Nintendo Direct: NEW ZELDA ALTTP 3DS SEQUEL!!!! 3DS Yoshi's Island!!!!

  • 200 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for MirkoS77
#101 Posted by MirkoS77 (11602 posts) -
I'm confused. Is this remake, or a sequel? The above vid does not look like a remake, but some of the pics of the overworld look identical. :?
Avatar image for c_rakestraw
#102 Posted by c_rakestraw (14870 posts) -

I'm confused. Is this remake, or a sequel? The above vid does not look like a remake, but some of the pics of the overworld look identical. :?MirkoS77

It's a sequel. The game takes place in the same Hyrule that A Link to the Past did, so the overworld is going to be similar by default. I'm sure there's still plenty different about it, though.

Avatar image for SupremeAC
#103 Posted by SupremeAC (7521 posts) -

I too wonder just how much content will be 'copied' from ALTTP.  While I'm very excited about the prospect of a new ALTTP-esque zelda, I could do without an identical overwold.  It'll be a great nostalgic trip, and I'd enjoy it even on that merrit, but nothing beats exploring a new world.  Of course, because one small bit of the overworld is identical, doesn't mean that everything will be.  For all we know the rest has been inflicted with something akin to the Sunbane from the Thomas Covenant trilogy.  That would be cool  :p

Also, I don't agree with this idea that a lot of Nintendo's more impressive recent output has been outsourced.  I recall the Minnish Cap (Capcom) and F-Zero GX (Sega), but those are the only major 2 I remember off the back of my head.  Retro isn't outsourcing as I believe Nintendo holds a majority share in the company.  If MP was an outsourced game, then so are all the Halo's.  Also, we saw what Retro could churn out before Nintendo decided to step in and help out, and it wasn't pretty.

Avatar image for trugs26
#104 Posted by trugs26 (7378 posts) -

I too wonder just how much content will be 'copied' from ALTTP.  While I'm very excited about the prospect of a new ALTTP-esque zelda, I could do without an identical overwold.  It'll be a great nostalgic trip, and I'd enjoy it even on that merrit, but nothing beats exploring a new world.  Of course, because one small bit of the overworld is identical, doesn't mean that everything will be.  For all we know the rest has been inflicted with something akin to the Sunbane from the Thomas Covenant trilogy.  That would be cool  :p

Also, I don't agree with this idea that a lot of Nintendo's more impressive recent output has been outsourced.  I recall the Minnish Cap (Capcom) and F-Zero GX (Sega), but those are the only major 2 I remember off the back of my head.  Retro isn't outsourcing as I believe Nintendo holds a majority share in the company.  If MP was an outsourced game, then so are all the Halo's.  Also, we saw what Retro could churn out before Nintendo decided to step in and help out, and it wasn't pretty.

SupremeAC



I agree that a new overworld would be much needed for my full appreciation. I think they'll deliver, in the short trailer they showed a large game mechanic that is much different to ALTTP: the 2D side scrolling-wall thingy.

So just from that, it seems like it'll differentiate itself from the previous title in both gameplay and overworld.  

Avatar image for SupremeAC
#105 Posted by SupremeAC (7521 posts) -


I agree that a new overworld would be much needed for my full appreciation. I think they'll deliver, in the short trailer they showed a large game mechanic that is much different to ALTTP: the 2D side scrolling-wall thingy.

So just from that, it seems like it'll differentiate itself from the previous title in both gameplay and overworld.  trugs26
Yet they also showed a bit of the overworld that is identical to that in ALTTP. I doubt they'd leave the overworld untouched, but surely they knew people would notice such a thing 10 minutes after the video went up. So why not show a bit that's similar, but yet changed?
Avatar image for trugs26
#106 Posted by trugs26 (7378 posts) -

[QUOTE="trugs26"]

I agree that a new overworld would be much needed for my full appreciation. I think they'll deliver, in the short trailer they showed a large game mechanic that is much different to ALTTP: the 2D side scrolling-wall thingy.

So just from that, it seems like it'll differentiate itself from the previous title in both gameplay and overworld.  SupremeAC
Yet they also showed a bit of the overworld that is identical to that in ALTTP. I doubt they'd leave the overworld untouched, but surely they knew people would notice such a thing 10 minutes after the video went up. So why not show a bit that's similar, but yet changed?



My guess would be for nostalgia. But that's just the style, it's the same just like Majora's is to Ocarina. But the overworld can be completely different. 

Avatar image for CarnageHeart
#107 Posted by CarnageHeart (18316 posts) -

[QUOTE="lozengez"]

[QUOTE="dvader654"] They are all the same gamers. The people who play those play Nintendo games too. Where are all these magical people that only play Nintendo games as you keep assuming there are?DJ-Lafleur

I disagree with this Carnage dude on everything but, on this one point, I think there are plenty of Nintendo-only console players. 

there probably are, that being said his whole point on Nintendo fans seems kind of unnecessaru seeing as how  Not all NIntendo fans act that way.

I'm a fan of Nintendo yet have enjoyed offerings from Sony and Microsoft, and have tried new IPs.

Based on every survey I've ever seen multiconsole ownership is the exception to the rule (though there is no shortage of such gamers in gaming forums).
Avatar image for Grammaton-Cleric
#108 Posted by Grammaton-Cleric (7513 posts) -

Zelda formulaic? MM is unlike any Zelda game ever. Crazy time based mechnics never done in any game. Multiple transformations, the best use of NPCs I have ever seen.  Then comes WW a game with a completely untraditional overworld, exploring in that game is vastly different than any other Zelda. There is only one 3D Zelda game that is similar to others and that is TP to OoT. Thats it. 

Retro is part of Nintendo now, and without Nintendo of japans help the game would never have been a FPS in the first place nor probably has been as good.

I have no clue how you can compare what Nintendo does to Activision and Ubisoft. Their games change dramatically from entry to entry, far more than almost any other game series. Just look at major franchises this gen, look at all three Uncharted games, all three Gears, the GoW games, all the ACs. All of them play the same way with some gameplay enhancements but nothing that drastically alters what you do from game to game. Also the game world structure is always the same as is the flow of the games. They all follow a very specific set pattern.

That is nothing like a series where one game might be a FPS, the next a side scroller. One game has you manipulating time, another exploring a giant ocean, another chnaging how the structure of the overworld works and your basic controls. There are clear cut differences in the Nintendo games, changes that actually change the fundamental formula or game world. I understand the core pillars of each franchise remains the same but the changes Nintendo applies from game to game is far more dramatic than all those franchises I mentioned earlier. I am not saying you have to like the games nor do the changes make them better than other games, simply that it is to me extremely clear the differences between a Nintendo sequel and what other companies call sequels.

(Not saying Nintendo doesn't make the more traditional sequels. Galaxy 1 and 2 are like the Uncharted/GoW like sequels, a simple enhancement of what came before. MP1, 2 and 3 are pretty similar. NSMB has super cash in sequels. But cant you easily tell the difference between those kinds of sequels and the ones that Zelda usually has?)

dvader654

What I am referring to when calling the games formulaic is that they use the same baseline gameplay mechanics in each successive title. The combat, movement, auto-jumping, items, etc. all have a similar feel and are essentially recycled from game-to-game. As divergent as something like the Wind Waker was in terms of art style, the actual game, targeting, movements, and overall mechanics were essentially the same as OOT.

So yes, each Zelda game is unique in terms of structure and thematic bit they also all play essentially the same from a mechanical standpoint. Skyward Sword is the first radical departure from that norm.

This is no different than what UbiSoft has implemented with AC. ACIII for example uses much of the baseline mechanics from previous titles but radically alters the setting, makes some tweaks to the combat, and includes various additional components. I'd venture to state that ACIII is as big a departure from the series as WW was for Zelda but within the construct of these games the base DNA remains intact.   

And Nintendo's ownership of Retro is incidental to my point, which is that Nintendo has become incredibly reliant upon outside developers. Many of their franchises, from Punch Out! to Smash Bros, are outsourced and most of these releases are simply extrapolations of pre-existing mechanics.

None of this is meant as derision but I do flatly reject the notion that Nintendo sequels are somehow different than sequels pumped out by other developers. By your own admission the core fundamentals are often reused and that is certainly no different than what Ubisoft is doing with AC or Santa Monica has done with God of War.     

That said, Nintendo also releases those sequels which make radical shifts to pre-existing paradigms, evident in releases such as Skyward Sword and Mario Galaxy.  

Avatar image for TheShadowLord07
#109 Posted by TheShadowLord07 (22585 posts) -

the press footage looks pretty good. and I might pick this up over pokemon Y(it can wait plus I don't thinK i want buy the original and the sequel/remake) if it comes out this year. I do hope they added new locations to game. perhaps a cemetery or a mansion. as well as new bosses.

Avatar image for homegirl2180
#110 Posted by homegirl2180 (7161 posts) -

the press footage looks pretty good. and I might pick this up over pokemon Y(it can wait plus I don't thinK i want buy the original and the sequel/remake) if it comes out this year. I do hope they added new locations to game. perhaps a cemetery or a mansion. as well as new bosses.

