@Misty
Again, most of them do not believe the moon is falling immediately, so they wouldn't just give you free stuff. Secondly, helping them doesn't really impede your progress because you have a time travelling flute. In terms of whether or not someone would help is irrelevant because it's your choice. You can say that about almost any game. In FFXV I'm supposed to be fighting off an empire but here I am catching fish for a side quest. Link in OoT is supposed to fight Ganondorf but instead he's collecting masks. Shulk in XBC could be stopping the destruction of all life on Bionis but of course he is helping someone by killing a few stray Mechon and gathering parts. All games with sidequests for the most part have this same problem.
Then what we have here is a game with limbo consequence and a lack of immediacy. Neither of which in terms of storytelling is a good thing. Further, I would argue even with the ability to time travel on the table, one still would not and should not solve bull**** problems while the fate of the world hangs in the balance. Those tasks are impeding the completion of the real problem and thus the ability for life to go on.
You pointed out one could choose not to. In which case, as I said, uninspired note in the Zelda series. I agree with the fans that the side stuff is the heart of the game. I don't like that, but I do agree with their choice to focus on that over the main quest. The fact people can choose is my exact point. No matter which direction they choose in, they are not being given the option to play a good game or in one case, a believable game.
True, but some games manage to integrate the sidequest stuff and make it work for the mainquest game. Some even manage to make it not feel like it is detracting, but rather enhancing everything. The question put to me is why I hate it. The fact the sidequest is not well-integrated, detracts rather than enhances, or even arguably steals the spotlight is a big problem.
Yes, in many cases the sidequests are not well-integrated. But I doubt anyone is defending FFXV on the basis of the fishing being really compelling and fun. If they are, you might want to kindly tell them to go home because the drugs are bad. Then buy them that fishing game that's so popular among nobody.
Luckily for OoT, the main questline works and is a lot of fun which was semi-challenging at the time. (That's leaving aside the historic context for the moment.) And nobody points at the collecting masks as the reason it is an inspired note in gaming or the franchise. I don't mind side-quests which don't make a lick of sense so long as they are not the focus of much praise and the rest of the game is quite a good time that makes sense.
Shulk in XBC could be stopping the destruction of all life on Bionis but of course he is helping someone by killing a few stray Mechon and gathering parts.
True. But not all games have uninteresting and uninspired main quests. Not all of them are heavily praised for the depth of their side quests. <--MM has both those problems and it is among the reasons I do not enjoy it or think it terribly worthy of praise.
The games I find most worthy of praise do not have this problem. I readily admit they are few and far between. But if I thought excellence were an easy achievement, I wouldn't praise it where I find it as I do. I have a standard here. The fact most things don't meet it doesn't somehow retroactively raise the grade. I don't grade on a curve here despite being American. This is ***** is running a meritocracy and I find the lack of merit disturbing and worthy of ire.
@Misty See, the difference between me and you is I actually found MM's main quest to be its best feature. I loved the masks, the compelling dungeons, and the incredibly diverse and original boss fights. To each their own, though, but I would recommend playing it again if you haven't played for over a decade. If you have played since you were 7-8, then never mind my suggestion; I won't tell you a game you don't like is actually better than you think. But if you haven't played for a while, you might like it a lot more now that you are older.
See, the difference between me and you is I actually found MM's main quest to be its best feature. I loved the masks, the compelling dungeons, and the incredibly diverse and original boss fights.
I feel absolutely no need to do this. Recommendation noted for the record. Leaving aside the amount of money it would cost to legally engage this venture, I have a lot better things to do than engage yet another low point of the Zelda series....like being an egotistical maniac with ready internet access and a bad attitude
I won't tell you a game you don't like is actually better than you think. But if you haven't played for a while, you might like it a lot more now that you are older.
Not to assault the franchise too hard since I do have affection for it, but I think 7-8 is about the perfect age for most Zelda games besides maybe Twilight Princess. I don't think I would find it intellectually stimulating or challenging at this point. It'd be like re-reading Dealing With Dragons or some other youth fantasy novels. The only possible payoff would be nostalgia...and obviously I have none for this.
I'll try to approximate what year I played the games.
