I'd love to see a Zelda game with the technology of the 360 and PS3 behind it. Keep the core gameplay, but take advantage of the graphical improvements to really expand the world. It could be a beautiful experience.
Who would like to see a Zelda game for the PS3/360?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
I don't own a Wii (though i'd like one), but I believe the Zelda series should stick with Nintendo. I hate how a fan base supports a system because of their game lineup, just to have the developers jump ship.
I don't own a Wii (though i'd like one), but I believe the Zelda series should stick with Nintendo. I hate how a fan base supports a system because of their game lineup, just to have the developers jump ship.
Twin-Blade
Sadly, that's been a problem since the N64 days. If it wasn't for Nintendo's own studios, who knows where they would be right now.
I would, but not with th companies behind it. (they could relly screw it up).
sigh... Wait for next gen, and we MIGHT get something like that. MIGHT. Knowing Nintendo, they might not even go HD next gen... I would like somebody to prove me wrong.
Sorry, but unless Nintendo decides to release Zelda on other consoles, I just don't see it happening. Zelda, I believe, will always remain exclusive to Nintendo only and I would like it that way. I don't EVER want another Zelda to be appearing on another system, like the CD-I. "God" that was horrible!
I haven't had a Nintendo system in a long time and want to catch up with the Zelda and Metroid series. Either going to go back and buy them, or wish that PS3 or 360 would put out a set of all of them together.btaylor2404
Yeah, there aren't going to be any Zelda games or Metroid games on a non-Nintendo console, unless Nintendo one day drops out of the console race.
The only exception to this was the CD-i Zelda games back in the day, but we all know how that turned out. >_>
I'd love to see a Zelda game with the technology of the 360 and PS3 behind it. Keep the core gameplay, but take advantage of the graphical improvements to really expand the world. It could be a beautiful experience.Skullcraft
That would be awesome. Utilizing an environmental style like Uncharted or something could make it amazing.
Yes and no. Yes because the Zelda series "needs" a more powerful platform to fully realize the possibilities of the kind of world it explores... and no because it will obviously never happen, unless Nintendo goes bankrupt and ends up like SEGA, producing third-party games for all the platforms.
I personally think Nintendo would do a lot better producing input hardware and games than actual gaming hardware. And would prefer them to focus on games, since that is what they have always been best at.
If the Wii hadn't sold so well, we may have seen Nintendo become a software only company like Sega became. It would have made for 3 consecutive consoles that didn't sell well and would have almost certainly made Nintendo give up on consoles. Oh well, maybe in another 3 or 4 generations...
Maybe, but I like Zelda on the Wii best
Why even waste time making a thread like this when we all know that it won't happen? :|
MadVybz
haha totaly agree
Why even waste time making a thread like this when we all know that it won't happen? :|MadVybzShould we give up on our dreams even though they will never happen?
[QUOTE="MadVybz"]Why even waste time making a thread like this when we all know that it won't happen? :|muthsera666Should we give up on our dreams even though they will never happen? What's the point of dreaming about something that will never happen? Having Zelda on another system again will be impossible. Nintendo thought it would be a great idea to see Zelda and Link in different games on the CD-I and look how disastrous those two games turned out to be. Why wish for something that may end up becoming an atrocity once again?
[QUOTE="MadVybz"]Why even waste time making a thread like this when we all know that it won't happen? :|muthsera666Should we give up on our dreams even though they will never happen?
Yes. If your dream isn't realistic, you may as well just stop kidding yourself.
I may sound blunt, but it's just the truth.
[QUOTE="muthsera666"][QUOTE="MadVybz"]Why even waste time making a thread like this when we all know that it won't happen? :|MadVybzShould we give up on our dreams even though they will never happen?
Yes. If your dream isn't realistic, you may as well just stop kidding yourself.
I may sound blunt, but it's just the truth.
