Jag85's forum posts

Avatar image for Jag85
#1 Edited by Jag85 (13627 posts) -

Why bump such an old thread?

Avatar image for Jag85
#3 Edited by Jag85 (13627 posts) -

If we compare which had the better library in their first two years, it was definitely the Dreamcast.

But overall, the PS2 eventually surpassed the Dreamcast, as it was on the market for longer.

Avatar image for Jag85
#4 Posted by Jag85 (13627 posts) -

@2Chalupas: They kind of already did remake the first Silent Hill with Shattered Memories, though it's more of a reimagining. That was the only good outsourced Silent Hill. The rest sucked.

Avatar image for Jag85
#5 Posted by Jag85 (13627 posts) -

Almost every visual novel, by default.

Avatar image for Jag85
#6 Posted by Jag85 (13627 posts) -

@warmblur: Most of the Silent Hills after the original PS1 and PS2 games have sucked. The lack of Team Silent killed the franchise. And the Western outsourcing made it worse. Kojima was the last great hope of reviving the franchise. But with neither Team Silent or Kojima, there's little hope left for Silent Hill.

Avatar image for Jag85
#7 Posted by Jag85 (13627 posts) -

Final Fantasy VII. It's what got me into RPGs, and remains the most memorable RPG experience.

Avatar image for Jag85
#8 Edited by Jag85 (13627 posts) -

@mrbojangles25 said:

Regular RPG's are alive, evolving, diverse, and often fun.

"Regular RPGs" are stagnant and homogeneous, with boring gameplay.

Avatar image for Jag85
#9 Posted by Jag85 (13627 posts) -
@MirkoS77 said:

@Jag85:

Not true. That's not how the development process went down. There was no physics concept when they first began working on the BOTW project. The original concept was to make an open-world Zelda that offered a similar level of freedom as the original Zelda on the NES, an idea which they previously explored to some extent with A Link Between Worlds on the 3DS. They then designed a 2D prototype for a new Zelda, which looked just like the NES Zelda, and started experimenting with it. And while experimenting, at some point they decided to add physics-based puzzles. And then further expanded the physics possibilities within the 2D prototype, before eventually creating a 3D version and taking it further, leading to BOTW.

In other words, they never began BOTW with the goal of creating a physics-based game. It's the other way around. They started with an open-world formula similar to the original Zelda, expanded and experimented with it, and then eventually made a breakthrough with the physics. In other words, your criticism is not applicable to BOTW.

The entire reason they created a prototype before they even began production was not because they were creating the world of Hyrule. That they were able to even place the prototype in an already existing franchise to help experiment in its creation and evolution proves my point that they begin with the gameplay idea first. There may not have been a physics concept, but there was a concept. From Miyamoto:

"Whenever I start working on something I always start with creating new gameplay. After that gameplay becomes more concrete, we look at which character is best suited to the gameplay".

Aside, using Zelda as an example against my point is a bit disingenuous, as that's an already established property that's beholden to particular design tenets, but even then, that doesn't mean the gameplay concept didn't take precedence over the context in which it would eventually be placed.

Like I said, the basic concept behind BOTW was a throwback to the free-form exploration of the original NES Zelda. The basic concept behind BOTW was a back-to-basics approach. The world of Hyrule in BOTW was essentially a re-imagining of the first Hyrule from the original NES game. There was no clear gameplay mechanic when they first began the BOTW project, other than that it was going to be an open-world game similar to the original NES Zelda. And then the physics and mechanics developed along the way.

As for Miyamoto, he wasn't really involved much in the development of BOTW. While that may very well be Miyamoto's approach to game design, that's not an approach shared by all Nintendo dev teams. For every Splatoon or ARMS that sticks to the Miyamoto game development path, there's going to be a BOTW or Xenoblade that follows a different game development path.

I'd be willing to grant more to this point if we didn't have companies like Disney, one that has taken steps throughout the years to vastly broaden their catalog by not only creating new properties, but also one that has taken huge initiative to acquire new studios to assist in this endevour. They are the ones I consider who are running a business dependent on franchises competently and aggressively (love them or hate them for it). Nintendo's done this to an extent, but considering how much bank they have, they could be doing a lot more.

And yet Disney's core demographic is still the same as it's always been: children. Which also happens to be Nintendo's core demographic. The reason is because merchandise is what generates the most money, and children are the most lucrative audience for merchandise.