1995 - LA
1998 - OOT
2000 - MM
2003 - WW, LOZ, AOL
2006 - TP
2007 - ALTTP
2011 - PH, ST, SS
2012 - OOA, MC
2013 - ALBW
I'm good evidence that ALTTP is amazing regardless of whether you grew up with it or not - other classic games I played way after their release include Banjo Kazooie, Super Mario 64, and Castlevania Symphony of the Night.
If TV Series were Zelda Games, Lost would be Majora's Mask. Now, you need to understand, I never finished either. Luckily in the age of internets I know how both wrap up and that's another field where they both seem to feel...like a letdown. I'm even more glad I ever got only halfway through after reading the conclusion and seeing my elder brother get to the end.
Agree to disagree here. I have never seen Lost—I don't really care for TV—so I can't comment on that, but I thought the end of Majora's Mask was pretty good. The end boss was a challenge, unless you took the time to collect the masks, in which case it was easy mode; but then, you had to collect the masks, and that was a challenge, so in the end you work for it either way.
I never got that dread and anxiety you mention from it...possibly because even at that age it was first and foremost a game. And games have to be...fun and challenging in a way that feels appropriate.
I agree completely. Some games are difficult to the point of being frustrating, some don't have a natural difficulty progression, and some are too easy.
However, even though it's just a game, you have to let yourself be immersed. I get it, sometimes there are gameplay elements that completely take you out of a game, and you can't get into it. Most of the time, though, I feel we as gamers just let ourselves be immersed. Otherwise, if we nit-picked every detail that isn't "realistic" then every game would be a game you hated. I'm playing Demon's Souls right now. Zombies and demons and dragons aren't real, but I'm putting that aside and embracing it.
Majora's Mask never felt like it was appropriately difficult in the right way. I never found myself distressed by Dungeons or puzzles. I never found myself struggling with bosses large or mini. I want my games to make me feel like when I'm failing, the problem is in me. That I must be more analytic or fight better or faster or manage my resources better. As the phrase goes, I want to feel like I must "get good". MM simply doesn't give me that because all the flaws I found were in it systemically. The time, the masks, the large and difficult to follow lay out of the town that didn't seem easy to memorize or logically work through.
Here is where we start to diverge. Majora's Mask is not a difficult game per se. As you said, the enemies aren't particularly tough, and neither are the bosses. The difficulty comes from having to complete tasks in a certain amount of time: the Three Day Period. It's not a flaw. It's a game mechanic that, apparently, you don't happen to enjoy. But you can't equate "I don't like it" to "It's bad." In fact, I think the game it purposefully easier because of the time constraints.
And as an aside, I never had problems navigating Clock Town. Perhaps you can attribute that to your young age? It's not that big of a town at all.
Then I evaluated it as a story, and while I can sense they want to instill this sense of fear and dread as you say...well, it seems to me there is this very core contradiction at the center of MM that you touch upon. Most of the problems you end up solving are of this very "real" everyday problem petty variety. Now leaving aside for the moment that if I want to solve petty every day problems for thin characters onto which I've cast my own emotions I play the Sims, it just makes absolutely no bleeding sense that I'm spending time on that stuff when THE ****ING MOON IS THREATENING TO DESTROY EVERYTHING! And in order for these problems to function, this denial of the moon falling is the only explanation given. Which is just annoying really. Like, please Mr. Goron, I'll clean your gutters when the Moon isn't falling. Oh, you lost your children, fish lady, we can talk about adoption when the MOON ISN'T GOING TO CRUSH US ALL!
In this I have to wholeheartedly disagree. Human nature is exactly what these people are exhibiting: denial. There is nothing unbelievable about the way the citizens of Clock Tower behave. All you have to do is observe people in real life, when disaster is eminent.
There's a reason this is funny. It's funny because it's true: that's exactly how people are. I have an exam tomorrow and I didn't study for it: this is fine. There's a hurricane coming and I didn't prep for it: this is fine. I lost my job: this is fine.
Eventually panic sets in when the person realizes that this is not fine. And that's the whole point of the NPCs in Clock Town. They're in "this is fine" mode, going about their business, living their lives, planning their weddings, preparing for festival.
It isn't until death is certain that many of them put aside their differences, and arguments, and all the other petty nonsense with which they were concerned and enjoy the last moments together. Again, an absolutely true-to-life reaction.