I dream of winning the lottery as well as having an amazing job, but that doesn't mean that I let those dreams interfere with my life. I know they wont happen, but it's still nice to have the illusion of possibility.you could always try darksiders in the mean time. it borrows alot of elements from zelda.
[QUOTE="muthsera666"][QUOTE="MadVybz"]Why even waste time making a thread like this when we all know that it won't happen? :|MetamaniaShould we give up on our dreams even though they will never happen? What's the point of dreaming about something that will never happen? Having Zelda on another system again will be impossible. Nintendo thought it would be a great idea to see Zelda and Link in different games on the CD-I and look how disastrous those two games turned out to be. Why wish for something that may end up becoming an atrocity once again? I don't think we can really say that it will never happen, though it's very doubtful. Look at Sega when it was roaring with the Genisis, and now. Most everyone readily admits Nintendo makes much better games than consoles, so like someone above said, were it not for the Wii's success I think Nintendo would be getting out of the console wars soon.
[QUOTE="btaylor2404"][QUOTE="Metamania"] What's the point of dreaming about something that will never happen? Having Zelda on another system again will be impossible. Nintendo thought it would be a great idea to see Zelda and Link in different games on the CD-I and look how disastrous those two games turned out to be. Why wish for something that may end up becoming an atrocity once again? Oilers99I don't think we can really say that it will never happen, though it's very doubtful. Look at Sega when it was roaring with the Genisis, and now. Most everyone readily admits Nintendo makes much better games than consoles, so like someone above said, were it not for the Wii's success I think Nintendo would be getting out of the console wars soon. True, but the same might be said for any company if they continually fall short. Do you think Sony will continue to release consoles if they continue to lose marketshare during the next console or two? Considering that launching a console is, I would estimate, a multi-billion dollar proposition, I doubt it. I do wonder if the market is really meant to support both the 360 and PS3; they seem to target the same market, and have little to differentiate the two other than what deals Sony and Microsoft have been able to make (ala the 360 deal on Grand Theft Auto IV content) or by producing their own games. As maligned as the Wii has been, at least it's a fundamentally different console with a library that is selling for completely different reasons. The PS3 and 360 both become harder to justify if you own the other. One of those companies has to either go in a different direction, or step out long-term, IMO.
Not really. I think these 3 companies and their products are unique. Sony & MS have massive amounts invested in their consoles, yes, but had many other primary revenue streams. But not so, as much, with Nintendo. When one thinks of Sony you can think of music, movies, electronics. MS, the PC, Windows, IE, but Nintendo=video games. I don't know enough about Nintendo's finances to know if they could have survived the Wii being a disaster, but to the TC's point, had it happened MS, Sony, or both would have jumped at the chance to have Nintendo's library.
That being said I agree that the 360/PS3 are near similar machines targeting the same people. But we must have at least two good console manufactures, or we will end up with one crappy one on down the line. As long as Sony & MS are fighting for the same customers (and they probably will for many years) we will continue to reap the benefits of competition. And I'm fairly certain Nintendo will be right along there with them.
True, but the same might be said for any company if they continually fall short. Do you think Sony will continue to release consoles if they continue to lose marketshare during the next console or two? Considering that launching a console is, I would estimate, a multi-billion dollar proposition, I doubt it. I do wonder if the market is really meant to support both the 360 and PS3; they seem to target the same market, and have little to differentiate the two other than what deals Sony and Microsoft have been able to make (ala the 360 deal on Grand Theft Auto IV content) or by producing their own games. As maligned as the Wii has been, at least it's a fundamentally different console with a library that is selling for completely different reasons. The PS3 and 360 both become harder to justify if you own the other. One of those companies has to either go in a different direction, or step out long-term, IMO.[QUOTE="Oilers99"][QUOTE="btaylor2404"] I don't think we can really say that it will never happen, though it's very doubtful. Look at Sega when it was roaring with the Genisis, and now. Most everyone readily admits Nintendo makes much better games than consoles, so like someone above said, were it not for the Wii's success I think Nintendo would be getting out of the console wars soon.btaylor2404
Not really. I think these 3 companies and their products are unique. Sony & MS have massive amounts invested in their consoles, yes, but had many other primary revenue streams. But not so, as much, with Nintendo. When one thinks of Sony you can think of music, movies, electronics. MS, the PC, Windows, IE, but Nintendo=video games. I don't know enough about Nintendo's finances to know if they could have survived the Wii being a disaster, but to the TC's point, had it happened MS, Sony, or both would have jumped at the chance to have Nintendo's library.
