Grazza

Ooh, I definitely want those!

Exactly. I really like Wii Fit and the Balance Board, but I never understood how the jogging could work. I don't like jogging on the spot because, as you say, there's no propulsion. Very good point. I was surprised The Gadget Show had this as their No.1 toy from the Show, as using it to play games that weren't designed for it would surely be like trying to play Street Fighter II with a dance mat!

Yes indeed. Zelda TP is the one exception, because it was a 30 month wait and crossed to another system. For me, that's the one really annoying thing about it. It was meant to be an 18 month wait and, yes, it was a big disappointment when it was delayed, but I think that was heavily linked to the uneasy feeling that it might not be released on GameCube at all. When released, however great the game was, I couldn't help but be deeply irritated that both versions had been changed because of the Wii. Although clearly they had used the time to make some improvements, I think people had the feeling that the game had been used a tactical pawn. However, look at Metroid Prime 3. That was approximately a 30 month wait as well (May 2005 - Nov 2007), and yet I didn't see a single complaint about it (either the wait or the finished product). Mario Galaxy was an 18 month wait. Again, no complaints at all. To me, 18 months is exactly right, but I don't mind longer if it's for the right reasons and stays on the machine it was designed on. I just think it would be a thrill to see the next Zelda, Pikmin etc now. : peace:

I would like to see them drop this mantra, as I don't think people mind long waits, as long as it doesn't cross over onto another system. I find it very enjoyable to follow a big game's development.

I'm not sure I understand the topic, but what would I like to see? I'd like to see Nintendo establish more studios, so that there's always a studio working on certain series. For example, those members of staff who were passionate about and understood "Celda" could form the Wind Waker Studio, which would obviously be to continue the Wind Waker universe. Then there could be the standard Zelda Team, which would focus on the "Link as a badass" games. On top of that, there could be a Handheld Zelda Studio, which would ideally be as much like Flagship as possible. They were really on the right lines with Four Swords Adventure (which I realise is not a handheld game). Handheld Zeldas should look like Link to the Past, not Wind Waker, but with more bells & whistles. From 3rd-parties, well, honestly...? I have no desire for ports this gen (purely because of the difference in power). That leaves exclusives like Mad World, Monster Hunter 3 and Dragon Quest X. The problem with these is why would we really want them on the Wii instead of the other machines? Even if they didn't stay as exclusives, the Wii would have been the lead format. If ported to PS3/Xbox 360, the most the developers could do is upscale the graphics, which is not enough. Too many games like this and Nintendo will have effectively kept certain games back a generation. So, which games should be designed for Wii? Ones that genuinely need the various control options. From my point of view, the one really appealing 3rd-party Wii exclusive is Zack & Wiki, for the aforementioned reasons. I also have a slight problem with the level of violence and/or immoral/amoral content in 3rd-party exclusives, like Resident Evil: Umbrella Chronicles, House of the Dead: Overkill, Mad World, No More Heroes etc, which are all violent, some more gratuitous than others. I have no problem with people playing these games, but I think the publishers overreact to the idea that the Wii needs "hardcore" games and that "hardcore = violence". Then you get sites like IGN saying these games need to sell to prove "hardcore" games can succeed on Wii. Well, what about the people who don't like excessive violence and gore? I can honestly say I love the graphic style of Mad World and No More Heroes, and I would see them as reasons to buy a Wii if they were a bit more tasteful. Maybe it's just me, but surely Nintendo fans would be more receptive to exclusives based on the Nintendo games they love, like Zelda and Metroid? With MotionPlus on its way, this is the ideal time to try and prove they can do Zelda better than Nintendo!