But returning to the point about not wanting to solve stupid and silly problems, I am supposed to be the hero of time. Not the maid, butler, mailman, farmer, arborist, sometimes mechanic, pizza guy of time. I don't want to progress through my real life list of chores, let alone these ludicrously explained and tedious list of chores that apparently must be performed before the MOON FALLS ON US ALL WE DIE SCREAMING.
But that's the thing: they don't have to be completed. You can or you can ignore them. They're side quests.
that's both cute and weird to me. Like I understand why a person might feel that way, I just never did. I felt like they were ****ing morons getting in the way of me fixing the objectively more threatening problem. I don't really care if they're depressed or angry and that's why they cannot see the moon. It doesn't make it any less absurd a situation.
They deserve to eat dirt for not helping me unless I help them with their gardening.
Which would help me save the world, yes? Which in turn is half of my criticism: if the moon were falling on us, you can bet that petty stuff would get put to the side and everyone would give up their masks and items to help the hero solve the moon falling. It's an infuriating premise and the idea one does not have to help them when it is such a significant portion of the potential gameplay seems to me to be a silly one.
This much is true. They could certainly be a lot more helpful than they are. But not all masks are gathered by helping people. Many are acquired in very different ways.
I like it when the side stuff seems to match or expand upon the main story without rendering it nonsensical. This renders it nonsensical. I'm on a limited time frame and yet there is this bull**** I could deal with and in fact everything about gaming indicates I should do so to get the full experience. And, in fact, when defending the game, it is that sideline bull**** that people point to as for why it is such a great game. So either that's the great game, in which case it makes no ****ing sense or that stuff is non-mandatory, and what you're left with is an uninspiring note in a franchise that arguably has more uninspiring notes than inspiring ones.
I think people when people defend the side-quests, they're not defending them because they're mandatory or not mandatory. People defend the game through the side-quests because the side-quests bring more color to the world. In Ocarina of Time the carpenters are prancing about during the day and lazying about at night. The end. There's no depth to the character. However, in Majora's Mask, they have fears and doubts. Each day, their dialogue changes as they start to come to grips with reality. For a 1999 game, that was pretty deep.
That's why the side-quests are good. Yeah, they're completely optional, but they add so much more to the game.
I would say the game is good without them, but excellent with them. Because as you and I agreed to, the level design isn't particularly difficult, the enemies aren't that challenging. Without the extra quests, the game would be a nice game, fairly easy, aside from the time constraints. With the side-quests, it's a game that really digs deeper into character development than even a lot of games do today.
This is a game. The creators made this choice. I see it as a dysfunctional and unfun one. It isn't believable that I would ever stop to help them with that ****. And we get hysterical on the regular about a bit of extra snow or the turn of the century. The moon being slightly closer and then someone showing up to say "the world is ending if that moon which is closer hits us" wouldn't get laughed out of town. On both counts it's just plain silly. Be a game about epic things happening or be a game about solving the petty minute bull**** that keeps all of us busy. The idea any hero worth the title "of time" would ever do the latter or that the petty minute bull**** hero would be qualified for epic problems simply isn't cohesive with the more realistic or fantasy bent. They tried to balance to things which are inherently at odds and flopped the landing.
And to bring it full circle, again: I get it. It's not for everyone. It isn't my intention to change your mind about the game. I'm simply suggesting you may be approaching the game from the wrong direction. I would argue that in fact the hero of time is precisely the type of hero to help everyone. It's what makes him timeless. Everyone goes on epic quests to save the world all the damn time. I'm saving the world from Dracula, or zombies, or a dragon that will devour the world, or an invasion from hell, or I'm saving humanity from an alien race bent on exterminating us. Someone's always doing those jobs. Where's the hero that is taking care of the people on a personal level? Well, that's Link in Majora's Mask.
And I mean, hell, in the end it's just as much about saving himself as much as everyone else. It's especially true when he speaks to the Mask Children on the moon itself, at the end of the game.
I dunno, maybe the game did take itself too seriously. Sometimes games do that. But I think Majora's Mask is one of those games that really talks to you on a personal level if you let it. But like I said, the gameplay isn't for everyone, and the time mechanic, well, I can totally understand if that's not your cup of tea.
Agree to disagree here. I have never seen Lost—I don't really care for TV—so I can't comment on that, but I thought the end of Majora's Mask was pretty good. The end boss was a challenge, unless you took the time to collect the masks, in which case it was easy mode; but then, you had to collect the masks, and that was a challenge, so in the end you work for it either way.
