Sheikah

New gamers/children/young teens making their own first major choices of what video games to get. I am putting them together when I say Ocarina grabbed these people, but current Zelda does not (to the same degree). To back up what I'm saying, I'm willing to bet most of us here got into Zelda when we were fairly young, or at least fairly 'new' to gaming. Truth is, the game was groundbreaking back then (as in, people hadn't seen that kind of thing before) but now people have a strong idea of what they are getting. Nintendo deliver a similar gameplay experience each time, an experience lots of people want to relive. The latest chapters in this argument are Wind Waker HD, LTTP 2 and OoT 3DS. Pure fan service - a whole 3 recent games is basically really hammering my point home - Nintendo know what this series is about. Dem fans. They're the main purchasers!

I'm not saying a new gamer can't enjoy Zelda (they would enjoy it probably more than us on account of it being a first experience of it). I am saying it is made in such a way to appeal to and sate the existing core fan base. It is the series that long time Nintendo enthusiasts demand, and expect. This topic agrees with what I'm saying - so far the consensus seems to be that tablet apps and Minecraft/LoL lead the way with young people/new players today, not these games.

Well that is where I disagree. Mario Galaxy was the kind of unblemished fun that appeals to just about anyone (and SM3DW, which even had my girlfriend playing). Zelda is a game that primarily appeals to the existing fanbase. It's the kind of series that when you hear the Zelda jingle it makes you happy, because you know what you're getting and it appeals to nostalgia.

My bad. Because Nintendo do something for the minority of new players, I must be wrong. Come on, think about what you're typing Serebii! For once. Of course Zelda primarily caters to long term fans. It's not a new generation of players grabber like Wii Sports , Minecraft or Mario Galaxy, is it?

Mario I agree, Zelda no way. Zelda targets people who have bought Zelda games before. For the most part, people who have been with it since the glory days of OoT and Wind Waker (and before). Zelda sells on the theme and lore it has built up over the years. I imagine most people buying Zelda games are long term Zelda fans or people who are long term Zelda fans buying it for someone else.

Reliving the dream here guys. Done a fair bit already... - 200 thunder bolt dodges (due to paranoia, I did a bit over this. And when I say bit, I mean over 500) - Chococrap - Blitzball to max out Wakka's celestial weapon and get his overdrives - Monster arena capturing to fully power Auron's weapon - All Al behd primers - Rikku's cactuar game (really liked this. Don't remember it back in the day) - All summons Now for the 1337 hax delve into monster arena stat boosting.

To be honest, the defeatist comment I made is more applicable to when they designed the Wii U. Rather than make a console that could compete with the others as well as run their original games, they opted purely for the latter. Even if their games sell more, it would have been better to have both.

That's exactly the mentality that Nintendo has that I think is just wrong. "The other consoles have that title too, why would people buy it on our hardware" /Can't compete. I remember the days when N64 was bitch smacking the realm with the like of Ocarina of Time and Mario 64, in every perceivable angle.

If the Wii U was hugely successful sales-wise (let's say even more than the PS4/X1), it'd get more third party support. The more support, the more likely you are to strike gold. With next to no support, other than their own titles, it's unlikely they'll get much good at all.

We are stakeholders, for all intents and purposes. We paid a chunk of money in the hope for a return. A game and support return, as it were. Wanting better sales matters to us, too. The more Nintendo sells, the bigger the audience. The bigger the audience the more games, and the more money they can afford to spend developing those games.

But what is the alternative? Nintendo carry on? I don't know, man. Their console is bombing.

To be honest, it covers more years than just the Wii U. It was the same for probably the second half of the Wii, too. I think that's a long enough period of time to comment on.

I bought Everybody's Golf a while back but didn't play it much. With golf, for some reason when it's not as simplistic as Monkey Ball I switch off. Should really give it another go.

It'd have to be the original Nexus 7 then, which is still a decent tablet if somewhat outdated now.

Been wanting to play Puppeteer! I had heard good things, but it always seemed like the kind of game that would hit Plus before long.