TheShadowLord07

I'm really waiting for the announcement of a delay. Has a Zelda ever been announced and released the same year? I'm not sure, but I see this one pulling a Pikmin 3. :cry:

Avatar image for Shinobishyguy
#111 Posted by Shinobishyguy (22928 posts) -

someone got some direct audio footage of the demo

The music sounds godly

Avatar image for dvader654
#112 Posted by dvader654 (44751 posts) -

[QUOTE="dvader654"]

 

None of this is meant as derision but I do flatly reject the notion that Nintendo sequels are somehow different than sequels pumped out by other developers. By your own admission the core fundamentals are often reused and that is certainly no different than what Ubisoft is doing with AC or Santa Monica has done with God of War.     

That said, Nintendo also releases those sequels which make radical shifts to pre-existing paradigms, evident in releases such as Skyward Sword and Mario Galaxy.  

Grammaton-Cleric

I have yet to play AC3 but yes AC3 total shift in location and I assume other areas is the kind of sequel I am talking about. But the Ezio trilogy was three games that practically played the same, had very similar looking locations and the games basically all feel into the same pattern. Those sequels are the usual kinds of sequels you see from most games, the CoDs do this, Gears does this, GoW. Look at every single God of War game, every single one plays exactly the same way, start the game with big boss battle. The game is always a linear quest with action and puzzles. There is rarely a surprise in the formula. Rarely a real new idea, just enhancements to the combat system and new bosses. You cannot compare compare that to a series where entire new mechanics, major sweeping mechanics that change the focus of the game happens from game to game. Going from OoT to a game where now you have to manage time and NPC side quests, have masks that change your character into new forms is VASTLY different from a sequel where its just a new location, two new moves, new bosses but plays identical.

I really cannot understand how you who is extremely knowledgeable about games cant see that difference.

Avatar image for S0lidSnake
#113 Posted by S0lidSnake (29001 posts) -

Nintendo cannot make too many big budget sequels which is why we are seeing these small games on the handheld. It's pretty hilarious actually. They are so afraid of the producing a game with current gen graphcis that even when they finally have a console that can produce current gen graphics, they have most of their teams working on a handheld that barely outperforms the PSP. 

What a terrible company. 

Avatar image for ZhugeL1ang
#114 Posted by ZhugeL1ang (115 posts) -

Why not release this new Zelda on the WiiU? Oh wait, no one would play it then.

Avatar image for Shinobishyguy
#115 Posted by Shinobishyguy (22928 posts) -

[QUOTE="MirkoS77"]

[QUOTE="S0lidSnake"]

Nintendo cannot make too many big budget sequels which is why we are seeing these small games on the handheld. It's pretty hilarious actually. They are so afraid of the producing a game with current gen graphcis that even when they finally have a console that can produce current gen graphics, they have most of their teams working on a handheld that barely outperforms the PSP. 

What a terrible company. 

S0lidSnake

Why can't/won't they?  They have billions in the bank.  You'd think with that kind of money they'd be throwing out next gen games left and right on consoles, and taking far more risks than they currently do.  They've got the talent.

They can, but they wont. Because they are at terrible company. They dont care about this industry. They dont care about creating new experiences or moving the industry forward. All they care about is their shareholders. 

Their shareholders are the ones that have been wanting them to go third party and make mario games on the iphone app store for years now. When it comes down to it they're singlehandedly keeping the dedicated handheld market afloat, which is an impressive feat in itself. (unfortunately they're bafoons when it comes to the console market)

Avatar image for ZhugeL1ang
#116 Posted by ZhugeL1ang (115 posts) -

[QUOTE="ZhugeL1ang"]

Why not release this new Zelda on the WiiU? Oh wait, no one would play it then.

c_rake

They have another Zelda in the works for the Wii U.

Then why not release this on their stuggling console? LttP is a classic, releasing a long awaited follow up onto a portable comes off as a lame cash grab. The WiiU needs to move units now, not later. This could send the message that Nintendo isn't serious about the WiiU or that they've raised the white flag already.

Avatar image for c_rakestraw
#117 Posted by c_rakestraw (14870 posts) -

Why not release this new Zelda on the WiiU? Oh wait, no one would play it then.

ZhugeL1ang

They have another Zelda in the works for the Wii U.

Avatar image for MirkoS77
#118 Posted by MirkoS77 (11602 posts) -

Nintendo cannot make too many big budget sequels which is why we are seeing these small games on the handheld. It's pretty hilarious actually. They are so afraid of the producing a game with current gen graphcis that even when they finally have a console that can produce current gen graphics, they have most of their teams working on a handheld that barely outperforms the PSP. 

What a terrible company. 

S0lidSnake

Why can't/won't they?  They have billions in the bank.  You'd think with that kind of money they'd be throwing out next gen games left and right on consoles, and taking far more risks than they currently do.  They've got the talent.

Avatar image for S0lidSnake
#119 Posted by S0lidSnake (29001 posts) -

[QUOTE="S0lidSnake"]

Nintendo cannot make too many big budget sequels which is why we are seeing these small games on the handheld. It's pretty hilarious actually. They are so afraid of the producing a game with current gen graphcis that even when they finally have a console that can produce current gen graphics, they have most of their teams working on a handheld that barely outperforms the PSP. 

What a terrible company. 

MirkoS77

Why can't/won't they?  They have billions in the bank.  You'd think with that kind of money they'd be throwing out next gen games left and right on consoles, and taking far more risks than they currently do.  They've got the talent.

They can, but they wont. Because they are at terrible company. They dont care about this industry. They dont care about creating new experiences or moving the industry forward. All they care about is their shareholders. 

Avatar image for c_rakestraw
#120 Posted by c_rakestraw (14870 posts) -

Then why not release this on their stuggling console? LttP is a classic, releasing a long awaited follow up onto a portable comes off as a lame cash grab. The WiiU needs to move units now, not later. This could send the message that Nintendo isn't serious about the WiiU or that they've raised the white flag already.ZhugeL1ang

Probably 'cause they've got Wind Waker to fill that void for now. It's not an ideal solution, but right now, anything's better than nothing for them.

Avatar image for CarnageHeart
#121 Posted by CarnageHeart (18316 posts) -

[QUOTE="S0lidSnake"]

Nintendo cannot make too many big budget sequels which is why we are seeing these small games on the handheld. It's pretty hilarious actually. They are so afraid of the producing a game with current gen graphcis that even when they finally have a console that can produce current gen graphics, they have most of their teams working on a handheld that barely outperforms the PSP.

What a terrible company.

MirkoS77

Why can't/won't they? They have billions in the bank. You'd think with that kind of money they'd be throwing out next gen games left and right on consoles, and taking far more risks than they currently do. They've got the talent.

Modern Nintendo is incredibly conservative and risk adverse in part because the majority of their core fans are very, very franchise loyal. What little creativity is permitted is filtered through the lens of a single middle aged Japanese man. Miyamoto is a wonderful designer, but forcing all creative products to conform to a single vision means that genuinely creative people are driven away. The sorts of people who take up jobs at Nintendo are probably the digital equivalent of assembly line workers, because Nintendo permits nothing else. If some 20 year old has a vision of an original game, Nintendo is unlikely to countenance it, unless it falls within the small spectrum of games Miyamoto is comfortable with Nintendo will not permit it.

http://www.ign.com/articles/2008/03/28/ign-presents-the-history-of-grand-theft-auto

Body Harvest, DMA's first 3D effort, and it did things a little differently from those other Nintendo games. You played an armed and armored soldier in a free-roaming mission to save humanity from hungry alien carnivores, able to jump into any vehicle you found. Less fortunate humans, whether they fell to invaders, careless driving or over-aggressive marksmanship, died screaming in a haze of 64-bit blood.

It didn't get a pass from Nintendo EAD lead Shigeru Miyamoto. Mario's creator wanted more puzzles, less gore.

Jones' opinion differed. The aggressively over-the-top gameplay and open-world environments fit like personally tailored brass knuckles. It needed more, not different. Body Harvest fell off Nintendo's schedule (to be picked up years later by Midway), but DMA was already moving on a newer, better project.

What is fascinating is that Nintendo once upon a time was a good deal more ambitious. Nowadays modern Nintendo (and its fans) look with a disapproving eye upon most genres and dismissively say 'Nintendo doesn't do that' but in the past Nintendo was happy to make sports sims, MKesque fighters, urban brawlers, survival horror games, and first person shooters and they didn't feel a need to hide behind Mario/Zelda/Metroid when doing so. While you couldn't torture most of what remains of Nintendo's fanbase into admitting it, Nintendo is a company that has gotten more Japanese and conservative as the industry has gotten more Western and freewheeling.

Avatar image for dvader654
#122 Posted by dvader654 (44751 posts) -

Nintendo cannot make too many big budget sequels which is why we are seeing these small games on the handheld. It's pretty hilarious actually. They are so afraid of the producing a game with current gen graphcis that even when they finally have a console that can produce current gen graphics, they have most of their teams working on a handheld that barely outperforms the PSP. 

What a terrible company. 

S0lidSnake
You do know that at E3 we will see Wii U games of all major franchises right? This is what they do, periods of nothing then an explosion of games.
Avatar image for dvader654
#123 Posted by dvader654 (44751 posts) -

[QUOTE="MirkoS77"]

[QUOTE="S0lidSnake"]

Nintendo cannot make too many big budget sequels which is why we are seeing these small games on the handheld. It's pretty hilarious actually. They are so afraid of the producing a game with current gen graphcis that even when they finally have a console that can produce current gen graphics, they have most of their teams working on a handheld that barely outperforms the PSP. 