Most of the time, though, I feel we as gamers just let ourselves be immersed. Otherwise, if we nit-picked every detail that isn't "realistic" then every game would be a game you hated. I'm playing Demon's Souls right now. Zombies and demons and dragons aren't real, but I'm putting that aside and embracing it.
I think perhaps I've somehow been cast as arguing for games that are utterly realistic down to the very last detail. I want to make it clear that I do not. I have a deep appreciation for fantasy, sci-fi, and magic realism. I also have a tolerance for these off-details assuming the rest of the game and story is to my liking or admiration. This game just didn't do that for me and so even the subtle details seem even worse.
Here is where we start to diverge. Majora's Mask is not a difficult game per se. As you said, the enemies aren't particularly tough, and neither are the bosses. The difficulty comes from having to complete tasks in a certain amount of time: the Three Day Period. It's not a flaw. It's a game mechanic that, apparently, you don't happen to enjoy. But you can't equate "I don't like it" to "It's bad." In fact, I think the game it purposefully easier because of the time constraints.
Alas for your argument, I enjoy time trials a lot. The harder the better in fact. The mechanic just wasn't well-executed because like everything else, it becomes one note. If the challenge of the bosses isn't changing, then the challenge of the time trial is not changing. Thus the game is not changing. The reason time trials are fun is because of the limitation and the feeling of the challenge to complete. The feeling that you must be economic and given to brevity.
In this I have to wholeheartedly disagree. Human nature is exactly what these people are exhibiting: denial. There is nothing unbelievable about the way the citizens of Clock Tower behave. All you have to do is observe people in real life, when disaster is eminent.
I have. They usually panic and bolt. The denial part not so much. Not when death is on the line. Not when the death of everything they know is on the line. And then those trained or naturally given to bravery get involved.
I've answered this once, but I'll answer it again: The game is only defensible by the argument that it has great side-quests. The rest of the game is an uninspired, unchallenging time trial follow up with a story that ranges between bland and bland. It is the side quests which the game is regularly defend by in my five or six discussions I've ever had about it. So while I agree theoretically I could ignore all of this, I would essentially be ignoring the only thing the game has going for it.
The problem is, the only thing the game has going for it makes very little sense in the scope of the rest of the story. If I ignored the sidequests that I don't want to do, I'd score the game even lower.
Much more practical would be "I'm the hero of ****ing time and you're ****ing nobody with a mental illness. There is a moon coming and it will kill all of us. I don't have time to Dr. Phil for you, so you just give me everything you got in a paper bag or I'm going to unleash all kinds of hurt on you with my swored and masks."
This much is true. They could certainly be a lot more helpful than they are. But not all masks are gathered by helping people. Many are acquired in very different ways.
A lot are acquired from citizens and other people types. And many of the ones that aren't come from the main quests. The people stuff makes up a significant portion of the 24 masks.
I think people when people defend the side-quests, they're not defending them because they're mandatory or not mandatory. People defend the game through the side-quests because the side-quests bring more color to the world. In Ocarina of Time the carpenters are prancing about during the day and lazying about at night. The end. There's no depth to the character. However, in Majora's Mask, they have fears and doubts. Each day, their dialogue changes as they start to come to grips with reality. For a 1999 game, that was pretty deep.
Yes, and the defense of this poor game has always been that it has what you're calling a more "colorful world". If all I wanted was a story, I'd read a book. If I wanted in depth characters, I'd watch a tv show. I'm playing a game for a reason and the game doesn't make me want to explore this "colorful world", it makes it a pain in the ass to do so. And not in a fun way. Just a pain in the ass way. And then I'm told "well you could ignore the only reason to play this game". Yes, I could. Obviously, I did. But doesn't it completely pop your argument if you tell me to ignore the only legitimately great part of the game.
They're the reason think it is a good game. That's it. And hilariously, the entire way the game is built is designed to make exploring that a wretched wretched time.
I would say the game is good without them, but excellent with them. Because as you and I agreed to, the level design isn't particularly difficult, the enemies aren't that challenging. Without the extra quests, the game would be a nice game, fairly easy, aside from the time constraints. With the side-quests, it's a game that really digs deeper into character development than even a lot of games do today.
