darkjak

I'm quite indifferent towards this. As long as Nintendo won't try to sell the NX with this as its flagship, I'm fine. It looks terrible, but it's not made for me, nor is it developed by an actual Nintendo team.

I think that the same day Iwata died, the rest of Nintendo's brass got a collective stroke...

Although I don't know very much about this guy, I do have some red flags. Firstly, his age. Secondly, he claimed he wants to continue the path Iwata started. Nintendo really should have chosen someone younger, more hip and western oriented. Truth be told, however, I can't imagine anyone doing a worse job than Iwata.

Nintendo never lacked the money to develop a new console. They had really only made a loss for a quarter or two during the Gamecubes lifespan. The fundamental change of course that the Wii meant has been problematic. Not until recently have Nintendo started to show proficiency in making HD games. The Wii U was completely a result in Nintendo trying to capitalise on their success with the casual crowd. Problem is, the casual crowd had moved on before the Wii U was even anounced. And the non-fanboy gamer crowd had been scared... no, chased away with pitchforks by the Wii. Nintendo are in a situation they may never be able to recover from. No theme park or mobile games in the world can change that!

First off, I'd like to ask you: do you not think that GTA V is a clear as day, undoubtable evolution over GTA IV? Do you think the GTA formula has become monotonous? In all likelyhood not. Fans know what to expect from a GTA game and Rockstar earn billions just by delivering. No stupid experiments with outlandish art styles. No game mechanics the developers KNEW would never be seen again. Just take what was wrong in the last game and fix it. Take what was good and make it better. To me the difference between innovation and gimmicks is as clear as a summer day in the desert. An innovation is something you can and most often do carry on to subsequent entries in the franchise. A good innovation will even be copied by competing companies. A good innovation is natural, something that improves the gaming experience in such a way that you can't imagine playing a similar game without it again. Such was Z-targeting, which in an evolved form is present in GTA V. Such were the camera controls in SM64 which have been copied and improved upon by frankly every third person game out there. And as for your previous question, Serebii: yes, I am starting to think Nintendo aren't for me. Or for any of my friends who have been loyal Nintendo consumers for sometimes over 20 years or more. I even wonder if Nintendo are for ANYONE anymore. Who can afford to gamble on buying an expensive, underpowered console which will only have games from one specific developer, who very rarely deliver what you expect? Espescially at times when people are weary of buying any console at all. That's my whole point. If Nintendo are to be more successful with the NX, they must bring their A-game. Don't make the people question how they feel about how "unique" or "different" the new games are. Give them no choice but to say "WOW!" at how amazing they are. If Nintendo make good games, progress with the rest of the industry and simply give everyone what they want, they have a shot at making a comeback.

Depends on what you compare with. Skyward Sword was hardly as full of side-missions and optional unlockables as Assassins Creed or Red Dead Redemption. Mario Kart 8 Publishers will always try out new systems to some extent. Probe the market, so to speak. You could tell from the very early on that third parties weren't taking the Wii U seriously, espescially EA. Releasing Need for Speed for the console a full six months after everyone else got it? Releasing Mass Effect 3 as a standalone game while the other systems got a trilogy compilation? No Battlefield at all? The Wii was dead in 2010, because third parties saw that the stuff they did port didn't sell. There's a considerable difference between innovation and gimmicks. An innovation is something which improves the gaming experience, something that can be carried over into future releases in the franchise. Gimmicks are loud bells and whistles which will make the game feel "different", but when we've finished a game containing that feature, we never want to see it again. As was the case with Fludd, boats and trains, as was with the drawing of paths in Starfox. I'm not dismissing any of those games. All are finely crafted games which deserve their positive reviews. If we look at the most popular and highly revered franchises, they evolve and innovate, but they never use gimmicks. As is the case with Grand Theft Auto, Elder Scrolls and the Witcher. And that also applied to Zelda, back in the day when Zelda belonged in that category of excellent franchises. Annual stagnation is only ever a problem if you release annual games. Nintendo release 1-2 Zeldas for every home console and only 1 3D Mario. I don't want Nintendo to stop changing things up. But I do expect them to change the RIGHT things. Giving Mario Kart a more modern and robust singleplayer campaign instead of stupid antigravity mode. Giving Zelda more side missions, voice acting and an opening is great, making you ride a boat from Scooby Doo isn't. Did Nintendo decide to not have 3D movement anymore after SM64? No? Then that's innovation. It's pure and simple natural progression which Nintendo HAD TO do. Did FLUDD return in any subsequent games? Does anyone want to see it make a return? Then it's a gimmick.