What a terrible company. 

S0lidSnake

Why can't/won't they?  They have billions in the bank.  You'd think with that kind of money they'd be throwing out next gen games left and right on consoles, and taking far more risks than they currently do.  They've got the talent.

They can, but they wont. Because they are at terrible company. They dont care about this industry. They dont care about creating new experiences or moving the industry forward. All they care about is their shareholders. 

And who is moving this industry foward? Sony by simply copying everything Nintendo and MS does? Nintendo created more NEW experiences than any other company last gen, its just new experiences none of you wanted.

Avatar image for CarnageHeart
#124 Posted by CarnageHeart (18316 posts) -

[QUOTE="c_rake"]

[QUOTE="ZhugeL1ang"]

Why not release this new Zelda on the WiiU? Oh wait, no one would play it then.

ZhugeL1ang

They have another Zelda in the works for the Wii U.

Then why not release this on their stuggling console? LttP is a classic, releasing a long awaited follow up onto a portable comes off as a lame cash grab. The WiiU needs to move units now, not later. This could send the message that Nintendo isn't serious about the WiiU or that they've raised the white flag already.

Nintendo hasn't been serious about consoles in years and I don't see how anyone could think differently. Remember Operation Rainfall? Nintendo had a handful of perfectly good games which they couldn't be bothered to bring over. Providing a mouthful of water to thirsting core gamers wasn't in Nintendo's interest, getting them to abandon their Wiis and buy 3DSs was (after a massive campaign Nintendo begrudgingly offered a limited release of the games in question, but they clearly weren't enthused about it or hoping to make money off it).

Nintendo doesn't break down profits by division, but its my pet theory the handheld space has been a bigger earner for Nintendo than the console space since the latter days of the N64. Since the N64, Nintendo consoles not named the Wii have sold like crap and all of them (even the Wii) received very patchy support. Nintendo killed the Gamecube and funnelled all of its fans towards the DS when the PSP hit. They replicated that strategy with the 3DS, even though that meant killing off a console which had sold damn near 100 million units (yes, since 2010 they have offered a tiny handful of core games on the Wii, but they completely abandoned casuals, who then went towards smartphones and the Kinect).

I think its endlessly amusing that Nintendo fans who swear bitter vengeance against third parties who merely delay games for a couple months accept worse treatment from Nintendo with a smile. 'Nintendo's decided to release Luigi's Mansion 2 on a popular handheld as opposed to a struggling console? That's super! Ubisoft has pushed back Rayman on console a few months because they want to let the installed base grow a bit larger? That sort of greed is why I hate third parties and only buy Nintendo games!'

Avatar image for DJ-Lafleur
#125 Posted by DJ-Lafleur (35302 posts) -

[QUOTE="MirkoS77"]

[QUOTE="S0lidSnake"]

Nintendo cannot make too many big budget sequels which is why we are seeing these small games on the handheld. It's pretty hilarious actually. They are so afraid of the producing a game with current gen graphcis that even when they finally have a console that can produce current gen graphics, they have most of their teams working on a handheld that barely outperforms the PSP.

What a terrible company.

CarnageHeart

Why can't/won't they? They have billions in the bank. You'd think with that kind of money they'd be throwing out next gen games left and right on consoles, and taking far more risks than they currently do. They've got the talent.

Modern Nintendo is incredibly conservative and risk adverse in part because the majority of their core fans are very, very franchise loyal. What little creativity is permitted is filtered through the lens of a single middle aged Japanese man. Miyamoto is a wonderful designer, but forcing all creative products to conform to a single vision means that genuinely creative people are driven away. The sorts of people who take up jobs at Nintendo are probably the digital equivalent of assembly line workers, because Nintendo permits nothing else. If some 20 year old has a vision of an original game, Nintendo is unlikely to countenance it, unless it falls within the small spectrum of games Miyamoto is comfortable with Nintendo will not permit it.

http://www.ign.com/articles/2008/03/28/ign-presents-the-history-of-grand-theft-auto

Body Harvest, DMA's first 3D effort, and it did things a little differently from those other Nintendo games. You played an armed and armored soldier in a free-roaming mission to save humanity from hungry alien carnivores, able to jump into any vehicle you found. Less fortunate humans, whether they fell to invaders, careless driving or over-aggressive marksmanship, died screaming in a haze of 64-bit blood.

It didn't get a pass from Nintendo EAD lead Shigeru Miyamoto. Mario's creator wanted more puzzles, less gore.

Jones' opinion differed. The aggressively over-the-top gameplay and open-world environments fit like personally tailored brass knuckles. It needed more, not different. Body Harvest fell off Nintendo's schedule (to be picked up years later by Midway), but DMA was already moving on a newer, better project.

What is fascinating is that Nintendo once upon a time was a good deal more ambitious. Nowadays modern Nintendo (and its fans) look with a disapproving eye upon most genres and dismissively say 'Nintendo doesn't do that' but in the past Nintendo was happy to make sports sims, MKesque fighters, urban brawlers, survival horror games, and first person shooters and they didn't feel a need to hide behind Mario/Zelda/Metroid when doing so. While you couldn't torture most of what remains of Nintendo's fanbase into admitting it, Nintendo is a company that has gotten more Japanese and conservative as the industry has gotten more Western and freewheeling.

I disagree that Nintendo doesn't take risks. The Wii was definitely a risk, as it was the first console ever to have motion controls as its primary control scheme. Moving away from the standard control scheme that all gamers got used to was definitely incredibly risky. Metroid Other M was also an incredibly risky game to make, since it was not only doing something different for a Metroid game, but also something differnet for any game, with the whole attempt at switching from third person to first person view. Say what you will about the gameplay or story, but that game was not by any means "playing it safe." hell, Them putting money into Bayonetta 2 probably has some risk in it as well, considering that the original Bayonetta, I beleive, didn't seel THAT well, atleast not compared to many bigger franchises. This is also pretty different for Nintendo considering that Bayonetta 2 isn't exactly like any other game Nintendo would make or support.

While Nintendo relies and depends on mario, Zelda, and Pokemon for easy $$$, they do still take risks sometimes.

Avatar image for Grammaton-Cleric
#126 Posted by Grammaton-Cleric (7513 posts) -

I have yet to play AC3 but yes AC3 total shift in location and I assume other areas is the kind of sequel I am talking about. But the Ezio trilogy was three games that practically played the same, had very similar looking locations and the games basically all feel into the same pattern. Those sequels are the usual kinds of sequels you see from most games, the CoDs do this, Gears does this, GoW. Look at every single God of War game, every single one plays exactly the same way, start the game with big boss battle. The game is always a linear quest with action and puzzles. There is rarely a surprise in the formula. Rarely a real new idea, just enhancements to the combat system and new bosses. You cannot compare compare that to a series where entire new mechanics, major sweeping mechanics that change the focus of the game happens from game to game. Going from OoT to a game where now you have to manage time and NPC side quests, have masks that change your character into new forms is VASTLY different from a sequel where its just a new location, two new moves, new bosses but plays identical.

I really cannot understand how you who is extremely knowledgeable about games cant see that difference.

dvader654

I fully grasp what you are asserting and I will also concede there exists many gradients of innovation within the parameters of these sequels but I also remain steadfast in my assertion that all of the Zelda games starting with OOT and extending to Twilight Princess were essentially the same game at a fundamental and mechanical level.

Again, that's not an insult but an observation.

Avatar image for Grammaton-Cleric
#127 Posted by Grammaton-Cleric (7513 posts) -

And who is moving this industry foward? Sony by simply copying everything Nintendo and MS does? Nintendo created more NEW experiences than any other company last gen, its just new experiences none of you wanted.

dvader654

The only new experience Nintendo created this generation was motion input which they have since abandoned having fully realized just how vapid waggle truly is.

Truthfully, what new experiences or innovations has Nintendo facilitated this generation? Because I'm drawing a blank.

Avatar image for S0lidSnake
#128 Posted by S0lidSnake (29001 posts) -

[QUOTE="S0lidSnake"]

Nintendo cannot make too many big budget sequels which is why we are seeing these small games on the handheld. It's pretty hilarious actually. They are so afraid of the producing a game with current gen graphcis that even when they finally have a console that can produce current gen graphics, they have most of their teams working on a handheld that barely outperforms the PSP. 

What a terrible company. 

dvader654

You do know that at E3 we will see Wii U games of all major franchises right? This is what they do, periods of nothing then an explosion of games.

And when will these game come out? Serious question because someone said they are working on a Zelda game, but Myamoto said it's still in the design stages. 

Avatar image for S0lidSnake
#129 Posted by S0lidSnake (29001 posts) -

And who is moving this industry foward? Sony by simply copying everything Nintendo and MS does? Nintendo created more NEW experiences than any other company last gen, its just new experiences none of you wanted.

dvader654

Not sure who Sony was copying when they made Uncharted. Contrary to the Dude Raider comparisons, there was nothing like UNcharted out at the time. Same wtih LittleBigPlanet. There is still nothing like MAG out there. Everyone sh*ts on CoD clones, but when they get a game thats the complete opposite they dont even try the demo. Infamous was the first open world superhero game not named Spiderman. Killzone 2's multiplayer was the most original cIass based MP on consoles at the time. No one has dared to put $20 million on games like L.A Noire, Heavy Rain and Beyond. What about Tearaway and Gravity Daze? The Last Guardian? Or Siren? or Motorstorm? Who were they copying here? Which new Arcade racer did Nintendo put out this year? Nintendo passed on thatgamecompany's fl0w yet Sony gave them a 3 game contract which gave us Flower and Journey. They have set aside $20 million dollars just for indie games on PSN. How is that copying Nintendo or MS? They only other publisher with an indie fund was activision with $500k. They have 5 new IPs coming out this year. The last year of this generation. 