They do? It seems like in this world most of them have horrible mental illnesses that stop them from dealing with their laundry, let alone ultimate evil.
Unless you meant generally speaking, which of course you did. I wouldn't mind him helping people, if it didn't mean he was holding up time to make sure Mrs. Simon took her medication. I wouldn't mind it if the game made you feel like you should explore this rich world. I wouldn't mind it in another context. But the world ending context just clashes.
Everyone goes on epic quests to save the world all the damn time. I'm saving the world from Dracula, or zombies, or a dragon that will devour the world, or an invasion from hell, or I'm saving humanity from an alien race bent on exterminating us. Someone's always doing those jobs. Where's the hero that is taking care of the people on a personal level? Well, that's Link in Majora's Mask.
It's me, in the Sims and Sims City. I'm the hero you speak of. I got your laundry right here.
I would also counter this point by saying he helped people personally in other games. That's not new. The depth is what is new. And in any other game it would be welcome. But the time mechanic just takes it too far past making sense. No matter if you have ground hog day. And many other games feature this helping the little guy thing. I don't mind that, except when it is done while the world is literally ending. Not going to evil ending. Actually exploding ending.
I dunno, maybe the game did take itself too seriously. Sometimes games do that. But I think Majora's Mask is one of those games that really talks to you on a personal level if you let it. But like I said, the gameplay isn't for everyone, and the time mechanic, well, I can totally understand if that's not your cup of tea.
I don't feel it has anything to say. It didn't even when I was 7-8. The stages of grief thing is played out. Even the scenarios are played out. I was chomping on more complex stuff than that. And not being given the time to really indulge the little that is there is an objectively poor game design choice if you're going to try for this intense drama factor (not that I'm agreeing it really is that intense) because it just becomes melodramatic and unbelievable.
@Misty
You know after the first day the moon is only slightly closer and most people can't even notice it, right? Again, the moon was already incredibly close. There's even people who say "the moon looks a bit closer". By the end of it, as the moon continues to fall, the town is almost barren aside from people who are resigned to fate or a couple non-believers.
But, regardless, I enjoyed the game's world, mask mechanic, diverse battles and boss fights, as well as the few side quests I decided to do. Whether the characters were incredibly believable or not played little into my enjoyment of the game. But I also find it a bit weird to judge a game you haven't played since you were in elementary school as if you have a strong grasp on the pros/cons. There's lots of **** I didn't like as a kid that I like now, including video games.
Yes, and the defense of this poor game has always been that it has what you're calling a more "colorful world". If all I wanted was a story, I'd read a book. If I wanted in depth characters, I'd watch a tv show. I'm playing a game for a reason and the game doesn't make me want to explore this "colorful world", it makes it a pain in the ass to do so. And not in a fun way. Just a pain in the ass way. And then I'm told "well you could ignore the only reason to play this game". Yes, I could. Obviously, I did. But doesn't it completely pop your argument if you tell me to ignore the only legitimately great part of the game.
I'll be honest, you lost me here. Then why bother playing games at all? We play for entertainment. Sometimes that comes in the form of a good old-fashioned linear-ass game, where we know what we're getting before we get it, but we're okay with it because it's a hootin' good time. Sometimes it's a wide-open world where you're told to "Go forth and explore," and you're given little to no guidance. Sometimes it's a brutally hard game where you have to master the techniques to survive. Sometimes it's a good story with good characters and okay gameplay.
But that paragraph I quoted pretty much sums it up. You and I didn't play the same game. I just don't get why you don't like it, because honestly, you could be describing every game ever, but for some reason this one didn't appeal to you, and I honestly don't understand.
And again, to clarify, I'm not trying to convince you otherwise. It's no loss to me.
I have. They usually panic and bolt. The denial part not so much. Not when death is on the line. Not when the death of everything they know is on the line. And then those trained or naturally given to bravery get involved.
Only when the danger is actual. There's a difference between imminent danger and actual danger, and humans react differently to both.
If in an active shooter situation, the only two responses are "fight or flight" or cower. That's the panic and bolt you're talking about. But not when faced with something that a potential threat, something that is abstract, or something that is not immediate.
If Clock Town had been attacked by the Gerudo Ninja-Pirates, then panic and fleeing would have been the right response. But being in denial of the potential danger that the moon poses? It's absolutely not inconceivable that people would be in absolute denial.