Some time has passed since the early passing of Nintendo CEO Satoru Iwata and I believe it's appropriate to speak of him in a more factual manner than before. That's because right around the time of his death, there was a whole lot of hyperboles about how great he was, many exaggerations. I wish to start this topic off making a statement as clear as possible: this is not supposed to be a hate topic. He was a great programmer which had a major part in the development of many classic games. The puropse is instead have a more sober discussion on what Iwata did and did not achieve as the head of Nintendo. After reading up on Iwatas tenure as CEO, I'd say he's been excellent at acheiving short-term success, but terrible in the long term. Before becoming the CEO of Nintendo he helped in shortening the development cycles and cost of making games. Something he's received praise for, since it considerably increased profits during the Gamecube years. He also acheived great success with the Wii and DS. HOWEVER, then there's the flipside: while Nintendos first party content was AT LEAST on par with the competition until the very end of the N64's lifespan, Nintendo started to lag behind by the time he started to effectivise development. Instead of improving the technical standards of their games, increasing the ammount of content and options to the same level of the competition, Iwata decided to paint Nintendo into a corner by focusing on gimmics. Seriously, the three championships were fine in Waverace for the N64, but by the time Mario Kart 8 came out, this was ridiculously inadequate, even if there actually were 8 championships. Not to mention that we haven't seen a no fuss, no gimmicks 3D Mario in 19 years! The Wii earned Nintendo a lot of money, however, that console completely killed Nintendo as a serious competitor in the console market. It seems to me that he firstly saw games and consoles as seperate businesses and secondly had no interrest whatsoever in the rest of the game industry. Anyways, that's my quick review of Iwata's tenure. What do you think?

Another 2D game? Super Princess Peach 64 on the other hand

What I don't get is why Nintendo don't just buy these guys out? Wii U really needs racing games, espescially Gran Turismo-ish games. Nintendo could have gotten even more hype during E3 if they'd announced that Project Cars and World of Speed were going to be Wii U exclusive. Plus, then the Wii U version wouldn't have been delayed... atless Nintendo would ask the developer to make Cars contain as many vehicles as let's say Gran Turismo. But yeah, what the developer is doing is truly stupid. They're delaying the most popular version in favor of the versions that nearly noone cares about. On formats which already have much more popular, classic franchises.

I am not saying things should be the same. Evolution does not mean that things are the same. In some respects, I want Zelda to change more than it has so far. Let me put it like this: if Nintendo were to evolve the time from Majora's Mask even further like I said, then that could be a great staple of the series. It would have been amazing to just stand around and watch the day pass by as NPC's go about their day in Hyrule Castle Town. By the time Twilight Princess came out, there was absolutely no need for any loading screens, there was no need to split the overworld into sections. There were already open-world games like Just Cause and GTA: San Andreas, so clearly it wasn't a question of performance. The combat in OoT was fenomenal, so adding more enemies that require the full range of attacks and blocks would be great. And of course, making that combat system further more intricate and deep Further evolving horseback combat, making it a pleasing and practical way of fighting enemies is something I'd like to see. Voice acting is a must by now, Link himself should of course remain mute. Perhaps the player should be allowed to make decisions which effect the story. The ability to take care of dungeons in any order you want seems also an evolution. Are those changes superficial and generic?

They could have done "go anywhere" without an ocean. Just Cause was available for that generation of consoles. Or you could say that since her first appearance, Epona has been in all but two home console Zeldas. It is a staple. When people think of Zelda, they think of adult Link, riding Epona over Hyrule Field, trying to take out Ganon/Ganondorf. That's not what's in every Zelda, but that's what people think of. Just like movie-goers think of X-wings when you say Star Wars, even though it was only present in half of the movies. Like 80's buffs think of a white Ferrari Testarossa when they think of Miami Vice, although Crockett drove a black Daytona Convertible during the first two seasons. I'm surprised that you thought this of that particular statement. Do you not seriously see how making time and weekdays affect NPC's is a natural evolution of the day-night cycle? Would you not trade the wolf for more living inhabitants in TP? I never said it looks good. I said it looks fine. As in you can play it today without thinking of how ugly everything is. The way you had to swing your sword in a very specific way. You barelly had the time to stretch your arm out to swing before they applied a different block. Wouldn't it be glorious if Nintendo used motion controls to make it actually feel like you're fighting a worthy opponent, rather than a walking "puzzle" (term used extremely loosely)? Would you say that the Mass Effect, Elder Scroll and GTA games are samey and lazy? More so than the New Mario Bros games? Because that's the kind of sequels I want to see (although Mass Effect actually DEvolved in some respects, which I dislike). I'm really impressed with Nintendos art styles when it comes to the clay-look in Kirby and the yarn in the new Yoshi. Splatoon looks brilliant, as does Mario Kart 8 and Mario Galaxy. But when it comes to Zelda, the changes are unnecessary and annoying. It's not a question of foresight, it's an ability to distinguish valuable gameplay mechanics and design choices from gimmicks. It's the combat and the mission structures that create variety. If you claim they feel the same, bland or repetitive, you probably haven't played them in-depth. Yes, that's where I'm getting at. Focus on making BETTER Zelda games, rather than DIFFERENT Zelda games. And from what I've seen and heard so far from Zelda U, that's exactly what they're doing.