Yes, they have copied Nintendo when it comes to casual and Move games, but when it comes to core franchises they are leagues ahead of both MS and Nintendo. And they are going to continue making franchises next gen. Guerrila Games has a second team working on a new IP. Motorstrom guys are making Drive Club. Sony Santa Monica has a second team led by God of War 3's director working on a new IP. Ready at Dawn is working on a New IP. 

Avatar image for dvader654
#130 Posted by dvader654 (44751 posts) -

[QUOTE="dvader654"][QUOTE="S0lidSnake"]Not sure who Sony was copying when they made Uncharted. Contrary to the Dude Raider comparisons, there was nothing like UNcharted out at the time. Same wtih LittleBigPlanet. There is still nothing like MAG out there. Everyone sh*ts on CoD clones, but when they get a game thats the complete opposite they dont even try the demo. Infamous was the first open world superhero game not named Spiderman. Killzone 2's multiplayer was the most original cIass based MP on consoles at the time. No one has dared to put $20 million on games like L.A Noire, Heavy Rain and Beyond. What about Tearaway and Gravity Daze? The Last Guardian? Or Siren? or Motorstorm? Who were they copying here? Which new Arcade racer did Nintendo put out this year? Nintendo passed on thatgamecompany's fl0w yet Sony gave them a 3 game contract which gave us Flower and Journey. They have set aside $20 million dollars just for indie games on PSN. How is that copying Nintendo or MS? They only other publisher with an indie fund was activision with $500k. They have 5 new IPs coming out this year. The last year of this generation.

Yes, they have copied Nintendo when it comes to casual and Move games, but when it comes to core franchises they are leagues ahead of both MS and Nintendo. And they are going to continue making franchises next gen. Guerrila Games has a second team working on a new IP. Motorstrom guys are making Drive Club. Sony Santa Monica has a second team led by God of War 3's director working on a new IP. Ready at Dawn is working on a New IP.

CarnageHeart

I am talking more bigger picture, actual physical changes to gaming. The last real jump we had was from 2D to 3D gameplay. Everything since then has been refinment of that. While new graphics are fantastic and advancement in online is huge something major needs to change things up. While I was hoping motion control would do that it seems it needs more time in the oven but at least an attempt was made to shake things up. What I played on the wii I never experienced in my life, yeah some of those games were stupid but they were actual new experiences. Everything else has been new ideas within the same controls we have been using for 17 years now. Don't get me wrong I am totally happy with new games coming out but I long for those days when we truly felt we were playing something totally new, like on a new frontier of gaming and I have not felt that since the days we could finally move a character in 3D space.

I've got no deep objection to physical changes, but when they are used only in the shallowest sense (the equivalent of a 3D movie which just throws knives and plates and moviegoers as opposed to one which uses the 3D to add depth to the picture) that is a problem. Interface changes don't change the fundamental nature of games (3D Mario with a motion controller attracted the same people as 3D Mario with a conventional controller). Nintendo attracted 70 million or so new gamers with the Wiimote, but they didn't hold them because they weren't able to craft anything that held their interest beyond minigames.

When I think of games that successfully attracted new people to gaming I think of games like The Sims and Minecraft. Both rose to fame on systems that use the famously complex keyboard/mouse interface. I think the industry's problem isn't that the interface is too complicated or not changing radically enough, but that no matter the interface it tends to do the same things. Broadening the range of games on offer is the only way the industry is going to see lasting growth. That is a truth Sony recognizes, but one Nintendo flatly denies.

I also submit that Sony while Sony is less of a believe in salvation through interface changes than Nintendo, they are more willing to explore the possibilities opened up by new hardware. Sony was the first company to offer commercially successful motion tech (nods towards the Eyetoy) and this gen they have taken motion tech and second screen gameplay further than Nintendo has (mostly through LBP2). Media Molecule's upcoming PS4 game allows for people to sculpt 3D objects using the Move the same way LBP2 allows people to paint textures using the Move and even more remarkably, it allows those 3D objects to be animated.

Nintendo's habit of introducing new tech is fine and good, but from a gaming perspective, don't you think its kind of important to not merely introduce technology, but to make games which put it to good use?

They did have games that used it well. Wii sports, Metroid prime 3, Zelda, some great third party games in elebits, zack and wiki, trauma center, the resurgence of "light gun games". To me all FPS felt very different and IR aiming is now my new favorite way to play those games. I agree the ideas could have been taken further but now that everyone has jumped on board BECAUSE of Nintendo I believe there is going to be a breakthrough on some kind of new controls or augmentation of controls using these new ideas. And yes MM has done a great job embracing the move and sony's new tools but that is about it. I cannot agree that they have used motion control better than NIntendo, that is ridiculous. The move and vita support on LBP2 is bad. Only a few levels, users practically ignore it. I search for move only levels and rarely get anything of value. NIntendo has used motion controls in every way Sony has and before they did it across many more kinds of games.
Avatar image for dvader654
#131 Posted by dvader654 (44751 posts) -

[QUOTE="dvader654"]

And who is moving this industry foward? Sony by simply copying everything Nintendo and MS does? Nintendo created more NEW experiences than any other company last gen, its just new experiences none of you wanted.

S0lidSnake

Not sure who Sony was copying when they made Uncharted. Contrary to the Dude Raider comparisons, there was nothing like UNcharted out at the time. Same wtih LittleBigPlanet. There is still nothing like MAG out there. Everyone sh*ts on CoD clones, but when they get a game thats the complete opposite they dont even try the demo. Infamous was the first open world superhero game not named Spiderman. Killzone 2's multiplayer was the most original cIass based MP on consoles at the time. No one has dared to put $20 million on games like L.A Noire, Heavy Rain and Beyond. What about Tearaway and Gravity Daze? The Last Guardian? Or Siren? or Motorstorm? Who were they copying here? Which new Arcade racer did Nintendo put out this year? Nintendo passed on thatgamecompany's fl0w yet Sony gave them a 3 game contract which gave us Flower and Journey. They have set aside $20 million dollars just for indie games on PSN. How is that copying Nintendo or MS? They only other publisher with an indie fund was activision with $500k. They have 5 new IPs coming out this year. The last year of this generation. 

Yes, they have copied Nintendo when it comes to casual and Move games, but when it comes to core franchises they are leagues ahead of both MS and Nintendo. And they are going to continue making franchises next gen. Guerrila Games has a second team working on a new IP. Motorstrom guys are making Drive Club. Sony Santa Monica has a second team led by God of War 3's director working on a new IP. Ready at Dawn is working on a New IP. 

I am talking more bigger picture, actual physical changes to gaming. The last real jump we had was from 2D to 3D gameplay. Everything since then has been refinment of that. While new graphics are fantastic and advancement in online is huge something major needs to change things up. While I was hoping motion control would do that it seems it needs more time in the oven but at least an attempt was made to shake things up. What I played on the wii I never experienced in my life, yeah some of those games were stupid but they were actual new experiences. Everything else has been new ideas within the same controls we have been using for 17 years now. Don't get me wrong I am totally happy with new games coming out but I long for those days when we truly felt we were playing something totally new, like on a new frontier of gaming and I have not felt that since the days we could finally move a character in 3D space.
Avatar image for dvader654
#132 Posted by dvader654 (44751 posts) -

[QUOTE="dvader654"][QUOTE="S0lidSnake"]

Nintendo cannot make too many big budget sequels which is why we are seeing these small games on the handheld. It's pretty hilarious actually. They are so afraid of the producing a game with current gen graphcis that even when they finally have a console that can produce current gen graphics, they have most of their teams working on a handheld that barely outperforms the PSP. 

What a terrible company. 

S0lidSnake

You do know that at E3 we will see Wii U games of all major franchises right? This is what they do, periods of nothing then an explosion of games.

And when will these game come out? Serious question because someone said they are working on a Zelda game, but Myamoto said it's still in the design stages. 

Knowing Nintendo they will bunch everything together. So you will have a year o non stop awesome and then nothing again. As for a new Zelda, those take 4-5 years to make so don't expect it any time soon. But I don't think you played WW so it's new for you. That should hit later this yet or early next year. New 3D Mario I bet will be ready for this year. Next smash early net year. New Metroid probably summer next year. Mario kart probably this year. And who knows what else they have waiting maybe new star fox? Paper Mario? Basically next year should be awesome. The year after that not so much.
Avatar image for dvader654
#133 Posted by dvader654 (44751 posts) -

[QUOTE="dvader654"]

I have yet to play AC3 but yes AC3 total shift in location and I assume other areas is the kind of sequel I am talking about. But the Ezio trilogy was three games that practically played the same, had very similar looking locations and the games basically all feel into the same pattern. Those sequels are the usual kinds of sequels you see from most games, the CoDs do this, Gears does this, GoW. Look at every single God of War game, every single one plays exactly the same way, start the game with big boss battle. The game is always a linear quest with action and puzzles. There is rarely a surprise in the formula. Rarely a real new idea, just enhancements to the combat system and new bosses. You cannot compare compare that to a series where entire new mechanics, major sweeping mechanics that change the focus of the game happens from game to game. Going from OoT to a game where now you have to manage time and NPC side quests, have masks that change your character into new forms is VASTLY different from a sequel where its just a new location, two new moves, new bosses but plays identical.