Also, Disney has barely been creating new IPs lately. All they've been doing is just buying-out other studios and acquiring their IPs. That's not exactly creating new IPs. If Nintendo had as much cash as Disney, they'd also be buying-out a bunch of studios and IPs.

I'm not speaking strictly on mechanical depth, but of systemic gameplay that is cumulative; systems that take player investment to build upon and evolve through time, such as skills and item procurement (Zelda), world exploration (Mario), and character development (Witcher). Arcade experiences, by their fleeting design, do not allow for this.

Okay, so you mean exploration, story, and RPG elements... which I'm not really a fan of. Story and RPG elements these days have become excuses to justify shallow gameplay mechanics. Which is one reason why I prefer arcade-style games, because their focus lies on the deep gameplay mechanics (and also because I don't really have much time for long-ass RPGs and action-adventures anymore).

Avatar image for Jag85
#10 Edited by Jag85 (13627 posts) -
@MirkoS77 said:

@Jag85:

@MirkoS77: Physics is not a mechanic. BOTW wasn't designed around a mechanic, but was designed to be a throwback to the open-world formula of the original Zelda, and then the mechanics were developed along the way. In other words, your criticism does not apply to BOTW.

Physics encompass mechanics. The core of BotW's gameplay is designed around elemental, physical property-based game logic in combined systemic synergy to afford a large degree of emergent player possibilities.

BotW was built around this rule set from the get-go. BotW's design didn't prioritize its open world roots and then Nintendo brought physics into the picture in secondary consideration to that structure, Nintendo began with physics (the inception of which I suspect more than likely arose with no particular IP in mind), and then leveraged the open-world formula as it was most conducive to elemental interplay. My criticism is fully applicable.

Not true. That's not how the development process went down. There was no physics concept when they first began working on the BOTW project. The original concept was to make an open-world Zelda that offered a similar level of freedom as the original Zelda on the NES, an idea which they previously explored to some extent with A Link Between Worlds on the 3DS. They then designed a 2D prototype for a new Zelda, which looked just like the NES Zelda, and started experimenting with it. And while experimenting, at some point they decided to add physics-based puzzles. And then further expanded the physics possibilities within the 2D prototype, before eventually creating a 3D version and taking it further, leading to BOTW.

In other words, they never began BOTW with the goal of creating a physics-based game. It's the other way around. They started with an open-world formula similar to the original Zelda, expanded and experimented with it, and then eventually made a breakthrough with the physics. In other words, your criticism is not applicable to BOTW.

They could've taken the innovation that underpins BotW's brilliance and created an entirely new property. They don't. Why? Because they're either lazy, or afraid. They don't want to create new assets, or are terrified it's not going to sell a gazillion copies because it's a new IP.

It's neither laziness nor fear. The reason is simple: business. Or more specifically: franchises sell. Most media industries are dominated by franchises, for better or for worse. Nintendo's business model is, likewise, also heavily franchise-driven. And it makes sense, because Nintendo has some of the world's biggest media franchises under its belt. In fact, Pokemon is the biggest media franchise on the planet, and Mario is also one of the top ten biggest media franchises. When Nintendo has huge lucrative franchises like these, it makes no sense to throw it away for the sake of new IPs, when they can just fit their new gameplay concepts into existing IPs. This not only drives game sales, but also drive merchandise sales, which is where the real money at.

On the other hand, Sony is very much the opposite. They come up with new IPs, yet don't come up with new gameplay concepts, instead recycling the same gameplay concepts in new IP packages. Which also makes sense for Sony's business model. Unlike Nintendo's huge franchises, Sony doesn't have any established game franchises that are anywhere near as huge as Nintendo's franchises. And Sony's game franchises don't sell much merchandise either. So instead, they're relying on the "Sony" brand itself, and the third-person cinematic action-adventure formula heavily associated with that brand. This allows Sony to create new IPs, as it's the "Sony" brand that's selling them, but it also means they have to stick to the same third-person cinematic action-adventure formula, as that's what the "Sony" brand is heavily associated with.

Arcade experiences are not be given the same credit as the likes of Mario or Zelda. They are fun and fresh, but shallow and forgettable.

Not true. The average arcade-style game typically has more mechanical gameplay depth than the average "AAA" game. For example, arcade-style games like Devil May Cry, Bayonetta, Ninja Gaiden, Street Fighter, etc. easily beat the crap out of "AAA" games like GTA, Witcher, GOW, etc. when it comes to mechanical gameplay depth.