If you don't mind paying £9 more than your 150 budget, the 2013 Nexus 7 model is 159 at Carphone Warehouse. As an owner of both Nexus 7 models, the newer model is definitely worth getting due to it feeling far more snappy and having a better screen. Edit: Ninja'd by Shorty. Agree on that front though - the old model is just not worth it if you can get the newer.

Minecraft is neither simplistic nor basic, and that seems to get tons of attention from kids/young teens. It is one of the most comprehensive games I have ever seen, tbh.

Exactly this for my younger brother. Minecraft was his earlier obsession, then it became League of Legends. He was always joined by a lot of his school friends when he played too. He had a DS when he was younger but put that down years ago, and never bothered with a 3DS. He really liked the DS back then too. What young people want is changing I think.

Whole values between 0-10 is reasonable, if only to gauge the reviewer's overall enjoyment. Any more than that and it starts to be a bit pointless.

I'm not dismissive of all older games. There are a lot of games that I remember that had local play that don't feel superseded by anything else (I'm still very fond of Mario Party 2, even though there have been sequels). But regarding MH, which I have played, it most definitely is one of those titles that has been superseded by a far superior gameplay experience. There is, at least to me, no reason why I would go back to it while I have Monster Hunter 3 Ultimate. It would be like going back in time in a very bad way. The same way I would not go and locate a copy of FIFA 2003 and play that. I know you disagree on that as you obviously like the game, but that's just the way I feel. In my view, the very limited pool of games from the past that have totally scrapped local play for online don't seem so missed.

"The European copies have split screen up to 4 players. American and Japan copies don't." (regarding Monster Hunter 1, that I looked up). I would also challenge that regarding MH - the series is very incremental, such that I couldn't even imagine there'd be any reason to turn to MH1 again after MH3. You're basically doing the same thing but with better graphics, more bosses, more weapons and a far better online infrastructure. The story to MH games is extremely thin on the ground, so it's not like I'd be returning to those games for that. Yes, you can try extrapolate that to any sequel, but I genuinely feel that the MH series is one that doesn't leave much reason to regress back to an older version, much the same way as something like FIFA. Not that it really matters since they do apparently have local. MGS3 'online mode' I will say fair enough to. I don't know what it was like, so I can't really comment. Although there is an online mode to MGS4, but I have no idea to what extent that is similar to the previous game. Still, seems pretty sparse the amount of stuff anyone will really miss.

No, you're twisting it again. I said which games that were online only in the stead of a local play feature are sorely missed? This topic is about old generation stuff we used to miss, ie. before the days of patches and online play. If a game still has a local play mode, then you're not missing anything that you didn't already have in the old generations (which were pre online / patch days). And I might have even been wrong before. Pretty sure SOCOM had offline local play. Twisted Metal Black Online...maybe? The only potential candidate I can think of right now that would apply is Warhawk/Starhawk (actually, did the latter have local play? I know Warhawk didn't). Basically, what I'm saying is, which games have totally scrapped local play for online in the past, which have now shut down the servers so are totally unplayable in any form, that we miss so badly?

I crai long time; no Mafias?

Well the topic is more or less about things you miss from previous generations - and how online is a poor substitute for local play since online will 'expire'. In order for that to qualify we're basically talking about games with online modes instead of local play (ie. not Mario Kart Wii, which has both). To which, I'm basically saying, how many online only games (or those with no local play) that have expired server play from the PS2 era do we really miss? I think most are superseded or generally little cared about (due to advancements) by now.

Christ. This is getting really strung out, but all because you're trying to save face. I just don't get it. I'm really not picking up on one grammar error here. You can't justify saying the things you did unless you simply didn't know. These aren't slight misinterpretations, by the way: Followed by The last part, saying 'no other way than through their official servers' actually makes it seem very clear you are ruling out unofficial routes. You're basically saying "The console won't allow you to patch the game any other way than using their official servers." Which is just not true.