The 3DS price drop has opened up 3D gaming even to those on a tight budget. But does 3D really add anything to the gaming experience or is it just another gimmick.
BLG writes, "There are many fantastic and iconic weapons in game history, but some are significantly more memorable than others. When we think of iconic game weapons, these are the top 20 that come to mind."
You forgot one and it's a doozy. The weapon is kindness in undertale. :) defeats countless enemies.
Polygon: "To get back to the way Ocarina made us feel, it was necessary to reject almost everything about it."
I generally agree with the author here. However, if I had to point out a single game as the 'anti-Breath of the Wild,' that would be Majora's Mask. Pretty much everything in that game is interconnected, relies on something that the player must have done previously, is timed, and can be considered a puzzle in itself.
but still considered the best of the seties.
i would have liked botw to be more like ocarina.
25 years from today whatever Zelda is out people would too be looking fondly at Breath of the Wild.
Ah the more simple times of the 2020s.
The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time debuted 25 years ago, forever changing the face of video games and becoming a legend of its own.
I used a guide to beat part of it but some of the rest myself, still enjoyed it regardless. Too bad they didn't stick with this kind of gameplay for the rest of the series as I would prefer it over what they're doing now.
A definitive moment in video game history. Played it countless times, and Zelda was the best reason to own an N64.
I played through OoT so many times on the 64, then I bought it on the 3DS before the Eshop shut down. I wish we could have a Zelda collection like we did for Mario, I still can't believe that never happened.
I think it depends on the game. In some cases it does, Ocarina Of Time 3D is one kick ass game in 3D. But like the author says, it's way less effective when it comes to other genres.
does nothing for gaming.
or does gaming enrich 3d?
When you don't have good vision or anywhere close to 20/20, then its pointless
3D has been in movies for generations, and yet, it's because of AVATAR did the industry took the idea seriously. What exactly did they do right that the others didn't? Was it because it was actually IMMERSIVE, or maybe because they really pushed the boundaries of 3D unlike before.
It's the law of unique concepts: bring something that truly delivers to what it's advertised to do and you will get your promised reception. One can't be lackluster in these things you know.
-End statement