Being a bit different is good. Being all over the place, while allowing core mechanics to grow archaic isn't. Is it now? It's still controversial and there are still many who absolutely hate it. The sailing mechanics and the way the overworld in Wind Waker works was a complete mistake. Horse riding is a staple of the franchise (and should be in every Zelda) and the 3-day mechanic could... well, evolve. Time moving even when you're in a town and NPC's doing different things at different times of day (as opposed to doing one thing during day and suddenly doing something different one minute after sunset) and different things during different days of the week could be really interresting. Actually, GTA IV looks fine. I'd even go as far as to say that, while a bit dated even Vice City looks good to this day. As I've said before: I don't like the world design in WW. I didn't: "The motion controlls which were supposed to be the unique selling point is ruined due to the annoying enemy design." Wolves didn't belong in Twiligt Princess. Seriously, that gameplay was a royal chore and whenever I was forced to enter wolf mode, I couldn't wait until that segment would end. Absolutely. What they're doing is to constantly split the fanbase into smaller and smaller camps. By now, we have people who want toony graphics, realistic graphics, something inbetween and something different. This problem wouldn't exist if Nintendo had just stuck to the OoT-style. Zelda U should contain the staples that define Zelda, and only make changes they intend to keep in future games, perhaps apart from specific items. Like I said, in GTA, they removed the whole muscle-building mechanic from San Andreas, because gamers didn't like it. But in all probability, Rockstar intended that it was going to be a future staple of the franchise at the time they implemented it. Are you joking? Go back to Vice City and you'll find some over the top weapons, like chainsaws and gattling guns. Characters and mission objectives are also at time quite ridiculous. In GTA 5, you'll find a more restrained range of weapons. They make slight adjustments in the direction of the franchise, but it's still not all over the place like Zelda. As a contrast, Zelda while feeling different, feels older for each entry. It's not like Zelda is like Call of Duty or Assassins Creed, where we get at least one game a year. We get one, PERHAPS two entries per generation. Thus, just setting a direction for the franchise and sticking with it doesen't prevent games feeling different from each other. And since there are two Zeldas per console, they could release a "conventional" Zelda first, then a "weird" Zelda after, if they have time and resources for a second Zelda.

I think it's the end of the line for portable consoles being a seperate entity from home consoles. It's a pain in the arse for developers, it's expensive and confusing for consumers. Portable, dedicated gaming devices will bloom again, but only if you'll be able to hook them up to your TV and have big-screen AAA experiences on them. I myself regret buying a 3DS, because I sometimes don't play it for months at a time.

You can only hook up two gamepads to your Wii U. I think that Zelda has taken too many strange turns instead of just evolving. GTA is a series that's handled its evolution correctly. Let's make parallells between the two franchises. Legend of Zelda - Grand Theft Auto The originals, which set the basis for the franchises. Zelda II - GTA: London These two aren't as comparable as I'd like, but still deviations which aren't as revered as the rest of their respective series. A Link to the Past - GTA 2 A crystal clear evolution of the 2D franchise, featuring improvements in gameplay and graphics. In fact, here the Zelda franchise has gone further in both departments than GTA. Ocarina of Time - GTA 3 The franchises take the step into the realm of 3D gaming and both are for their respective times, glorious experiences. They are trailblazers and gaming wouldn't be what it is today witout them. Wind Waker - GTA 4 So, Nintendo add a completely different art style (universally panned on the time of its unveiling), which freaks fans out. The new mechanics in Majora's Mask are gone, as is the riding mechanics from Ocarina. GTA 4 is a quantum leap in graphics, physics and includes online multiplayer. The RPG-style leveling of your character from San Andreas was removed because gamers didn't like that. Also airplanes were missing, probably because the urban environment in the game wasn't suitable for use of planes. Skyward Sword - GTA 5 GTA 5 evolves the art style of GTA 4, adding more colour and just straight up squeezing more out of the hardware. Airplanes are back and vehicle physics are improved over the last entry. Skyward Sword didn't contain the wolf mechanic of Twilight Princess, the boat mechanic from Wind Waker or any other mechanic introduced in the previous games. And for the umpteenth time, Nintendo have added an assinine art style noone asked for. By now Red Dead Redemption had been released and gamers knew what they could expect from Hyrule. Instead, Nintendo make the most linear, artificial world so far. The motion controlls which were supposed to be the unique selling point is ruined due to the annoying enemy design. Nintendo add a wall-running mechanic which feels archaic, when compared to what we see in Assassins Creed. Oh, and they included a bird. Which will in all likelyhood never be seen again. Can you see what I mean? Nintendo have done everything with Zelda except to evolve it. Zelda has gone from cutting-edge to archaic.

Seems to me like they've missed one opportunity to do so: Seriously, Nintendo, if you can't do it, there other developers who will do it for you, if you just give them the cash!