Anyways, I do find it fascinating that two people could play the same game and come up with such absolutely opposite views.
If I had a lot of free time, I'd actually conduct some sort of study where I would have people play a game and then write a report on it and then compare the responses.
I wonder if we have completely different tastes in other Zelda games as well?
But I also find it a bit weird to judge a game you haven't played since you were in elementary school as if you have a strong grasp on the pros/cons. There's lots of **** I didn't like as a kid that I like now, including video games.
Find it weird. I'm simply an adult that has become capable of articulating the thoughts and reactions of my younger self in a way that communicates to others. I don't find the thoughts and reactions of children easily dismissed. Nor do I find the thoughts and reactions of my younger self to be something in this case not worth standing by. I didn't sort of dislike this game or feel slightly off-put and bored with it. It was a passionate and pronounced reaction. I recognize many find change in their opinions, but counter that many do not. I haven't liked spinach since I was five and I recently at the behest of my mother tried it again. Let me be very clear, while I'm capable of offering a far more detailed and nuanced list of reasons that it is the worst, my five year old reaction to yell eww and spit it out while looking like my mother had ill will towards me was right on the money and has remained right on the money. I haven't enjoyed war movies since the same age, and that also hasn't changed. I tend towards trusting my violent reactions especially when I can easily articulate them.
Sometimes that comes in the form of a good old-fashioned linear-ass game, where we know what we're getting before we get it, but we're okay with it because it's a hootin' good time. Sometimes it's a wide-open world where you're told to "Go forth and explore," and you're given little to no guidance. Sometimes it's a brutally hard game where you have to master the techniques to survive. Sometimes it's a good story with good characters and okay gameplay.
But that paragraph I quoted pretty much sums it up. You and I didn't play the same game. I just don't get why you don't like it, because honestly, you could be describing every game ever, but for some reason this one didn't appeal to you, and I honestly don't understand.
The draw to MM is this colorful world of more...dramatic characters. Now leaving aside any issues I have with how that part is executed due to the context of the world, that's a fine draw for a video game assuming the game part is there as well. I could enjoy exploring this more colorful world and experiencing it.
The problem with MM is that by having this time trial element, it undercuts the desire and even the felt ability to explore and experience. As I somewhat sarcastically said: I'm supposed to stop and smell the roses, but the world is ending in three days unless I absolutely utilize my time to the best possible amount. That mechanic undercuts the draw of the world. It isn't well-integrated with another aspect of the game.
Hell, there is already a problem in video games with the infinite deaths adding a sense that nothing one is doing at that moment actually matters significantly as failure can be reloaded and challenges save scummed past. But by adding a second layer where I know I can just keep returning to the beginning and try trying again creates an in world feeling that there is no immediacy or relevance to those actions. I'll save the world eventually.
Which leaves MM in this weird limbo where if I try to take the game seriously, I'm meant to feel rushed through that which I would prefer to experience at my own slower pace. But if as a gamer I recognize the mechanics at play, I recognize how little my moves actually matter and how fleeting failure is because I can just reload backwards.
Here we disagree. Every time you see imminent danger, people panic, plan for it, and bolt. I worked a grocery store checkout for ****ing years. Every time they announced snow apocalypse on the news I had a ****ty day of ringing out orders with massive amounts of water, batteries, flashlights, and canned goods. (It was crap because those items are a lot more heavy than your usual order.) It's the same when there is suggestion of a terrorist attack. Even our movies constantly show the "fleeing the city" of zombie outbreaks, monster attacks, disease outbreaks, etc. This is because the denial approach is far less common than the panic approach.
If in an active shooter situation, the only two responses are "fight or flight" or cower. That's the panic and bolt you're talking about. But not when faced with something that a potential threat, something that is abstract, or something that is not immediate.
If Clock Town had been attacked by the Gerudo Ninja-Pirates, then panic and fleeing would have been the right response. But being in denial of the potential danger that the moon poses? It's absolutely not inconceivable that people would be in absolute denial.
It really is. The moon getting closer even slightly would influence almost everything about their world. And if you had someone announcing it was going to hit, many people would react. The dramatic denial is a necessary game mechanic. I'm not saying no one would be in denial, but they would be the minority.