That being said I agree that the 360/PS3 are near similar machines targeting the same people. But we must have at least two good console manufactures, or we will end up with one crappy one on down the line. As long as Sony & MS are fighting for the same customers (and they probably will for many years) we will continue to reap the benefits of competition. And I'm fairly certain Nintendo will be right along there with them.
Nintendo has billions of dollars in the bank and no debt. They can survive a console losing them money. Theoretically, they could survive a few of them. But I think they made money off of every system they've launched so far, save the Virtua Boy, though I'm not sure. (They may have lost money on the Gamecube but ultimately been profitable due to game sales on that platform.) The point is that no company stays in something that is not generating them money if they don't see it turning around for them. The same rules apply to Microsoft and Sony; Sony especially, since in the not to distant past, the profitability of their games division was expected to carry losses in other divisions... that's no longer feasible, regardless of whether or not the system itself is profitable at this point, I'm not sure they've found a return on their investment. I'm not arguing against competition, I'm arguing against redundancy. I think it's become progressively better as this generation has gone on, as each company has tried to come up with things to differentiate one console from the other; PlayStation Home, Microsoft's Natal, the difference in their download services... but those differentiations can only go so far when they're locked into the same original hardware vision for their console. I'd like to see them differentiate from each other further next generation to broaden the spectrum of gaming more than it is now. I'm a little disappointed that the Wii has not gotten as much attention as I would have liked to see through its particular quirks to fulfillment via software support, but I certainly understand why it happened; Nintendo made a few miscalculations. Yet it does show that there are some unexplored avenues when it comes to how we can interact with games. I'd just like to see Microsoft and Sony chase after different markets, and implement different strategies to target them, because it will result in a wider range of ways to play games.[QUOTE="MadVybz"]
Why even waste time making a thread like this when we all know that it won't happen? :|
haha totaly agree
Why's this so hard to understand? Either of you ever heard of a hypothetical scenario? They're usually discussed a lot in forums, such as... this one. If you think threads like these are a waste of time, why bother clicking on the thread in the first place?:? To answer the OP, no I wouldn't like to see Zelda on any other console, because quite frankly, Nintendo needs every good game it can get. I would love to see a Zelda game with next-gen graphics, though.So you want the same old N64 gameplay, but with HD visuals. Why? I am a massive RE4 fan, but I don't think RE5 (which is pretty much RE4 HD with more stuff onscreen, a co-op partner and bigger environments) was nearly as compelling as Dead Space, a game which was built from the ground up for current gen systems and offered new stuff like enemies that had to be strategically dismembered and zero-g segments.
*Sighs* If HD visuals and the same old gameplay/game design are all you want, just wait long enough and Nintendo will make your tamest fantasies come true.
