Originally posted by NemeBroI WILL NOT BE BURIED!!!
1. WW as GK pointed out, despite the cartoonish look, had many dark elements to it.2. Dante's Inferno is a cheap knock-off of God of War. 😐 Look at the rating for the Zelda games. Does it say K for Kids? No, it is E, for EVERYONE. While everyone can technically play it, the plotline is more mature than God of War's and FAR more mature than Dante's Inferno, although in terms of pure hack and slash gameplay elements God of War has Zelda beat, and IMO it has, while not incredibly innovative, a good, solid revenge plotline with a good anti-hero (Bordering on Villain Protagonist really) for a lead. Dante's Inferno however has no advantage over the Zelda series at all, is not worthy of being mentioned in the same breath as Zelda or God of War, one series which has proven to be very solid and groundbreaking to the hack and slash genre, the other being the definitive fantasy action-adventure game. I guess my point is, do not bring up Dante's Inferno if you are trying to pretend you generally like more "mature" games. 😐
3. The dragon was not attacking all of Hyrule, it only posed a threat to the Gorons. Do you actually play the games, or do you just say you do because you like to talk about it, despite not knowing what you are talking about?
The "K for Kids" thing amused me. The rating that E replaced was K-A. Which stood for "Kids to Adults".
K-A/E rated games are not necessarily made for children. It simply means that the content is generally suitable for them. Most young kids are not going to understand just how dark and nasty Zelda can be. And things being designed on two levels - suitable for kids, but extra/more in-depth stuff for adults - is not uncommon at all.
Originally posted by General Kaliero
It should be noted that Pixar's success is based entirely on delivering movies that work differently on both the kid and adult level. This is the exact same tactic that much of the Zelda series employs.
Hell, just about every single kids cartoon from the 90s made use of this principle. Some of them still do, for that matter (see: Spongebob and Fairly Oddparents).
Originally posted by General KalieroThis is true, it is why the Toy Story series is one of my favorites of all time and I can still genuinely enjoy them.
It should be noted that Pixar's success is based entirely on delivering movies that work differently on both the kid and adult level. This is the exact same tactic that much of the Zelda series employs.
Laser envy indeed.
Originally posted by RE: BlaxicanAh yes.
It's so funny to me how people can sit there and actually have discussions on what counts as mature, and what doesn't, as if maturity was anything but a concept of the most relative variety.
This, dear children, is the part of the thread where Blaxican inserts his own comment after the conversation is over in an attempt to come off as witty, perhaps even philosophical.
Originally posted by General KalieroSo I guess bambi isn't kiddy because a deer was killed either and lion king isn't for children because mufasa died. These are basically g rated films with death and villains in them. Disney covers how the circle of life changes but that doesn't mean because the bad guy kills the good guy that the movies aren't designed for children and up.There are still villains in these films who bring about death but that doesn't mean these games aren't intended for kids and up. GOW aren't intended for children they are mature games with nudity, sexual acts, and gross violence.
OoT has Goron genocide via being imprisoned and eaten, killing the Zora deity out of spite by implanting a parasite inside it, oh and let's not forget Ganondorf's corruption and absolute destruction of Hyrule with the Triforce of Power. Reanimated corpses in the ruins of Castle Town, children losing their way in the Woods and turning into monsters, everything about the Shadow Temple and much of the Spirit Temple... for ****'s sake, dude. OoT isn't "kiddie" at all.And Majora's Mask is even worse. An entire land doomed to destruction, many of the "kiddie masks" you wear are the tortured souls of innocents made physical, the Stone Tower is entirely unsettling and, many think, pretty much blasphemy to the Goddesses, the Skull Kid that seems to be the villain is a mere child being controlled by an evil mask, and aware the entire time...
If you don't see the different tones within these two games and want to act like they are both mature games that's fine by me.
Originally posted by PeachWhat do you mean the plot? This isn't about which plot is better it's about which audiences these games are designed for. Zelda games aren't designed for mature audiences while gta, gow, di's are. the creators wouldn't recommend them to small children. That's the difference because most of the things you see in these games are far more adult than anything you see in a zelda game. If you ask a creator of zelda they'd recommend their games to small children and up because you won't see anywhere near the gratuitous violence, nudity, sexual overtones, etc. in these games.
Yes, it was a 1v1v1 thread."Who will win against so-and-so" threads also aren't allowed, and it dipped into that territory as well.
I would say that in terms of plot? Yes, the Zelda series is far more mature than GoW or Dante's Inferno or anything of the sort. Also far more in-depth, detailed, and well thought out.
Your clinging to ignorance on the subject is astounding.
Also being well thought out has nothing to do with which audience this game is being directed at. I disagree entirely with zelda games being more well thought out than gow. One series is ten years past it's prime while the gow series keeps setting the bar higher.
Let me ask you a question would you allow a 7 year old to play gow3? Now would you allow the 7 year old to play any zelda game?
I don't think so, I think it's because violence, sex, and gore appeals to the male psyche, not to say that it can't also be because of they're taboo.
Personally, I don't see how the three concepts aren't mature themes. People who like to think they're mature say they aren't, I guess cause they have a been there done that mentality, but I don't see how they're actually immature.
Originally posted by MooCowofJustice
What does that mean?
YOU'RE A NUT! YOU'RE CRAZY IN THE COCONUT!
YouTube video
Also, Peach, your sig is freakin' me out, maaaan /shaggy
Originally posted by General Kaliero
My figures from Peach came!From the front, Prime isn't too much to look at, honestly. No real defining features, though I suppose that does technically follow the concept of "armored truck." Bumblebee is a pretty cool Tron-like car with plenty of homage to his G1 look. In vehicle mode at least, I prefer BB, though I wish he was a tad smaller in comparison to Prime.
From the back, Prime is much more interesting. Of special note is the revised smokestacks, sloped back and attached to the legs, so Hasbro could leave them alone when it came to safety.
Also, just wanna note that BB's vehicle mode is a mess of panels. Once they're all together it looks really nice, but it can get a little frustrating tabbing everything into everything else.
My god are these detailed for deluxes. BB looks great, I love the body, the head, and especially the feet. His eyes are painted over, a little annoyingly. Really, he'd be excellent if he weren't so big relative to Prime.
Prime's transformation is delightfully complex. Imagine a Voyager level of tooling, with all the twisting and telescoping and folding, but stuffed into a Deluxe.
The big guy himself.
I. Love. This look. He looks completely different, yet is unmistakably the same Prime we've known since G1. The shoulders are enormous, the legs thick and powerful-looking, the detail all over everything is incredible, and the gun even looks a fair bit like the classic Ion Blaster.
The only complaint I have with him is, really, that he's only a Deluxe. This figure would have been exceptional on a Voyager size level.
Full Prime collection picture coming when I can get them all together.
Some guys have all the luck. uhuh