I really cannot understand how you who is extremely knowledgeable about games cant see that difference.

Grammaton-Cleric

I fully grasp what you are asserting and I will also concede there exists many gradients of innovation within the parameters of these sequels but I also remain steadfast in my assertion that all of the Zelda games starting with OOT and extending to Twilight Princess were essentially the same game at a fundamental and mechanical level.

Again, that's not an insult but an observation.

Well yeah, they still have their core elements. So yeah you are correct but in the grand scheme of gaming it is very rare for a series to really change the core gameplay elements. RE4 is one of the few examples of this.
Avatar image for CarnageHeart
#134 Posted by CarnageHeart (18316 posts) -

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]

[QUOTE="MirkoS77"]

Why can't/won't they? They have billions in the bank. You'd think with that kind of money they'd be throwing out next gen games left and right on consoles, and taking far more risks than they currently do. They've got the talent.

DJ-Lafleur

Modern Nintendo is incredibly conservative and risk adverse in part because the majority of their core fans are very, very franchise loyal. What little creativity is permitted is filtered through the lens of a single middle aged Japanese man. Miyamoto is a wonderful designer, but forcing all creative products to conform to a single vision means that genuinely creative people are driven away. The sorts of people who take up jobs at Nintendo are probably the digital equivalent of assembly line workers, because Nintendo permits nothing else. If some 20 year old has a vision of an original game, Nintendo is unlikely to countenance it, unless it falls within the small spectrum of games Miyamoto is comfortable with Nintendo will not permit it.

http://www.ign.com/articles/2008/03/28/ign-presents-the-history-of-grand-theft-auto

Body Harvest, DMA's first 3D effort, and it did things a little differently from those other Nintendo games. You played an armed and armored soldier in a free-roaming mission to save humanity from hungry alien carnivores, able to jump into any vehicle you found. Less fortunate humans, whether they fell to invaders, careless driving or over-aggressive marksmanship, died screaming in a haze of 64-bit blood.

It didn't get a pass from Nintendo EAD lead Shigeru Miyamoto. Mario's creator wanted more puzzles, less gore.

Jones' opinion differed. The aggressively over-the-top gameplay and open-world environments fit like personally tailored brass knuckles. It needed more, not different. Body Harvest fell off Nintendo's schedule (to be picked up years later by Midway), but DMA was already moving on a newer, better project.

What is fascinating is that Nintendo once upon a time was a good deal more ambitious. Nowadays modern Nintendo (and its fans) look with a disapproving eye upon most genres and dismissively say 'Nintendo doesn't do that' but in the past Nintendo was happy to make sports sims, MKesque fighters, urban brawlers, survival horror games, and first person shooters and they didn't feel a need to hide behind Mario/Zelda/Metroid when doing so. While you couldn't torture most of what remains of Nintendo's fanbase into admitting it, Nintendo is a company that has gotten more Japanese and conservative as the industry has gotten more Western and freewheeling.

I disagree that Nintendo doesn't take risks. The Wii was definitely a risk, as it was the first console ever to have motion controls as its primary control scheme. Moving away from the standard control scheme that all gamers got used to was definitely incredibly risky. Metroid Other M was also an incredibly risky game to make, since it was not only doing something different for a Metroid game, but also something differnet for any game, with the whole attempt at switching from third person to first person view. Say what you will about the gameplay or story, but that game was not by any means "playing it safe." hell, Them putting money into Bayonetta 2 probably has some risk in it as well, considering that the original Bayonetta, I beleive, didn't seel THAT well, atleast not compared to many bigger franchises. This is also pretty different for Nintendo considering that Bayonetta 2 isn't exactly like any other game Nintendo would make or support.

While Nintendo relies and depends on mario, Zelda, and Pokemon for easy $$$, they do still take risks sometimes.

Shipping underpowered hardware that resulted in less precise controls in many genres was no risk for Nintendo because people who considered Mario/Zelda/Metroid must buy franchises were going to show up no matter what.

Hiding behind franchises doesn't eliminate risk, but it minimizes it. It also minimizes potential gains (some people will show up just because a game is part of X franchise, but other will steer clear for the same reason).

Picking up Bayonetta 2 doesn't even rise to the level of risk, its just a stupid move doomed to failure. Risk implies an element of uncertainty and Bayonetta was a commercial failure on the PS3 and X360, whose fanbases are much broader minded and bigger than the Wii U's. Bayonetta 2 is in the same boat as Xenoblade and Spirit Camera, an old, now unpopular IP Nintendo picked up cheap because of said unpopularity.

Being commercially unsuccessful doesn't make a game bad (or vice versa), but it makes sequels a bad idea. There's a reason Demon's Souls is called Demon's Souls and not King's Field 5. But for Nintendo hiding behind franchise is a habit so ingrained they do it even when it does them no good.

Avatar image for dvader654
#135 Posted by dvader654 (44751 posts) -
The same way you say Nintendo didn't properly explore motion controls, which I agree to an extent, is the same way I fee about the way motion has been used in LBP2. The uses for it is amazing, but outside a few levels it is never used. The problem is motion wasn't a universal pack in so it is largely ignored by most of the community. The move is so much better than the normal controller that the grand grand majority levels should be all about exploring motion control but sadly that is not the case. Every time I search MM picks or even the LBP community picks I rarely find anything that is move exclusive. And vita use even less. Without full system support meaning everyone owns a move it cannot take off in the way it should. As for wii u, Nintendo land is an entire game built around games where someone on the wii u screen is doing something that effects what the people playing on the TV is doing. What LBP is doing with vita is not unique. It follows the long history of Nintendo showing off a new game idea and then sometime later Sony showing off what is basically the exact same idea repackaged. That said I am with you in believing that so y can do a better job of exploring motion controls in a much broader scale across many more genres and ideas. But they half assed the move, it won't take off unless they fully commit.
Avatar image for CarnageHeart
#136 Posted by CarnageHeart (18316 posts) -

[QUOTE="S0lidSnake"]

[QUOTE="dvader654"]

And who is moving this industry foward? Sony by simply copying everything Nintendo and MS does? Nintendo created more NEW experiences than any other company last gen, its just new experiences none of you wanted.

dvader654

Not sure who Sony was copying when they made Uncharted. Contrary to the Dude Raider comparisons, there was nothing like UNcharted out at the time. Same wtih LittleBigPlanet. There is still nothing like MAG out there. Everyone sh*ts on CoD clones, but when they get a game thats the complete opposite they dont even try the demo. Infamous was the first open world superhero game not named Spiderman. Killzone 2's multiplayer was the most original cIass based MP on consoles at the time. No one has dared to put $20 million on games like L.A Noire, Heavy Rain and Beyond. What about Tearaway and Gravity Daze? The Last Guardian? Or Siren? or Motorstorm? Who were they copying here? Which new Arcade racer did Nintendo put out this year? Nintendo passed on thatgamecompany's fl0w yet Sony gave them a 3 game contract which gave us Flower and Journey. They have set aside $20 million dollars just for indie games on PSN. How is that copying Nintendo or MS? They only other publisher with an indie fund was activision with $500k. They have 5 new IPs coming out this year. The last year of this generation.

Yes, they have copied Nintendo when it comes to casual and Move games, but when it comes to core franchises they are leagues ahead of both MS and Nintendo. And they are going to continue making franchises next gen. Guerrila Games has a second team working on a new IP. Motorstrom guys are making Drive Club. Sony Santa Monica has a second team led by God of War 3's director working on a new IP. Ready at Dawn is working on a New IP.

I am talking more bigger picture, actual physical changes to gaming. The last real jump we had was from 2D to 3D gameplay. Everything since then has been refinment of that. While new graphics are fantastic and advancement in online is huge something major needs to change things up. While I was hoping motion control would do that it seems it needs more time in the oven but at least an attempt was made to shake things up. What I played on the wii I never experienced in my life, yeah some of those games were stupid but they were actual new experiences. Everything else has been new ideas within the same controls we have been using for 17 years now. Don't get me wrong I am totally happy with new games coming out but I long for those days when we truly felt we were playing something totally new, like on a new frontier of gaming and I have not felt that since the days we could finally move a character in 3D space.

I've got no deep objection to physical changes, but when they are used only in the shallowest sense (the equivalent of a 3D movie which just throws knives and plates and moviegoers as opposed to one which uses the 3D to add depth to the picture) that is a problem. Interface changes don't change the fundamental nature of games (3D Mario with a motion controller attracted the same people as 3D Mario with a conventional controller). Nintendo attracted 70 million or so new gamers with the Wiimote, but they didn't hold them because they weren't able to craft anything that held their interest beyond minigames.

When I think of games that successfully attracted new people to gaming I think of games like The Sims and Minecraft. Both rose to fame on systems that use the famously complex keyboard/mouse interface. I think the industry's problem isn't that the interface is too complicated or not changing radically enough, but that no matter the interface it tends to do the same things. Broadening the range of games on offer is the only way the industry is going to see lasting growth. That is a truth Sony recognizes, but one Nintendo flatly denies.