Or... it could just be because RE5 was just inferior because they made it more action orientated, forced you to play online because Sheva was completely inept when controlled by the AI, and ruined every bit of atmospheric tension by placing the setting in daylight? And um.. you bring up "same old gameplay/game design", yet you said RE5 wasn't as compelling as Dead Space, because they tried something new.... To be honest, you lost me. :?[QUOTE="btaylor2404"][QUOTE="Oilers99"] True, but the same might be said for any company if they continually fall short. Do you think Sony will continue to release consoles if they continue to lose marketshare during the next console or two? Considering that launching a console is, I would estimate, a multi-billion dollar proposition, I doubt it. I do wonder if the market is really meant to support both the 360 and PS3; they seem to target the same market, and have little to differentiate the two other than what deals Sony and Microsoft have been able to make (ala the 360 deal on Grand Theft Auto IV content) or by producing their own games. As maligned as the Wii has been, at least it's a fundamentally different console with a library that is selling for completely different reasons. The PS3 and 360 both become harder to justify if you own the other. One of those companies has to either go in a different direction, or step out long-term, IMO.Oilers99
Not really. I think these 3 companies and their products are unique. Sony & MS have massive amounts invested in their consoles, yes, but had many other primary revenue streams. But not so, as much, with Nintendo. When one thinks of Sony you can think of music, movies, electronics. MS, the PC, Windows, IE, but Nintendo=video games. I don't know enough about Nintendo's finances to know if they could have survived the Wii being a disaster, but to the TC's point, had it happened MS, Sony, or both would have jumped at the chance to have Nintendo's library.
That being said I agree that the 360/PS3 are near similar machines targeting the same people. But we must have at least two good console manufactures, or we will end up with one crappy one on down the line. As long as Sony & MS are fighting for the same customers (and they probably will for many years) we will continue to reap the benefits of competition. And I'm fairly certain Nintendo will be right along there with them.
Nintendo has billions of dollars in the bank and no debt. They can survive a console losing them money. Theoretically, they could survive a few of them. But I think they made money off of every system they've launched so far, save the Virtua Boy, though I'm not sure. (They may have lost money on the Gamecube but ultimately been profitable due to game sales on that platform.) The point is that no company stays in something that is not generating them money if they don't see it turning around for them. The same rules apply to Microsoft and Sony; Sony especially, since in the not to distant past, the profitability of their games division was expected to carry losses in other divisions... that's no longer feasible, regardless of whether or not the system itself is profitable at this point, I'm not sure they've found a return on their investment. I'm not arguing against competition, I'm arguing against redundancy. I think it's become progressively better as this generation has gone on, as each company has tried to come up with things to differentiate one console from the other; PlayStation Home, Microsoft's Natal, the difference in their download services... but those differentiations can only go so far when they're locked into the same original hardware vision for their console. I'd like to see them differentiate from each other further next generation to broaden the spectrum of gaming more than it is now. I'm a little disappointed that the Wii has not gotten as much attention as I would have liked to see through its particular quirks to fulfillment via software support, but I certainly understand why it happened; Nintendo made a few miscalculations. Yet it does show that there are some unexplored avenues when it comes to how we can interact with games. I'd just like to see Microsoft and Sony chase after different markets, and implement different strategies to target them, because it will result in a wider range of ways to play games.Well, I agree with you that companies don't stay in businesses that lose them money (MS, which has money to burn and entered the industry for strategic reasons, might be the exception to the rule) but disagree with pretty much everything else.
I look at the Wii and see the GC2 plus a bunch of casual games. Nintendo has been profoundly conservative in terms of core game design (I'd go so faras to say they havemerelyused the Wiimote to freshen upstale game design/gameplay that dates back to the N64/GC era)and the design of the system (waggle controls, low power hardware, severely limited internet) has clearly kept many, many talented game designers (some of them with innovative ideas) away. On a related note, early on many indies (who seemed to be very interested in the Wii at one point) expressed frustation with Nintendo do to the fact it focused on big companies (how'd the new 'Dream Team'work out :P) but wouldn't give them the time of day.
For an example of the range of choices designers make if given freedom, look at online. Some designers are making games which can be cooperatively played online (Left 4 Dead), some are making games which offer competitive online modes (Forza, Call of Duty), some are offering users around the world the ability to cooperatively design levels and share them with the world (Littlebigplanet), one offers gamers the ability to leave other players hints and sometimes hop into their world, to help or hinder them (Demon's Souls).