Wind Waker spoilers ahead... I've been thinking about that, and I don't think there would be any entrances in Hyrule. The Wind and Earth Temples were technically in Hyrule, just with their entrances above sea-level (a very, very clever idea, incidentally). This may seem like nitpicking, but it's not, because there were two other entrances - the fire and ice mountains. As they both gave you very significant items (Power Bracelets and Iron Boots), I can't help but think the initial idea was to flesh them out more. These larger dungeons would have been "in" Hyrule as much as the Earth and Wind Temples. In fact, I think this is more likely than a 3rd co-op dungeon. The co-op dungeons boosted your Master Sword, one "side" each. Obviously, there are only two sides, so I'm slightly sceptical there was meant to be a 3rd one. Possibly the Zoras, as it's Great Fish Isle, and the Zoras are associated with Jabun? I say Great Fish Isle, as it really does seem like it's meant to be important, and there's a ledge which looks like an entrance. Still, it was great to meet Jabun where he actually was. Ah, we all did! Such a great idea, such a sense of longing. I'm actually replaying Wind Waker at the moment, and I've been thinking about it greatly. The grid is 7x7, which is 49 squares. I wonder if it was actually meant to be 6x6 (36), which would be 13 less squares? I say this because approximately six islands (squares) are there just to give you a Tri-Force Chart, and a few of the others seem a bit inconsequential. Therefore, if the Tri-Force hunt was added just to pad out the game, then perhaps 13 extra squares were too. I say this because all those dungeons plus the Tri-Force hunt would make the game too long, in my opinion. Of course, it's all speculation. I find it an interesting mystery, as I love the game so much. If the game had a smaller, 6x6 grid, the 3rd "pearl" dungeon and fleshed-out fire and ice dungeons, there would be less sailing, far more consistent "Zelda" action throughout and it would be a far, far more balanced game. However, as much as I'd love to see that, I can't help but feel Nintendo did the right thing by rushing it. I tend to think there's a "right time and place" for games. Wind Waker arrived just when it was needed, and what a beautiful game it was too. Getting back to a possible "Wiimake", I'd love it. I don't think the current controller could do it, but I think it might be possible with MotionPlus. That gives you full rotational movement, so you could control the Mirror Shield.

I disagree with that, because it's Nintendo's duty to kit the machine out with a reasonable amount of top class games in the first place, regardless of sales. Once there is a decent line-up of Mario, Zelda, F-Zero, Pikmin, Metroid etc, there is enough reason to buy the machine (a daft comment, I know, as it's mega successful!) Well, I do see it as a GameCube game, even though I have both versions. I just can't see it as a system seller for the Wii, not to those who have followed Nintendo for many years. After all, we spent 2004, 2005 and 2006 awaiting it as it was designed on the 'Cube. It's just like Resident Evil 4 and Okami - I've got no complaints about them, but I can't see them as system sellers for the Wii when they were on older consoles. I know Twilight Princess is not strictly a "port", but it's close enough. I think things are looking quite rosy. They'll probably do enough, but it's not certain yet. Zelda's all I need anyway. I honestly don't think there'll be another Mario platformer on the Wii - I think that team is working on Pikmin 3 instead, but that's good in itself.

Well, it seems there were two or three dungeons that weren't in the final game. The most obvious one is the 3rd "Pre-Master Sword" dungeon, the one that would give you the 3rd pearl. Instead, Jabun just gives it to you. It definitely seems like Great Fish Isle is meant to be more important than it actually was in the final game. As for the later parts of the game, I'd guess the ice and fire "mountains" were meant to be bigger or there was meant to be a 3rd co-op dungeon.

The massive difference, I feel, was that the GameCube had many of the multi-format games. My big games for Christmas 2005 were Incredible Hulk: Ultimate Destruction (excellent) and Ultimate Spider-Man. It may not have helped Nintendo, but it did make a big difference to how much I enjoyed the machine. Plus, that list is not that bad - there is not a AAA in it, but we were looking forward to Twilight Princess - it was an exciting time. The GameCube had at least five "mega" games - Mario Sunshine, Wind Waker, Metroid Prime, Pikmin 2 and Twilight Princess, whereas the Wii only has Mario Galaxy and maybe Metroid Prime 3 so far. They really need to give us Zelda and something like Kid Icarus before they can say there are a similar amount of mega games.

Although 90% of me is annoyed at the "NIMF" for (apparently) thinking all the games on the machine should be family-friendly, 10% of me has some sympathy for them. From what I've seen of Madworld, it is gratuitously violent. Fairly good-natured and good-humoured, but still gratuitous. The violence is relentless and celebrated. It's nowhere near as bad as films and I don't get a "nasty" feeling from it, unlike a few other games I won't mention (it's not even the worst game on the Wii), but I feel we should question the legitimacy of gratuitous violence as entertainment, in any form.

That is brilliant! I'm not a golf fan, but I'm so impressed with the MotionPlus tech. I love the way the golf club remains still if you want it to, and the way it knows your exact angle and swing. The Revolution's true controller is finally here (soon)! Bring on the real Zelda Wii!

I wasn't sad at all during the GameCube era. It was a period of artistic and technical brilliance, which really started with Mario Sunshine/Wind Waker and ended the day they announced Twilight Princess would be delayed (yeah, sorry to bring it up, but I strongly believe it). That is why those two machines were brilliant. The single-screen alternative would have been a much better machine. Imagine playing a 2D Metroid on an ergonomic handheld, with all the money going into graphics and processing power (or just a cheaper price tag).