I also submit that Sony while Sony is less of a believe in salvation through interface changes than Nintendo, they are more willing to explore the possibilities opened up by new hardware. Sony was the first company to offer commercially successful motion tech (nods towards the Eyetoy) and this gen they have taken motion tech and second screen gameplay further than Nintendo has (mostly through LBP2). Media Molecule's upcoming PS4 game allows for people to sculpt 3D objects using the Move the same way LBP2 allows people to paint textures using the Move and even more remarkably, it allows those 3D objects to be animated.

Nintendo's habit of introducing new tech is fine and good, but from a gaming perspective, don't you think its kind of important to not merely introduce technology, but to make games which put it to good use?

Avatar image for CarnageHeart
#137 Posted by CarnageHeart (18316 posts) -

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]

[QUOTE="dvader654"] I am talking more bigger picture, actual physical changes to gaming. The last real jump we had was from 2D to 3D gameplay. Everything since then has been refinment of that. While new graphics are fantastic and advancement in online is huge something major needs to change things up. While I was hoping motion control would do that it seems it needs more time in the oven but at least an attempt was made to shake things up. What I played on the wii I never experienced in my life, yeah some of those games were stupid but they were actual new experiences. Everything else has been new ideas within the same controls we have been using for 17 years now. Don't get me wrong I am totally happy with new games coming out but I long for those days when we truly felt we were playing something totally new, like on a new frontier of gaming and I have not felt that since the days we could finally move a character in 3D space. dvader654

I've got no deep objection to physical changes, but when they are used only in the shallowest sense (the equivalent of a 3D movie which just throws knives and plates and moviegoers as opposed to one which uses the 3D to add depth to the picture) that is a problem. Interface changes don't change the fundamental nature of games (3D Mario with a motion controller attracted the same people as 3D Mario with a conventional controller). Nintendo attracted 70 million or so new gamers with the Wiimote, but they didn't hold them because they weren't able to craft anything that held their interest beyond minigames.

When I think of games that successfully attracted new people to gaming I think of games like The Sims and Minecraft. Both rose to fame on systems that use the famously complex keyboard/mouse interface. I think the industry's problem isn't that the interface is too complicated or not changing radically enough, but that no matter the interface it tends to do the same things. Broadening the range of games on offer is the only way the industry is going to see lasting growth. That is a truth Sony recognizes, but one Nintendo flatly denies.

I also submit that Sony while Sony is less of a believe in salvation through interface changes than Nintendo, they are more willing to explore the possibilities opened up by new hardware. Sony was the first company to offer commercially successful motion tech (nods towards the Eyetoy) and this gen they have taken motion tech and second screen gameplay further than Nintendo has (mostly through LBP2). Media Molecule's upcoming PS4 game allows for people to sculpt 3D objects using the Move the same way LBP2 allows people to paint textures using the Move and even more remarkably, it allows those 3D objects to be animated.

Nintendo's habit of introducing new tech is fine and good, but from a gaming perspective, don't you think its kind of important to not merely introduce technology, but to make games which put it to good use?

They did have games that used it well. Wii sports, Metroid prime 3, Zelda, some great third party games in elebits, zack and wiki, trauma center, the resurgence of "light gun games". To me all FPS felt very different and IR aiming is now my new favorite way to play those games. I agree the ideas could have been taken further but now that everyone has jumped on board BECAUSE of Nintendo I believe there is going to be a breakthrough on some kind of new controls or augmentation of controls using these new ideas. And yes MM has done a great job embracing the move and sony's new tools but that is about it. I cannot agree that they have used motion control better than NIntendo, that is ridiculous. The move and vita support on LBP2 is bad. Only a few levels, users practically ignore it. I search for move only levels and rarely get anything of value. NIntendo has used motion controls in every way Sony has and before they did it across many more kinds of games.

The early efforts of 3rd parties to lift motion controls were commendable, but are besides the point. Faced with predictable early sales disappointment, 3rd parties quickly stopped trying to make anything more complex than minigame collections). They cannot afford failure the same way a deep pocketed first party (who gets a piece of the action everytime a game is sold on their system) can nor can they justify such risk to investors (who have no stake in hardware sales and just want games to sell lots of copies). Its incumbent upon first parties to take risks to expand their markets. Metroid Prime 3 was the worst selling game in the Prime series. Was it because of or despite the motion controls? Who knows? More data was needed, but Nintendo declined to fund a first person shooter which might have validated the controls and no one else chose to take the risk (they could make lots of money selling such games on the X360 and PS3, why take the risk of doing so on the Wii?).

Nintendo had a massive audience, every gamer had a motion controller and they were making dumptruck loads of money. Nintendo should have been leading the charge to explore the limits of the possible. Instead they alternated between clumsy forced implementation of motion controls in the traditional games like Mario and Zelda (twirl your controller to spin!) and minigames. As a result most core gamers (including many of Nintendo's) think motion control is nothing more than a shallow gimmick.

LBP2's brane crane and bomb catching/tossing/dodging minigame were took motion controls in 2D games much further than anything Nintendo did on the Wii and the Wii U in large part because they allowed people to do things that are impossible with conventional controllers. The same could be said of LBP2's second screen gameplay. Having one player fly a ship in a dogfight while the people inside try to manuver through the ship (being flung around by the movements of the pilot) is the sort of thing one can only pull off with two screens, and is a really fun minigame, but Nintendo didn't bother with that sort of thing when making NSMB U (or well, any other game, not that they've made many on the Wii U).

*Shrugs* If your point is that the LBP community has been leery of building levels which require extra hardware, you are correct (people don't get paid if their levels are popular, but everyone likes an audience), though it should be noted that many LBP creators use the Move to paint textures and animate sprites as the bottom four screenshots show.

lbppsmove18866screenshot00457.jpg

293737.png

A photo taken by rheisa-87

A photo taken by THe__EGG

A photo taken by MaxBiohazard

A photo taken by Tintenherz4

Avatar image for CarnageHeart
#138 Posted by CarnageHeart (18316 posts) -
[QUOTE="dvader654"]The same way you say Nintendo didn't properly explore motion controls, which I agree to an extent, is the same way I fee about the way motion has been used in LBP2. The uses for it is amazing, but outside a few levels it is never used. The problem is motion wasn't a universal pack in so it is largely ignored by most of the community. The move is so much better than the normal controller that the grand grand majority levels should be all about exploring motion control but sadly that is not the case. Every time I search MM picks or even the LBP community picks I rarely find anything that is move exclusive. And vita use even less. Without full system support meaning everyone owns a move it cannot take off in the way it should. As for wii u, Nintendo land is an entire game built around games where someone on the wii u screen is doing something that effects what the people playing on the TV is doing. What LBP is doing with vita is not unique. It follows the long history of Nintendo showing off a new game idea and then sometime later Sony showing off what is basically the exact same idea repackaged.

People don't need to own DLC to play a level built using the DLC. The reason community creators tend not to build levels which require the Vita or the Move is that relatively few members of the LBP community own those bits of hardware (law of bottlenecks). Much of what LBP did with the Vita has no analogue in Nintendoland. The vita as a scanner thing does but not the Vita as the controller/screen for a spaceship while players looking at the tv screen try to make their way through the interior of the ship, hitting checkpoints which boost the ship, so the pilot has incentive to try to make sure he doesn't move the ship around more than needed to dodge fire. It's bizarre that 6 dollar dlc goes further than a 60 dollar game.
Avatar image for dvader654
#139 Posted by dvader654 (44751 posts) -
[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"][QUOTE="dvader654"]The same way you say Nintendo didn't properly explore motion controls, which I agree to an extent, is the same way I fee about the way motion has been used in LBP2. The uses for it is amazing, but outside a few levels it is never used. The problem is motion wasn't a universal pack in so it is largely ignored by most of the community. The move is so much better than the normal controller that the grand grand majority levels should be all about exploring motion control but sadly that is not the case. Every time I search MM picks or even the LBP community picks I rarely find anything that is move exclusive. And vita use even less. Without full system support meaning everyone owns a move it cannot take off in the way it should. As for wii u, Nintendo land is an entire game built around games where someone on the wii u screen is doing something that effects what the people playing on the TV is doing. What LBP is doing with vita is not unique. It follows the long history of Nintendo showing off a new game idea and then sometime later Sony showing off what is basically the exact same idea repackaged.

People don't need to own DLC to play a level built using the DLC. The reason community creators tend not to build levels which require the Vita or the Move is that relatively few members of the LBP community own those bits of hardware (law of bottlenecks). Much of what LBP did with the Vita has no analogue in Nintendoland. The vita as a scanner thing does but not the Vita as the controller/screen for a spaceship while players looking at the tv screen try to make their way through the interior of the ship, hitting checkpoints which boost the ship, so the pilot has incentive to try to make sure he doesn't move the ship around more than needed to dodge fire. It's bizarre that 6 dollar dlc goes further than a 60 dollar game.