I recognize that 'me-tooism' is all too common, but still, rather than trying to force innovation by crippling game designers (you can't make the games you want to make because the system/controller doesn't allow for it) it makes more sense to give game designers freedom. Some will offer only linear improvements (or even no improvement) but some will make radical design decisions.
I don't want to play minigame collections or the same old games with one hand or no hands, I want innovative games, and I support hardware companies that give game developers the freedom to innovate and encourage them to do so. Both Sony and MS have done a lot to support and encourage game designers of all stripes, including but not limited to releasing risky games to try to create/prove the existence of certain markets.
[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]Or... it could just be because RE5 was just inferior because they made it more action orientated, forced you to play online because Sheva was completely inept when controlled by the AI, and ruined every bit of atmospheric tension by placing the setting in daylight? And um.. you bring up "same old gameplay/game design", yet you said RE5 wasn't as compelling as Dead Space, because they tried something new.... To be honest, you lost me. :?So you want the same old N64 gameplay, but with HD visuals. Why? I am a massive RE4 fan, but I don't think RE5 (which is pretty much RE4 HD with more stuff onscreen, a co-op partner and bigger environments) was nearly as compelling as Dead Space, a game which was built from the ground up for current gen systems and offered new stuff like enemies that had to be strategically dismembered and zero-g segments.
*Sighs* If HD visuals and the same old gameplay/game design are all you want, just wait long enough and Nintendo will make your tamest fantasies come true.
JustPlainLucas
Each numbered RE has been more action oriented than its predecessor (RE4 was almost a pure action game aside from a few laughably easy bits I won't dignify by calling puzzles) so no, the action didn't turn me off from RE5. The daylight wasn't a problem for me either (there are horror games where darkness is a big factor, but RE has never been one of them).
I named what Dead Space did differently (another think I really liked was the fact that the fact one could walk and shoot, but since that is so common outside of the survival horror genre, I wouldn't call that an innovation). If those things didn't appeal to you, suit yourself, but they were differentiators.
Only the people who aren't enough of a Nintendo fan to get a Wii.
Nintendo has billions of dollars in the bank and no debt. They can survive a console losing them money. Theoretically, they could survive a few of them. But I think they made money off of every system they've launched so far, save the Virtua Boy, though I'm not sure. (They may have lost money on the Gamecube but ultimately been profitable due to game sales on that platform.) The point is that no company stays in something that is not generating them money if they don't see it turning around for them. The same rules apply to Microsoft and Sony; Sony especially, since in the not to distant past, the profitability of their games division was expected to carry losses in other divisions... that's no longer feasible, regardless of whether or not the system itself is profitable at this point, I'm not sure they've found a return on their investment. I'm not arguing against competition, I'm arguing against redundancy. I think it's become progressively better as this generation has gone on, as each company has tried to come up with things to differentiate one console from the other; PlayStation Home, Microsoft's Natal, the difference in their download services... but those differentiations can only go so far when they're locked into the same original hardware vision for their console. I'd like to see them differentiate from each other further next generation to broaden the spectrum of gaming more than it is now. I'm a little disappointed that the Wii has not gotten as much attention as I would have liked to see through its particular quirks to fulfillment via software support, but I certainly understand why it happened; Nintendo made a few miscalculations. Yet it does show that there are some unexplored avenues when it comes to how we can interact with games. I'd just like to see Microsoft and Sony chase after different markets, and implement different strategies to target them, because it will result in a wider range of ways to play games.[QUOTE="Oilers99"][QUOTE="btaylor2404"]
Not really. I think these 3 companies and their products are unique. Sony & MS have massive amounts invested in their consoles, yes, but had many other primary revenue streams. But not so, as much, with Nintendo. When one thinks of Sony you can think of music, movies, electronics. MS, the PC, Windows, IE, but Nintendo=video games. I don't know enough about Nintendo's finances to know if they could have survived the Wii being a disaster, but to the TC's point, had it happened MS, Sony, or both would have jumped at the chance to have Nintendo's library.