It's quite difficult to understand there still being high demand for the Wii. I'd have thought everyone who thought it was worth £180 would have bought one by now.

Yes indeed. I can't stand peer pressure. If I enjoy a beer, I'll have it when I fancy it, not when other people think I should have it.

Very good point. DVD was finally giving us a perfect image quality for our SD TVs. Same goes for the last-gen consoles (Dreamcast to Xbox). Here, we finally had machines that matched the resolution of our TVs! However, I think HDTVs are cheap enough now. I can't see a decent 26" ever falling below £400, as that's always what a good 28" SD TV cost. When BluRay players become £100, they will really take off (if they're ever going to). I'm very, very tempted to get an HDTV, but for me it's a compatibility issue. I mostly use my GameCube, PS2 and Freeview box and I want to get a Wii this year, so an HDTV is a "couple of years time" thing for me. The interesting thing is, HDTVs themselves have taken off in a big way - they seem to have been the only thing you can buy for the past three years at least - however, there's still not a great deal of content. BluRay seems to be taking off, albeit slowly, and it seems HD broadcasts are just getting started. Poor marketing/lack of consumer demand meant it didn't get the necessary foothold. Plus, the studios were divided in which format they supported. You could literally get some films only on BluRay and others only on HD-DVD. When HD-DVD didn't make a big enough impact, the studios decided the market couldn't support a format war, and got behind BluRay in the hope that at least one of them would take off. Yeah, I didn't think you were boasting. At those sizes, SD looks pretty poor, upscaled SD is OK and BluRay looks significantly better.

There's no doubt about it, this is absolutely top class, and one of around four games I bought a GameCube for (Wind Waker, Mario Sunshine and Paper Mario 2 were the others - all top class too). I thought I was pretty good at the game, but I could never complete the 3rd GP on the highest difficulty or the 4th GP on the highest or 2nd-highest difficulty. I came so close, but you know what it's like. You misjudge one jump and you've blown it! I actually felt physically quite weak and run-down when this happened! Therefore, I would say that the game is a tad too difficult, but anyone who can unlock the AX tracks or vehicles has my utmost respect (and superhuman reflexes!) The only other thing I didn't like about this game were those "exterior tube" levels (introduced in the N64 version), because you didn't know which side the speed boosts were on and which side the rough patches were on. I know some people may like this, but I preferred the courses that were mainly about taking corners.

Good point, I hadn't thought of that. I mean, the DS strains my eyes because the 3D graphics are poor (in my opinion) and the resolution doesn't seem to be high enough for the screen size. I love the Game Boy Micro, on the other hand. I wouldn't mind jumping into a low-polygon world, such as Ocarina of Time's, for example, as long as the resolution and frame-rate were up to standard. True. It's just that reason I thought of this was because, with all the stories about the high-production costs of games, I can see processing power outstripping the actual detail in the games sooner or later, thus they might use it for "effortless" things such as 3D. I agree with you about health and safety, but I'm happy to look a pillock if it means I can fight Ganon up close! I have some theories about the next generation (let's call it 2012, for argument's sake)... Head Tracking Whilst this is quite feasible, I don't think it'll be done on its own. The reason for this is that I don't see much benefit of using it on a shared, 2D screen and I think it has a lack of appeal on its own. I can see it incorporated, though, in... 3D Control/Perfect Motion Control I believe Microsoft are highly likely to base their next console on precise 3D control. Apparently, they have just bought/are in the process of buying one of the top companies for this. Supposedly, the camera would track your head and even your fingers. Nintendo are highly likely to improve the Wiimote (MotionPlus or better) and might even incorporate their own camera system (didn't they just pay for a new R&D building?) Sony, of course, could always do something similar and improve upon the EyeToy. 3D Visuals The next few years will be make or break time for 3D cinema. If successful, 3DTVs will follow. In this case, it's hard not to see Sony and Microsoft basing their consoles around this (as I say, they could just double the processing power, to put it crudely). Of course, this would be optional. As this will be the new HDTV, I can see Nintendo avoiding it and instead using... Brainwave Control I really do think this is becoming feasible, if only as a supplement to motion control. Like I say, Nintendo seem to be increasing their R&D and this is just the kind of "gimmick" they would go for. Didn't Iwata say something about they would only release a new console when they could "completely change entertainment" again? Virtual Reality/Augmented Reality Taking Captain Falcon's points on board, I do think we are a good few generations away from this. However, Augmented Reality could take away the "anti-social" fears and possibly some of the health & safety issues too. Personally, I'll be happy with anything that can play a new Zelda in HD and with good controls, but those are some of the things I think could happen.