Well ok Nintendoland doesn't have that exact gameplay scenario but the point is the idea of using a second screen to interact with the TV screen is the same and it came from Nintendo first (the wii u can do everything that LBP2 level does) Would there even be a Vita being used as a second screen if the wii u wasnt announced? Also only one game using that kind of tech, seemed like an extremely rushed idea just to show that they could do the same thing. I edited my last post to say that I do agree that I think sony can use this tech in more ways that Nintendo, they can cover way more genres. But Sony goes in half assed too much of the time. Unless this is a universal control method for all users of the console it can never take off, it's as simple as that.
Avatar image for GodModeEnabled
#140 Posted by GodModeEnabled (15314 posts) -
New 3D Mario I bet will be ready for this year. Next smash early net year. New Metroid probably summer next year. Mario kart probably this year. And who knows what else they have waiting maybe new star fox? Paper Mario? Basically next year should be awesome. The year after that not so much.dvader654
Is this what you want though? The same games over and over again? How do these even hold your interest so many generations in a row?
Avatar image for dvader654
#142 Posted by dvader654 (44751 posts) -
[QUOTE="dvader654"]New 3D Mario I bet will be ready for this year. Next smash early net year. New Metroid probably summer next year. Mario kart probably this year. And who knows what else they have waiting maybe new star fox? Paper Mario? Basically next year should be awesome. The year after that not so much.GodModeEnabled
Is this what you want though? The same games over and over again? How do these even hold your interest so many generations in a row?

But AC15, GTA 5, CoD20, battlefield 5 are all ok? And yes I want a new Mario game that will probably be one of the greatest games ever made like galaxy is. Yes I want a new Metroid that hopefully is a masterpiece like the prime games. Yes I want a new Zelda as they are all classics. Yes GME I want the very best games and nintendoi time and time again makes them.
Avatar image for GhettoBlastin92
#143 Posted by GhettoBlastin92 (1231 posts) -
I think it is time for me to pick up another 3DS.
Avatar image for ZhugeL1ang
#144 Posted by ZhugeL1ang (115 posts) -

 

Nintendo hasn't been serious about consoles in years and I don't see how anyone could think differently. Remember Operation Rainfall? Nintendo had a handful of perfectly good games which they couldn't be bothered to bring over. Providing a mouthful of water to thirsting core gamers wasn't in Nintendo's interest, getting them to abandon their Wiis and buy 3DSs was (after a massive campaign Nintendo begrudgingly offered a limited release of the games in question, but they clearly weren't enthused about it or hoping to make money off it).

Nintendo doesn't break down profits by division, but its my pet theory the handheld space has been a bigger earner for Nintendo than the console space since the latter days of the N64. Since the N64, Nintendo consoles not named the Wii have sold like crap and all of them (even the Wii) received very patchy support. Nintendo killed the Gamecube and funnelled all of its fans towards the DS when the PSP hit. They replicated that strategy with the 3DS, even though that meant killing off a console which had sold damn near 100 million units (yes, since 2010 they have offered a tiny handful of core games on the Wii, but they completely abandoned casuals, who then went towards smartphones and the Kinect).

I think its endlessly amusing that Nintendo fans who swear bitter vengeance against third parties who merely delay games for a couple months accept worse treatment from Nintendo with a smile. 'Nintendo's decided to release Luigi's Mansion 2 on a popular handheld as opposed to a struggling console? That's super! Ubisoft has pushed back Rayman on console a few months because they want to let the installed base grow a bit larger? That sort of greed is why I hate third parties and only buy Nintendo games!'

CarnageHeart

 

I'd agree with you on the handhelds. For companies that are risk averse, I can see why handheld platforms would seem like a more attractive option as the development costs are reduced significantly. If it's one thing that has been a license to print money for Ninty, it's their handhelds. I suppose you're right about Ninty's view of console gaming nowadays. It sure would explain their laughable attitude towards online gaming. But their wounds are self-inflicted on that accord. The reliance on unconventional control schemes leaves little wonder as to why their consoles become a dumping ground for third party shovelware while hiding behind their own IPs.

Nintendo is a publicly traded company, so far be it from them to deviate from the tried and true formula which you brought up. But I think the WiiU changed all that to some extent. I don't claim to be some marketing genius, but the WiiU is simply a failure that cannot be ignored which is why the lack of urgency on Nintendo's part is baffling. They're going to need to salvage this somehow, but perhaps their balance sheets tell a story that we don't know. Maybe they really can afford to just wait it out until their heavy hitting IP's launch and their faithful will gleefully respond and open their wallets, even for a heavily flawed product. As was the case with the Wii, Ninty doesn't lose money on hardware iirc. This may be the case with the WiiU.

Avatar image for dvader654
#145 Posted by dvader654 (44751 posts) -

[QUOTE="dvader654"]p>Basically all you want is Nintendo to NOT BE Nintendo. Just make the games the other companies are making? They should make their own GT clone? Their own GTA clone? Their own Uncharted clone? Just do what others do. I get that from THEM, I don't need Nintendo to make games they are not good at. What Nintendo should do is continue to make the best platformers in the world. Make some of the best action adventure games. Make some of the funniest, pure fun RPGs. Make the best party multiplayer games.JustPlainLucas
Who says Nintendo has to give up any of that? Why can't Nintendo make games the other companies are making, yet still make the best platforms, action adventure games, RPGs and party games in the business? Maybe they should make their own GTAs and Uncharteds as well, and if Nintendo's such a great fu cking company that everybody believes they are, then maybe they can show them how it's done. Unless... you just don't have any faith in them...

If they want to make it fine, but in their entire history they never have so it wouldnt surprise me if they don't. I am speaking of Nintendo the developer, I am sure they can go out and buy someone to make those games but that isnt the same. 

What I am saying is why would I ever expect those games from Nintendo. Do you think I watch a Nintendo E3 and say "damn it they aren't making a GTA clone! thats what I wanted." No. Its not even a thought that crosses my mind. Thats like wondering why Valve doesn't make a fighting game? Why doesn't Maxis make  an action game? Why doesn't Naughty Dog make a puzzle game? Why doesn't Rockstar make a sports game?

So no it doesn't bother me in the slightlest that Nintendo sticks to making what they excel at making. 

Avatar image for DJ-Lafleur
#146 Posted by DJ-Lafleur (35302 posts) -

[QUOTE="dvader654"]New 3D Mario I bet will be ready for this year. Next smash early net year. New Metroid probably summer next year. Mario kart probably this year. And who knows what else they have waiting maybe new star fox? Paper Mario? Basically next year should be awesome. The year after that not so much.GodModeEnabled
Is this what you want though? The same games over and over again? How do these even hold your interest so many generations in a row?

It is hard to explain, but if I really like something, more and more exposure to it isn't going to taint my enjoyment of it. I like eating steak, and thus anytime I eat get a steak I will look forward to it's taste, no matter how many times I've eaten it before in my life. same thing with video games. I like Zelda, so I'm going to look forward to the experience of going through brand new dungeons each time. gaming is different of course in that it is much more of an investment, time and money-wise, so for gaming I do expect some form of changes between titles. Nothing groundbreaking or revolutionary, but SOME kind of changes. generally Nintendo is pretty good about making their franchises feel very familiar and similar to eachother, but still adding some changes so that the titles don't start feeling redundant.

The only exception to this I can think of at the moment is the New Super Mario Bros series. 4 games in (I've only played 3 of them) and I am already exhausted and sick of the series. Whereas I've played pretty much every relevant Zelda title and still crave more.

Avatar image for dvader654
#147 Posted by dvader654 (44751 posts) -

[QUOTE="dvader654"]

[QUOTE="S0lidSnake"]

You dont seem to get it. Yes, we do have publishers who milk certain franchises, yet these same publisher who is going to put out the 5th straight AC game this year is also going to take a chance and create new IPs like Watch Dogs. EA has the battlefield franchise, but they also made Mirror's Edge, Dead Space, Mass Effect, Army of Two. Sony greenlit KZ2, Socom 4, Ratchet, Twisted Metal and GT5, but they also spent hundreds of millions of dollars builing new IPs like Uncahrted, Infamous, Resistance, Motorstorm, The Last of Us, MAG and Heavy Rain. What has Nintendo done? Or a better question is what are they doing? All I see are a sea of sequels. What kind of a studio cant make a proper arcade racer with real cars or a great RPG like Mass Effect or an open world superhero game like Infamous? A sh*tty one. 

GodModeEnabled

Nintendo made Wii Sports, Wii Fit, Endless Ocean, Xenoblade, Last Story, Pandora's Tower, Disasater, Pushmo, Elite Beat Agents, Steel Diver to name a few new franchises. What do they all have in common, not as good as what Nintendo is best at. (though some of those games are gems)

Basically all you want is Nintendo to NOT BE Nintendo. Just make the games the other companies are making? They should make their own GT clone? Their own GTA clone? Their own Uncharted clone? Just do what others do. I get that from THEM, I don't need Nintendo to make games they are not good at. What Nintendo should do is continue to make the best platformers in the world. Make some of the best action adventure games. Make some of the funniest, pure fun RPGs. Make the best party multiplayer games.

And if those games have new names on the cover nice, if it has an old name so be it but it won't change the level of quality of the game inside.

Basically then you think Nintendo is more sh!tty than anyone else here then. If you don't think they CAN create new, great IPs in different genres, with different characters and storys? All you seem to think is all they can do is their core franchises and f*ck it let everyone else be creative. I would like to see a new RPG by Nintendo that didn't involve a single one of their overused characters. F*ck it make it a JRPG too, they should be able to make a good one. How about a platformer that isn't Mario, or an action/adventure game that isn't Zelda? I mean they can make some great games, lets see them FFS. Milking the same franchises over and over is getting pathetic. No other company could get away with this.