Find it weird. I'm simply an adult that has become capable of articulating the thoughts and reactions of my younger self in a way that communicates to others. I don't find the thoughts and reactions of children easily dismissed. Nor do I find the thoughts and reactions of my younger self to be something in this case not worth standing by. I didn't sort of dislike this game or feel slightly off-put and bored with it. It was a passionate and pronounced reaction. I recognize many find change in their opinions, but counter that many do not. I haven't liked spinach since I was five and I recently at the behest of my mother tried it again. Let me be very clear, while I'm capable of offering a far more detailed and nuanced list of reasons that it is the worst, my five year old reaction to yell eww and spit it out while looking like my mother had ill will towards me was right on the money and has remained right on the money. I haven't enjoyed war movies since the same age, and that also hasn't changed. I tend towards trusting my violent reactions especially when I can easily articulate them.
There is much to recommend video games. The ability to experience, explore, and interact is significantly higher than the two other forms of media.
I think we've been down this path before. I don't only do media for entertainment and that includes video games.
I disagree with nothing here.
I'll try to make this even more clear:
The draw to MM is this colorful world of more...dramatic characters. Now leaving aside any issues I have with how that part is executed due to the context of the world, that's a fine draw for a video game assuming the game part is there as well. I could enjoy exploring this more colorful world and experiencing it.
The problem with MM is that by having this time trial element, it undercuts the desire and even the felt ability to explore and experience. As I somewhat sarcastically said: I'm supposed to stop and smell the roses, but the world is ending in three days unless I absolutely utilize my time to the best possible amount. That mechanic undercuts the draw of the world. It isn't well-integrated with another aspect of the game.
Hell, there is already a problem in video games with the infinite deaths adding a sense that nothing one is doing at that moment actually matters significantly as failure can be reloaded and challenges save scummed past. But by adding a second layer where I know I can just keep returning to the beginning and try trying again creates an in world feeling that there is no immediacy or relevance to those actions. I'll save the world eventually.
Which leaves MM in this weird limbo where if I try to take the game seriously, I'm meant to feel rushed through that which I would prefer to experience at my own slower pace. But if as a gamer I recognize the mechanics at play, I recognize how little my moves actually matter and how fleeting failure is because I can just reload backwards.
Here we disagree. Every time you see imminent danger, people panic, plan for it, and bolt. I worked a grocery store checkout for ****ing years. Every time they announced snow apocalypse on the news I had a ****ty day of ringing out orders with massive amounts of water, batteries, flashlights, and canned goods. (It was crap because those items are a lot more heavy than your usual order.) It's the same when there is suggestion of a terrorist attack. Even our movies constantly show the "fleeing the city" of zombie outbreaks, monster attacks, disease outbreaks, etc. This is because the denial approach is far less common than the panic approach.
Snowpocalypse is pretty abstract seeing as it almost never happens and isn't immediate. People still react to it.
It really is. The moon getting closer even slightly would influence almost everything about their world. And if you had someone announcing it was going to hit, many people would react. The dramatic denial is a necessary game mechanic. I'm not saying no one would be in denial, but they would be the minority.
Misty as I've mentioned countless times, the people of Clock Town do react. Just as some may not trust in the weather reports of a snowpocalypse, many do. By the end of Day 3, Clock Town is mostly empty. So, it's not a dramatic denial. On Day 1 it is only slightly closer and most don't notice it. As it becomes more apparent, people flee.
I do. It's one of my favorites. I enjoy the fact that it was the first time it felt like you had perfect control over Link. I enjoyed the items and the use of the items. I liked that not all items were necessary to beat the game. I liked that every boss had a conventional way of defeating, but if you experimented enough, you could find other ways of beating the boss, sometimes very unconventional, but often easier than just using your sword. I love the music. I loved the dual words. At the time it was a very neat mechanic—it has since been done to death. It felt like just the right difficulty: not easy, but not punishingly hard.
It's probably my second or third favorite entry in the series.
that's both cute and weird to me. Like I understand why a person might feel that way, I just never did. I felt like they were ****ing morons getting in the way of me fixing the objectively more threatening problem. I don't really care if they're depressed or angry and that's why they cannot see the moon. It doesn't make it any less absurd a situation. 
I get it. I'm like that with all games though. When playing Fallout 3, I have a hard time
and then compare the responses.