That being said I agree that the 360/PS3 are near similar machines targeting the same people. But we must have at least two good console manufactures, or we will end up with one crappy one on down the line. As long as Sony & MS are fighting for the same customers (and they probably will for many years) we will continue to reap the benefits of competition. And I'm fairly certain Nintendo will be right along there with them.
CarnageHeart
Well, I agree with you that companies don't stay in businesses that lose them money (MS, which has money to burn and entered the industry for strategic reasons, might be the exception to the rule) but disagree with pretty much everything else.
I look at the Wii and see the GC2 plus a bunch of casual games. Nintendo has been profoundly conservative in terms of core game design (I'd go so faras to say they havemerelyused the Wiimote to freshen upstale game design/gameplay that dates back to the N64/GC era)and the design of the system (waggle controls, low power hardware, severely limited internet) has clearly kept many, many talented game designers (some of them with innovative ideas) away. On a related note, early on many indies (who seemed to be very interested in the Wii at one point) expressed frustation with Nintendo do to the fact it focused on big companies (how'd the new 'Dream Team'work out :P) but wouldn't give them the time of day.
For an example of the range of choices designers make if given freedom, look at online. Some designers are making games which can be cooperatively played online (Left 4 Dead), some are making games which offer competitive online modes (Forza, Call of Duty), some are offering users around the world the ability to cooperatively design levels and share them with the world (Littlebigplanet), one offers gamers the ability to leave other players hints and sometimes hop into their world, to help or hinder them (Demon's Souls).
I recognize that 'me-tooism' is all too common, but still, rather than trying to force innovation by crippling game designers (you can't make the games you want to make because the system/controller doesn't allow for it) it makes more sense to give game designers freedom. Some will offer only linear improvements (or even no improvement) but some will make radical design decisions.
I don't want to play minigame collections or the same old games with one hand or no hands, I want innovative games, and I support hardware companies that give game developers the freedom to innovate and encourage them to do so. Both Sony and MS have done a lot to support and encourage game designers of all stripes, including but not limited to releasing risky games to try to create/prove the existence of certain markets.
I look at the 360 and see the Xbox 2 plus a bunch of updated visuals to the games that were already on that platform. Is that statement true? Yes, but only as far as your statement about the Wii; it's an accurate criticism, but by itself portrays the system somewhat unfairly, but suggesting, via the phrasing, that such an assessment represents the system as a whole. I'm interested in attempting to portray all videogames in a somewhat positive light. I believe, Carnage, that there are some holes in your understanding of the Wii in terms of what it is. First of all, there is no inherent crippling to designers because the Wii is merely one of several possibilities. Your criticism would be valid if there weren't five other major platforms, counting portables, PC and other consoles (six if we're going to consider the iPhone a viable gaming platform now) with which to work with. Do I have some sympathy for a developer that "wants it all", perhaps a motion-sensing game that also requires a fair number of binary actions (IE, stuff that's best suited for buttons)? Or motion sensing with high fidelity visuals? Sure, but developers are always faced with limitations, and those tend to go away over time. However, sometimes limitation causes for some interesting design to emerge. Platformers emerged because the major platform at their birth was a system that had a direction pad and two buttons; control of an avatar's motion was inspired, partially, by limitation. The genre would perhaps have had very different origins if it had been born on the SNES. Game developers often challenge themselves to design one-button games. Is more generally better? Yes, but sometimes there are fringe benefits to designing within limits; it forces you to focus on the essentials of what you want to accomplish. What you call crippling may or may not be so. And gradually, these limitations are going away; Nintendo is indicating their next system will be HD, if I recall, Microsoft and Sony are both moving to add motion control. For now, though, I don't think it's the worst thing in the world for a developer to choose between wanting a design that focuses on motion control with lesser emphasis on graphics and complex physics and AI