Whats the difference if it has Mario or not. That is the crazy thing here, you guys care more about a name on a cover, a character model than you do the actual game. Its ridiculous.  If the Mario games are very different from each other, they bring new ideas, who cares that its still Mario. What would it matter if its Mario or some other dumb looking mascot character. 

ALL companies get away with the exact same thing. Bethesda makes the same exact game over and over again, all they do one kind of game, AMAZING COMPANY YAY! Yes they deserve praise cause those games are absolutely amazing, make 100 of them for all I care. Irrational Games, I bet their next game is going to be like Bioshock, GOOD. You all want Kojima to make a non MGS game, so what, we get something like ZoE, no thanks. Give me MGS as I am pretty sure I am going to like MGS5 more than Watch Dogs, Destiny and all these other "original" games that probably play exactly like a ton of games I have played already.

Nintendo covers more genres than most companies even attempt, yeah they use their characters to populate those games, not their problem that their brand is so strong that it helps them make money. But they dont use those characters and call it a day, the games speak for themselves. The double standard you guys have for Nintendo is crazy. Any other company does this and you ignore it, Nintendo does it OMG HOW DARE THEY MAKE GAMES THEY KNOW HOW TO MAKE!!! Next time there is a thread on Bioware I am going to run in and be like "HOW DARE THEY MAKE AN RPG!! How could you people want another Bioware RPG!!! " see how you guys like it. Would I like them to try something new, sure if it can be assured it will be as good as Mario and Zelda. If they don't does it matter, not as long as I get a Mario and Zelda that are up to the highest standards.

I do not care what the name is, what number is on the cover, what character I play, ALL that matters is the game. If the game is what I want, if it is what I like, then I am happy. Whether it be new, old, a part 1 or a part 100.

Avatar image for DJ-Lafleur
#148 Posted by DJ-Lafleur (35302 posts) -

[QUOTE="DJ-Lafleur"]

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]

Modern Nintendo is incredibly conservative and risk adverse in part because the majority of their core fans are very, very franchise loyal. What little creativity is permitted is filtered through the lens of a single middle aged Japanese man. Miyamoto is a wonderful designer, but forcing all creative products to conform to a single vision means that genuinely creative people are driven away. The sorts of people who take up jobs at Nintendo are probably the digital equivalent of assembly line workers, because Nintendo permits nothing else. If some 20 year old has a vision of an original game, Nintendo is unlikely to countenance it, unless it falls within the small spectrum of games Miyamoto is comfortable with Nintendo will not permit it.

http://www.ign.com/articles/2008/03/28/ign-presents-the-history-of-grand-theft-auto

Body Harvest, DMA's first 3D effort, and it did things a little differently from those other Nintendo games. You played an armed and armored soldier in a free-roaming mission to save humanity from hungry alien carnivores, able to jump into any vehicle you found. Less fortunate humans, whether they fell to invaders, careless driving or over-aggressive marksmanship, died screaming in a haze of 64-bit blood.

It didn't get a pass from Nintendo EAD lead Shigeru Miyamoto. Mario's creator wanted more puzzles, less gore.

Jones' opinion differed. The aggressively over-the-top gameplay and open-world environments fit like personally tailored brass knuckles. It needed more, not different. Body Harvest fell off Nintendo's schedule (to be picked up years later by Midway), but DMA was already moving on a newer, better project.

What is fascinating is that Nintendo once upon a time was a good deal more ambitious. Nowadays modern Nintendo (and its fans) look with a disapproving eye upon most genres and dismissively say 'Nintendo doesn't do that' but in the past Nintendo was happy to make sports sims, MKesque fighters, urban brawlers, survival horror games, and first person shooters and they didn't feel a need to hide behind Mario/Zelda/Metroid when doing so. While you couldn't torture most of what remains of Nintendo's fanbase into admitting it, Nintendo is a company that has gotten more Japanese and conservative as the industry has gotten more Western and freewheeling.

CarnageHeart

I disagree that Nintendo doesn't take risks. The Wii was definitely a risk, as it was the first console ever to have motion controls as its primary control scheme. Moving away from the standard control scheme that all gamers got used to was definitely incredibly risky. Metroid Other M was also an incredibly risky game to make, since it was not only doing something different for a Metroid game, but also something differnet for any game, with the whole attempt at switching from third person to first person view. Say what you will about the gameplay or story, but that game was not by any means "playing it safe." hell, Them putting money into Bayonetta 2 probably has some risk in it as well, considering that the original Bayonetta, I beleive, didn't seel THAT well, atleast not compared to many bigger franchises. This is also pretty different for Nintendo considering that Bayonetta 2 isn't exactly like any other game Nintendo would make or support.

While Nintendo relies and depends on mario, Zelda, and Pokemon for easy $$$, they do still take risks sometimes.

Shipping underpowered hardware that resulted in less precise controls in many genres was no risk for Nintendo because people who considered Mario/Zelda/Metroid must buy franchises were going to show up no matter what.

Hiding behind franchises doesn't eliminate risk, but it minimizes it. It also minimizes potential gains (some people will show up just because a game is part of X franchise, but other will steer clear for the same reason).

Picking up Bayonetta 2 doesn't even rise to the level of risk, its just a stupid move doomed to failure. Risk implies an element of uncertainty and Bayonetta was a commercial failure on the PS3 and X360, whose fanbases are much broader minded and bigger than the Wii U's. Bayonetta 2 is in the same boat as Xenoblade and Spirit Camera, an old, now unpopular IP Nintendo picked up cheap because of said unpopularity.

Being commercially unsuccessful doesn't make a game bad (or vice versa), but it makes sequels a bad idea. There's a reason Demon's Souls is called Demon's Souls and not King's Field 5. But for Nintendo hiding behind franchise is a habit so ingrained they do it even when it does them no good.

A risk implies there is a chance of loss.  Motion controls certainly did have a chance of loss attached to them, in that the motion controls may have alienated some gamers and could have made Nintendo lose some customers. Going with motion controls was a drastically different way of making hardware than the standard way (AKA improving graophics), and was a control method that all gamers weren't really accustomed to, unless they were hardcore fans of the Eyetoy games or something. So Nintendo going with something unexoplored like motion-controlled gaming DID have risk to it. perhaps the chance of loss could have been covered by the success of Mario and Zelda, but that doesn't negate the fact that there was loss beforehand, and thus does not negate the risky nature of motion controls.

Also, Metroid isn't even really THAT huge an IP. Not compared to Mario, Zelda, or Pokemon atleast. the numbers it gets aren't bad compared to that of other games, sure, though it isn't on the level of Mario, Zelda, or Pokemon. It just seems weird to put metroid in the same sentence as mario and Zelda when talking about their success. mario/Zelda/Pokemon would be more fitting, a minor detail though.

Avatar image for S0lidSnake
#149 Posted by S0lidSnake (29001 posts) -

I am talking more bigger picture, actual physical changes to gaming. The last real jump we had was from 2D to 3D gameplay. Everything since then has been refinment of that. While new graphics are fantastic and advancement in online is huge something major needs to change things up. While I was hoping motion control would do that it seems it needs more time in the oven but at least an attempt was made to shake things up. What I played on the wii I never experienced in my life, yeah some of those games were stupid but they were actual new experiences. Everything else has been new ideas within the same controls we have been using for 17 years now. Don't get me wrong I am totally happy with new games coming out but I long for those days when we truly felt we were playing something totally new, like on a new frontier of gaming and I have not felt that since the days we could finally move a character in 3D space. dvader654

You place way too much importance on input. A new experience is a new experience regardless of whether or not it's using the same controls. Anyone who is not a Zelda/Metroid/Mario fan got nothing else from Nintendo last gen and it looks like a repeat this gen. 

Avatar image for S0lidSnake
#150 Posted by S0lidSnake (29001 posts) -

[QUOTE="GodModeEnabled"][QUOTE="dvader654"]New 3D Mario I bet will be ready for this year. Next smash early net year. New Metroid probably summer next year. Mario kart probably this year. And who knows what else they have waiting maybe new star fox? Paper Mario? Basically next year should be awesome. The year after that not so much.dvader654
Is this what you want though? The same games over and over again? How do these even hold your interest so many generations in a row?

But AC15, GTA 5, CoD20, battlefield 5 are all ok? And yes I want a new Mario game that will probably be one of the greatest games ever made like galaxy is. Yes I want a new Metroid that hopefully is a masterpiece like the prime games. Yes I want a new Zelda as they are all classics. Yes GME I want the very best games and nintendoi time and time again makes them.

You dont seem to get it. Yes, we do have publishers who milk certain franchises, yet these same publisher who is going to put out the 5th straight AC game this year is also going to take a chance and create new IPs like Watch Dogs. EA has the battlefield franchise, but they also made Mirror's Edge, Dead Space, Mass Effect, Army of Two. Sony greenlit KZ2, Socom 4, Ratchet, Twisted Metal and GT5, but they also spent hundreds of millions of dollars builing new IPs like Uncahrted, Infamous, Resistance, Motorstorm, The Last of Us, MAG and Heavy Rain. What has Nintendo done? Or a better question is what are they doing? All I see are a sea of sequels. What kind of a studio cant make a proper arcade racer with real cars or a great RPG like Mass Effect or an open world superhero game like Infamous? A sh*tty one.