and read in recent news, can't convince you not to buy it, not sure what would.

And the ps4 will have more available memory and faster memory too. The CPU of the X1 is better, but that memory is going mean the difference in how many particle effects/ meshes on screen can be rendered at once, which means ultimately the X1 will probably end up under performing the ps4 at their maximum capabilities. Which lets face it, games won't be reaching until the consoles' later life cycle.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Apr 10, 2009
Location
Aussieland
Everytime I argue with my friends between the PS4 and X1, all they ever bring up is what they don't like about the X1, they never have anything to say about their console other than price, looks (its just the X1 slanted) and power. Now I don't really care about power, if I really did then I don't think I'd be a Nintendo fan. The way things look to me is that X1 has all the new stuff while the PS4 is just a souped up PS3. By the way the PS4 page on the Sony website is no help, it's one thing and all it does is vaguely describe its gaming capabilities mean while the X1 has pages. What does it actually have that makes it better than the X1? Certainly not games :chief: .
Well I guess I'll just be saying what has already been stated, many people go for the PS4 for the things your friends have said, what things have discouraged other people from getting the X1 instead of PS4.

If the online, DRM and other things are not a problem for you, and you are actually happier about the games coming for the X1 rather than PS4, I really don't think you have much to think about it. Consoles are mainly to play our games, and you seem to have a pretty solid opinion already. Don't get a PS4 over a X1, get ready for the X1 and enjoy it.

However if you are truly curious about Playstation, I recommend you to try the PS3 to get familiar with their exclusive franchises as that could help you understand why many of us are pumped about some of the games coming for it and seeing that yes, games are actually a strong factor for the decision.

I personally feel discouraged about the plus thing and I am planning to get an 360 over the next years more so that this generation of Sony or MS. It may be the age but I just want my games to be plug and play, simple. There are so many complications nowadays with constant updates and checking your account and offer you bundles and what not. Of course, I got used to do the ritual and I have to accept it. Like I said, you are comfortable and see nothing wrong, you won't find nothing to change your mind, you need to experience it by yourself and if you have already, then go with your judgement. It is for you, not for what other people say.
 

Salem

SICK
Joined
May 18, 2013
Well I guess I'll just be saying what has already been stated, many people go for the PS4 for the things your friends have said, what things have discouraged other people from getting the X1 instead of PS4.

If the online, DRM and other things are not a problem for you, and you are actually happier about the games coming for the X1 rather than PS4, I really don't think you have much to think about it. Consoles are mainly to play our games, and you seem to have a pretty solid opinion already. Don't get a PS4 over a X1, get ready for the X1 and enjoy it.

However if you are truly curious about Playstation, I recommend you to try the PS3 to get familiar with their exclusive franchises as that could help you understand why many of us are pumped about some of the games coming for it and seeing that yes, games are actually a strong factor for the decision.

I personally feel discouraged about the plus thing and I am planning to get an 360 over the next years more so that this generation of Sony or MS. It may be the age but I just want my games to be plug and play, simple. There are so many complications nowadays with constant updates and checking your account and offer you bundles and what not. Of course, I got used to do the ritual and I have to accept it. Like I said, you are comfortable and see nothing wrong, you won't find nothing to change your mind, you need to experience it by yourself and if you have already, then go with your judgement. It is for you, not for what other people say.
Yeah, one of the main advantages of consoles, is the plug and play, if they make that more difficult, then other than the exclusives, there isn't much else that makes gives them advantages over pc gaming(besides price even that is....:S).
 

Ventus

Mad haters lmao
Joined
May 26, 2010
Location
Akkala
Gender
Hylian Champion
Ok see...there's a storm in my area atm. It knocked the Internet out momentarily, but the Internet restored. Now, I've been through multiple storms that killed the 'net but not electricity...and I think I'd like to be able to play a game if the internet is down but electricity is still up. Wouldn't you? :rolleyes:
 

Salem

SICK
Joined
May 18, 2013
Ok see...there's a storm in my area atm. It knocked the Internet out momentarily, but the Internet restored. Now, I've been through multiple storms that killed the 'net but not electricity...and I think I'd like to be able to play a game if the internet is down but electricity is still up. Wouldn't you? :rolleyes:
Absolutely, that's what i mean by unneeded complication. electricity and a tv is a console ever needed to work, but they add another layer of requirement on top of that we could do without.
 

misskitten

Hello Sweetie!
Joined
Jun 18, 2011
Location
Norway
I'm actually not gonna get either console. Playstation exclusives haven't excited me since the PSone days, and now that M$ has decided to screw over their consumers I certainly am not going to support them by getting the XBone. I'll wait until either the game developers who make the exlusives I want jump ship to another console, or M$ realizes their mistake and make a more user friendly console. In the meantime I'll probably eventually get the Wii U when it have games on it that I'm interested in getting (and the price has dropped). I wonder if M$ will employ a similar strategy with their consoles as they do with their OS (since every other is complete and utter crap, while the rest are actually functional and user friendly)

ETA:
ILU - Microsoft has basically stated that they have no intention of changing anything, which is likely to mean that they won't be fixing the online issue, even though THAT would make the console actually purchasable for more people (the idiots!)
 
Last edited:

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top Bottom