computations and one that sticks with traditional control and pushes the envelope with technology. As for the complaint about mini-game collection, it seems as counter-intuitive as a complaint about one game being underwhelming specifically because it's linear or non-linear. Most games are on a spectrum in terms of number of gameplay systems; they can be very singular (Tetris would be entirely singular) include multiple gameplay systems (Beyond Good and Evil is a good example of multiple gameplay systems; exploration, combat, stealth, photography and puzzle solving are unalike, but they're integrated). A mini-game collection is merely the extremity of the later, with less interconnection between the various gameplay modes. There's nothing inherently wrong with it, but it's still measured against the same standards as other games; it has to be fun. Usually, games classified as mini-game collections are considered to not be very deep, but depth only comes into play if you have to play with a particular game mode for a length of time. It's not a design mistake to allow the player to play a game mode that has four minutes worth of depth for four minutes, but it's definitely a mistake to have the player play a game that has thirty hours of depth for fifty hours. By this measurement, Raving Rabbids is a less flawed game depth-wise than some role-playing games I've met; the latter are deeper, but Rabbids wisely moves on quickly after you've mastered the individual game, whereas a lot of role-playing games don't know when to quit. One should never criticize a game for not being deep enough, but rather, only for letting the player reach the bottom of the barrel before pulling them away. If you're smart about depth management, you can have a game that cognitively feels deeper than a deeper game that just spends too much time on itself. The concept of "outdated" design does not make much sense. In most creative fields, there's definitely a sense of what's cutting edge, but usually only the culturally elite claims that this is the only thing worth pursuing; and usually, this is in the face of their frustration with the persistent popularity of well-worn forms. How many independent film-makers try to create unique love stories simply out of frustration with formulaic romantic comedies? The film-making decisions often seem to be just that way specifically because it goes against type (see 500 Days of Summer, which tells you specifically that it is NOT a love story). But the fact of the matter is that classic is classic, and Casablanca is as good now as it was when it was released, and that releasing film noir now may not be commercially advisable, necessarily, but it's still got the same chance at quality as any other film. Nintendo is working within a framework of game design that they have gradually established through the NES and SNES eras, then simply adapted to 3D during the N64. What they were establishing during the 2D days was cutting edge, and figuring out how to take those principles into 3D was cutting edge, but they've since realized their vision, and are simply sitting in it. Are they on the cutting edge with their work? No. They're often relatively creative within their established realm (see one of the dungeons in Twilight Princess being set within the Abominable Snowman's abode), but the fact of the matter is that they're experts in the system of design that they've established. They're far more polished at executing what they do than most efforts at doing something genuinely new; BioShock tried to break some ground in some areas, and suffered some design missteps as a result. Uncharted, which was simply trying to combine the fundamentals of a few different well-established ideas, made some mistakes in bringing it together. I'd personally rather play something on the cutting edge, but I certainly love stuff that is just polished, well thought-out design. That's what Nintendo's efforts tend to give me. Furthermore, I don't know if the mini-game collection is truly representative of the Wii's collection. If anything, the Wii's defining nature is its lack of particular definition. It delves very tenatively into a variety of gameplay philosophies. Old-school revivals? There's Zak and Wiki, A Boy and His Blob, Tales of Monkey Island. Games targeted at established gamers? Sure; Nintendo's franchise installments tend to fit that bill. Nostalgia trips? Virtual Console. Rail shooters? Well, there's Dead Space Extraction and House of the Dead. Over-the-top violence? No More Heroes and Madworld are out there. Family friendly multiplayer? Wii Sports and Wario Ware are out there. There's a lot of small niches in gaming that the Wii fills. It's a little bit of everything, really. The problem? It's only a little bit. If you really want to delve into a particular genre, you aren't likely to find a ton of any one thing, unless you're looking into side-scrolling games from fifteen or twenty