One of my pals was surprised I hadn't tried cannabis. He said "You've got to try it, haven't you?" Well, no! Personally, I don't see the point in trying something I know I don't want to get into. It's like tobacco - we know the harmful effects (and terrible they are too), so why start? I don't care if I'd like it or not. What's the point in saying "Oh yes, I like that, but now I have to stop because I don't want to fry my brain!"?

The only reason I'd want higher resolutions would be if 21:9 TVs (2560 x 1080) took off, just so the data exactly matches the TV. Another reason might be if 3DTV took off. I think I read that because it renders two images, it sort of halves the quality of 1080p.

I'm all for it, personally, although I must admit, every time I see HD I think to myself "This is good, but it's not amazing". I think the colours impress me more than anything (saw a showreel of Into the Blue and Casino Royale yesterday). Really, it's just making TVs a similar quality to computer monitors, which is fine by me. I wouldn't buy a large one though. I want 1080p, ideally in 28", but I might have to buy a 32" if they never make one.

I was thinking about that. I could be wrong, but wouldn't it just require more processing power (approximately double) so it could render everything from two angles? The game engine and modelling work could actually be the same as they are now.

I quite fancy an enhanced Metroid II (kept in 2D) and 3D remakes of Link to the Past and Link's Awakening. I'm for an HD remake of Ocarina of Time (and Wind Waker) on the Wii 2 as well. Widescreen, 1080p, better frame-rate... there are quite a lot of improvements to be had. Characters should be kept exactly in the same proportions though, with the same camera angles.

Mind control is one of those things I don't fancy at all. I'd much rather have some sort of 3D/virtual reality. It'll probably just be better controls and HD though, which is good enough on its own.

I'm hoping any big games like Zelda will be MotionPlus-only. Otherwise, the whole game would have to be designed around the non-enhanced remote, which would hold it back. We could see a mixture of games - some that need it and some that don't, but will be improved by using it. Turok 2 on the N64 worked with or without the RAM expansion. Majora's Mask, on the other hand, needed it, and therefore came with it.

I've got a lot to say and I'm afraid it's all over the place... I'm with you there. From my point of view, things will get going a lot more when they're all £130 for the full console. Yes, the 360 is that cheap already, but then you have to think about whether you want a hard drive and then you have to think about the innards. On top of that, we've got HDTV to think about this generation. Do you get keep the SDTV that suits your Wii and normal TV or get an HDTV that will suit the PS3/360 and the few HD broadcasts at the moment? This generation is so complicated compared to previous ones. Still, that's just me. Going by my friends, these consoles are selling. If games like Grand Theft Auto IV don't have quite the legs they were meant to though, then something's wrong (or right - personally, I've never liked those games). The only games that seem to create any buzz are the occasional FPS. It seems to me that people are spending the time and money on less individual games, but are playing them more over Xbox Live. Agree. I always thought a single format would be like DVD, which is not a monopoly. That format was agreed on by the DVD Forum, so surely we could have a "Games Console Forum"? A new standard would be agreed every 5-8 years and anyone would be free to manufacture it. As for sharing engines and modelling resources, if we are ever to have a "go anywhere, do anything" game, it seems inevitable that more cooperation of this type will be needed. We are three generations into 3D gaming and it seems a shame that there are still games that are "flops" with the critics. Moving around a 3D space should be perfected, and yet how many games are there where you can fly, run or walk anywhere and go into any building? This is a bit esoteric, but I enjoy travelling on ferries. As I was leaving Portsmouth last year, I daydreamed about a game where I could glide over to one of the three forts I was sailing past (one of them was used in Dr Who and I wanted a closer look). After I'd explored them, I'd hookshot onto an even bigger ferry and have a good look round that. Then I'd fly over to the Isle of Wight and run up the hills. If we ever want games of that scale and scope, we're going to need more co-operation with design. I don't think there'd be a monopoly, as you could have rival engines and several different modelling companies, design specialists for different vehicles. Still, I do not deny accessibilty is key. In the old days, I used to try coin-ops like Double Dragon, Dragonninja and Shinobi (the first three examples I thought of) and it was immediately clear how the game played and how the characters moved. However, these were "hardcore" games and there was a lot to them if you wanted to get into them.