years ago. I think some of the frustration from hardcore gamers stems from the fact that they're generally a pretty obsessive lot, and when they stake their claim, and say, "we want this", they want a lot of it. If you're a shooter fan with a 360, you're covered. A PS2 fan with a taste for JRPGs? See you in 2017. But if you're a die-hard fan of, well, anything, the Wii will like disappoint you, because though it has a few games for a pretty wide range of tastes, it just does not give you a lot of everything. Now if you're a gamer who just likes to dabble in different things, the Wii might be your console. But otherwise, it's far better suited as a complementary system. That's the reality of what the Wii is; I think you'd be well advised to realize it, appreciate the fact that it objectively possesses merit to gamers, but not necessarily to you. I sense a lot of frustration with the Wii, though I'm not sure if it's more from your understanding of why it is selling, or your lack of understanding of what the identity of the system itself is. I would suggest, though, that the majority of our diet as gamers is invariably the "same old games"; we live in a sequel driven industry. For every Dragon Age, there's three or four of Uncharted 2, Assassin's Creed 2, Call of Duty 6 and others. And even original games that launch seem destined to propagate further games along the same lines. I have a brother who I have a hard time convincing to play games simply because he's disillusioned with how much franchises are recycled. Most of us have built up a tolerance to this sort of thing, though, and it'd be unfair to suggest that one can point this frustration with re-used design at one particular company.Oilers, I agree with your point that less can be more. I've played lots of enjoyable games which don't use the full range of buttons on the PS3 and X360 and I've played enjoyable games which don't even make the hardware break a sweat (Disgaea 3 is probably my most played single player game this gen and from a tech perspective its not fit to hold the jock straps of the likes of Gears or Uncharted). I also agree that game design is shaped by the limits of a system, but the fact that so many game designers have stated 'I can't work within these limits' indicates that the Wii's architecture is problematic. Of course, that is speaking as a guy who isn't a big fan of Nintendo franchises or, well, all those genres you named the Wii is strong in (I like retro games, but not for the price Nintendi is charging).
I agree that the industry is driven by sequels and near-sequels, and I don't think Nintendo or any other company is to blame for that. I've lamented in other posts that core consumers pay more attention to franchises than they do to developers (for an extreme example of the phenomena, consider that Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 attracted many more consumers than Modern Warfare 2).Nintendo seems to just kind of go with the flow (releasing countless Mario/Zelda/Metroid games) rather than fight against it.
That's a striking move, because first parties tend to fight very hard to prove their console has appeal to different types of gamers (Nintendo did as recently as the early GC days). I can recite a long list of such games from Nintendo, Sega, NEC, MS and Sony. Last gen, MS didn't just say 'Gee, rpgs are really popular. Maybe, hopefully, someday someone, somewhere will develop an rpg for our system as opposed to the system all the rpg fans have. They funded Sudeki (remember that one?), KOTOR, Mass Effect and created Mistwalker.
I'm not frustrated with the Wii (I just have a PS3, which gets a lot less developer support than the X360, and there are more quality games than I have time to play) nor do I blame it for the modest sales of the PS3 and X360 (problems I feel are due more to high pricetags and reliability issues than anything else). I'm just kind of indifferent to it because its so alien to me. When I saw Carnival Games I didn't think 'This game is going to do GTA numbers!' but it did. Like the movieTwilight I don't judge it by looking at it, I judge it by how well it attracts those it is aimed at, and on that score its clearly a great system.
Yes and no. Yes because the Zelda series "needs" a more powerful platform to fully realize the possibilities of the kind of world it explores... and no because it will obviously never happen, unless Nintendo goes bankrupt and ends up like SEGA, producing third-party games for all the platforms.
I personally think Nintendo would do a lot better producing input hardware and games than actual gaming hardware. And would prefer them to focus on games, since that is what they have always been best at.foxhound_fox
I dont think Nintendo can do much better for themselves than they are right now. In terms of hardware sales I mean the figures for the DS and wii speak for themselves.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment