Why Zelda Wii will probably be the best game ever.

[Deathborn]

Gone was the many skeletons we were supposed to fight, the new Bottom of the Well-level with half-permeable zombie-like creatures and some other parts that looked a lot like great OOT levels.

 

They are not gone... You know, games evolve a lot during their creation process.

The "Bottom of the well level" is the Hyrule castle underground at the beginning. And I'm sure you can fight the "many skeletons" (3... not what I call many but anyway) somewhere.

If you want to play OOT once again so much, use your N64.

IMO, I prefer having a proper new Zelda game with his own atmosphere and main game mechanic than a bland clone of a previous game.

 

And listening the fans is overrated. Most always want the same thing over and over again (and then complain about the lack of change) or want stupid things which would kinda ruin the franchise.

Some points can be valid and have to be listened, mainly on gameplay and some features aspects (like character or stage creation, downloadable and online content, popular characters for anime or other franchises based games,...)... which isn't needed for Zelda games. Zelda games are a lot better when you let the developpers do their own stuff.

[Rummy]

But...what atmosphere did it have! TP just WAS NOT ZELDA. TP was a generic kinda game with Zelda slapped onto it, as I said before, it was totally lacking in charm(well not totally, but alot compared to the others). One thing I felt it lacked that I don't think I mentioned was a variety of item use, the items felt very much like you use them a ton in the dungeon you get them, then never again really, and that was a shame cos it had some well cool items(the ball and chain, the spinner). If it were like older Zeldas, there'd have been plenty of oppurtunity for reusing said items in the overworld of sidequests(ball and chain minigame? spinner minigame?).

I think a lack of magic, which I'd forgotten about, whilst seeming quite minor may have had some larger knockon, as it meant all items had to be designed magic free. I remember using fire arrows/din's fire back in OoT and MM for burning webs and stuff down holes though(again, more item interaction with the world). The older Zeldas were less linear, maybe even comparable in ways to Metroid in that when you got an item, it wouldn't JUST get you through your dungeon, it'd open up a few optional possibilities for you on the overworld(LttP - new gloves new rocks, hammer can get you to new places, longshot/hookshot, goron bracelet in OoT etc).

Zelda games just aren't meant to be as Linear as TP was, and I think that is what made its biggest downfall, the sidequests they DID put in were a bit rubbish too with no real decent rewards, and also a bit too much on the long side. Instead of three long side quests, I'd rather take 6 short ones with variety.

[RPGfan]

Thanks, King V, for the compliment! It is warmly appreciated (and kudos to you, Rummy, for describing the problem with TLP spot-on!)

 

But I don´t think people will let Nintendo get away with dropping the exuberance and vigour they are famous for. If they do, their fanbase will smoulder like SEGA´s did, and before they know it all the new-wii-bie´s will tire of the simple games and put their consoles in the attic to gather dust. Their expanded market could fade just as fast as it came.

 

Just look at Microsoft. They are right now dropping the price of the entry level Xbox360 Arcade, to less than the price for a Wii. And they have a release list of great games, with the right brandnames and licenses tucked on, so long that it seems to never stop. My jaw dropped when I realized how many cool games are on the way to the platform. It´s an inundation simply. So I have to buy a console to play them now that they have lessened the noise from the fans (see Christopher Deweese´s review of xbox 360 60 GB version over on Amazon.com).

 

Videogames are about GAMES firstly, not only about revolutionary console-features or raw processing power. We all know that. So Sony´s dire prediction that the Wii will wind up being a mere gimmick could one day hold true. The ball is entirely in Nintendo´s court. There is this ominous tendency for the past´s formerly great videogame developers to go belly-up suddenly after years of trying to hold on. While Nintendo does seem far from that, the truth could be that they are much closer to it than we might think. The marketforces are tricky, and like the shallow loyalty of shareholders consumer trends can shift from one year to the next.

 

It´s all about momentum, foresight and saturation of the market. No dull management sitting on an ocean of money with full bellies. What made Nintendo great, was the desire to penetrate the market and succeed. Hiroshi Yamauchi motivated his developer teams to deliver great games by pitting them up against one another in internal competitions for his blessing like a benevolent, but strict father. But do Nintendo still work that way I ask? Do they still have they old developer desire to make great games for their fans, or do I sense the foul smell of big management slowly beginning to choke off the beauty of creativity and passion for creating the best in interactive entertainment? All within the walls of mighty Nintendo?

 

I encourage Nintendo to keep on satisfying the market with great games and not sub par titles all of the others already have. Therein lies the real danger for Nintendo. They have said it before: if they don´t have a console on the market, they wont be in the market. They wont become a third party agnostic developer.

 

What me and many others had hoped was that the Wii would be a place for great new games, and instead it turns out that while there is admittedly some great games most of the third party devs can´t catch up in quality with Ninty. So what you mostly have is sub par games, with a long wait until the next wave of first party titles arrive.

 

Nintendo has always had this problem. Their titles are of such renown, and such high quality that few others can catch up. Therefore I hold that it is no where near the solution to lessen the quality of their own titles (which EDGE is implying they might) because then you´re looking at imminent doom for the company if people one day find out that the majority of titles on Nintendo platforms are either shovelware, dumbed down or simpleton games (I pray that will never happen, as it would hurt the industry a lot). Sony and Microsoft would be damn quick to take advantage of such a situation and cajole consumers over to them with ready-made sudden price-drops of their superior hardware with games bundled in should Nintendo ever wind up looking like a once-was company.

 

Moreover, the shock such a consumer reaction would send into the financial markets would be considerable. Nintendo has already been in the red once before (for the first time admittedly) a few years back which rattled their stocks. Nintendo then acted by rapidly buying back a lot of shares apparently to prevent a sudden hostile take-over by predatory speculators taking advantage of the temporary down-turn in their stockvalue.

 

So they have felt the heat of hell before, and we can all only hope they havent forgotten it. I think they are aware of it, but the question is how far Iwata and Miyamoto are able to look into the future. If they are even aware of how quickly they can lose what they´ve got, if not they are so sure of their safety on the top that they forget that being in the videogame business is about satisfying gamers, not shareholders.

 

A lot of the videogames companies I have followed over the years in the news from the heights of fortune and fame to doom and gloom seemed to share one common trait: their shareholders, not their developers, decided what games would be released to market. Which finally eroded their fanbase so much that they had garnered a negative reputation. Nintendo should avoid ripples of discontent, for it is the beginning of something larger more ominous.

 

Like I said in my first reply to this thread, there is a lot of companies vying for domination in the industry these days. What I fear, honestly speaking (sigh!) is that Nintendo could cyclically become the next SEGA to be devoured by Sony or Microsoft in a market where big business for mostly shareholders more and more threatens to thwart the love of games and threaten the very premise for the existence of the videogame industry: the love of unique content in virtual worlds which brings greater joy of entertainment than you can find in most other places. Which is why people - even during financial recessions - buy the consoles and games anyway. But one day they might not. I am just using the looking-glasses here based off of mine and other industry observers observations of Nintendo lately. I hope that what I see coming in the end will never materialize.

[Hellfire]

Another great post by RPGfan... But I fear that Nintendo don't give a rat's arse about 'customer care' now. Why should they [now]? They can just make a simpleton demo tech "game", add some colour, employ 'real-like' Wii-remote gestures, punt it down the high street and it will sell by the shipload. I don't believe this New Nintendo have the exhuberence and vigour they once had.

 

Totally.

 

 

And I'm not even posting Zela, considering it's the game we're discussing. Seriously, what the hell Nintendo?

[Falcon_BlizZACK]

My point exactly. (lol I knew you would do that). There is nothing original about the above games, 2/3 of those games is pretty much identical to their predecessors. 2/3 of those games were dumbed down due to this new audience...

 

IMO dumbed down games are almost as worst as the demo tech waggle shite because that stupidfication just ruined the whole experience of that game for an eternity. Why is it that the special attack of a boss like Twinrova in OOT takes like 4-7 hearts off you, yet an attack from beast ganon in TP takes 1-2? Stupidness.

[Hellfire]

Of course you knew I'd do that, because it's logical reply. That "there is nothing" original bs is getting old, these are flagship titles that everyone always wants and honestly, crying about new IPs all the time when most new IPs on other consoles are the same games we've been getting for years, but with different names is ridiculous. Innovation is now being boiled down to a new title, instead of new mechanics and gameplay styles, and more obvious innovations are being ignored because they're "tech demos".

Also, again with the dumb down. to me, none of those games were dumbed down. Yes, Zelda is easy, we know, yes Brawl doesn't allow so many combos, yes Galaxy isn't mind blowing hard (not that if I go play OoT or Mario 64 right now, they're very hard), but they're still classic Nintendo games in the way that they're incredibly well made and high quality and with obvious concern for the consumer's satisfaction. You keep on asking for the "exhuberence and vigour they once had." and it's there, alongside with what you call tech demos (because if a game isn't hardcore, it's a tech demo, God forbids, games being catered to new unexperienced audiences, even if they're very well made and original). It's the age old debate, neither of us is bringing anything new to the table. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

[Emasher]

I think Nintendo's strategy is not exactly to just reach new markets. I think they're trying to become THE console for hardcore games. You may think I'm crazy in thinking this, but think about it. Nintendo's been making a lot of casual games recently that have been selling bucket loads. Now, the other console holders are trying to copy this. Look at what MS is doing. But since X-Box and PS3 are already established as Hardcore consoles, Casuals are sort of scared away from them. I think once Sony and MS begin to full out concentrate on Casual games, as Nintendo appears to be now, perhaps Nintendo is going to release a flood of hardcore games and capture the hardcore market.

 

It might not seem very likely, but it really is what the Blue Ocean Strategy is all about.

[RPGfan]

Keeping my fingers crossed for that then. And I will be expecting great news on the 2. October announcement by Nintendo. Thumbs up for some "mega-(ton)news to break the ice on the hardcore gamer front.

[Diageo]

I think Nintendo's strategy is not exactly to just reach new markets. I think they're trying to become THE console for hardcore games. You may think I'm crazy in thinking this, but think about it. Nintendo's been making a lot of casual games recently that have been selling bucket loads. Now, the other console holders are trying to copy this. Look at what MS is doing. But since X-Box and PS3 are already established as Hardcore consoles, Casuals are sort of scared away from them. I think once Sony and MS begin to full out concentrate on Casual games, as Nintendo appears to be now, perhaps Nintendo is going to release a flood of hardcore games and capture the hardcore market.

 

It might not seem very likely, but it really is what the Blue Ocean Strategy is all about.

 

I'd like to believe that, i really would. But I can't...

[Rummy]

Man, I only JUST thought of making a Carlsberg joke, I'm ashamed of my lack of comedy quickness.

 

Anyway, I appreciate the appreciation RPGFan, and I must say I appreciate your posts too, you highlight some brilliant points in your posts I fail to consider before reading!

The issue of Nintendo and their current market/fanbase, is a very important one I think, these 'casual' gamers are casual as such, they are not 'fanboys'(with or without the stereotyped negatives, I feel I lack them now, or have them buried deep ) and so will not be loyal like alot of consumers were back in the cartridge days. In fact, your point of Sega was a brilliant one, Nintendo and Sega pratically held the gaming market, Nintendo has managed to stay afloat miracurously with their innovation of DS and Wii but the big competitors now are Microsoft and Sony who came along and did it better. Nintendo will only be able to survive with their current ways by staying one step ahead on innovation each time(because face it, they lag behind on tech, and maybe already/soon to be game quality?), offering a gimmick essentially, it's the only reason they have the market now too, because we(like us guys, who I'd consider more of the old school kind of gamer, 'serious' gamers lol) clearly are beginning to think their games aren't up to standard.

They're bringing in a new market, a market of gamers who weren't gamers, but once they're into it, who's to say they won't just gateway onto the PS3 and the 360? It's possible and likely due to the sheer numbers, especially if they'd prefer the things that Nintendo aren't offering, and Nintendo need to be wary of that. I feel very much that the older fans, the 'hard core' of gamers, are being neglected by them, and thus moving onto other systems(admittedly my first other system was an Xbox, 3 years ago now, and due to more monies in my pocket) but as RPGFan pointed out, the 360 current has an awful lot of goodness to offer us at an affordable price, not far off the Wii's. I'm rather tempted to get one, and probably will, the only thing that holds me back IS money, and that is then tempered by my residual fanboy loyalty to Nintendo(ie I'd rather spend my limited money on their products because they'll be better). However, Nintendo have the habit of producing AMAZING things, but very spaced out, whereas the others tend to have an average goodness going for them, I guess I'm just waiting for the next bit of amazing from Nintendo, it's all built on a hope and expectation, but I gotta say, I'm starting to lose hope it's ever gonna come.

 

(Of course, there are opinions and statements in my post such as games being good and bad, up to standard and not, I was just putting it as I see it, and am totally aware that how good a game is, depends on who's judging it and by what standards.)

 

 

EDIT: Having just read this short thread(cheers Dante) over in other consoles, the 360 topped out the Wii in this week's sales or something(admittedly only by a very small amount, but compared to the fact they haven't usually above it's kinda big), and it made me want to add to this post. Basically, Microsoft have got the kind of marketing idea, I don't like it, but they have it. They're GOING for that loyalty I mentioned, they're stealing it from Nintendo by getting in publishers like Square Enix. Man, it's probably the same reason they bought Rare, hoping to nab the N64-Rare Lovers, and no doubt it worked to some extent(before people realised Rare got a bit crapper after parting with Ninty), but it WILL work to an extent every time, and to the detriment of Nintendo or whoever had that loyalty before. I feel Nintendo are just mugging off their loyal customers, and nobody who's sticking with them out of loyalty for old things will appreciate that, they've made the effort so why don't Nintendo! Cos of that, they'll go elsewhere, they'll go to the people who offer them some of the reason they commited, give them some of what they were waiting for and bam, Nintendo lose a customer. Then it might be 10, 10,000, 100,000, who knows? I can see it happening if they don't fix up though, they won't stay on this high forever without working hard enough to keep it.

[Dante]

Ive not read any of the posts in here but if the next zelda game is like MM + lttp + TP with new ideas with out following the oot/lttp pattern that the zelda series seem to get trap into and remove things that oot brought into the series ie Z-lock.

[...]

My point exactly. (lol I knew you would do that). There is nothing original about the above games, 2/3 of those games is pretty much identical to their predecessors. 2/3 of those games were dumbed down due to this new audience...

 

IMO dumbed down games are almost as worst as the demo tech waggle shite because that stupidfication just ruined the whole experience of that game for an eternity. Why is it that the special attack of a boss like Twinrova in OOT takes like 4-7 hearts off you, yet an attack from beast ganon takes 1-2? Stupidness.

 

About the "dumbed down games"... It's funny, I was playing SMB 3 this afternoon, hadn't played it in 2 years, and I noticed how it was "dumbed down" from SMB. Don't think so? How about them items you collect and can access in the map screen in order to begin a level fully powered up, as opposed to small Mario?

 

In fact, here's the instructions manual page that mentions it:

 

How's that for dumbing down? And SMB 3 is considered a classic by literally every damn gamer in the world. Not only a classic, some people call it "the best game ever". But the fact is that it was dumbed down and made easier than the original game, giving you plenty of free power-ups.

 

Its levels are also quite smaller than the original game's levels. It also gives you much more time to complete them. Hearing the

is very rare in SMB 3, whilst it happened in the original SMB even if you were speeding through the level.

8-1 from the original, for example, comes to mind about the hurry theme, that's such a long level. Or 7-2, where just waiting for the right passage to open up through the Bloopers wastes you a lot of time and you probably get the hurry theme.

 

 

My point? Nintendo have been making their franchises easier and more accessible since forever, not just now. The lock-on system, invented with OoT is yet another example of making it easier for mass appeal. The whole purpose of the lock-on was to make combat in 3D easier. Like that you're always facing your enemy and don't have to worry about it. It practically makes controlling in 3D as easy as controlling in 2D.

[Jonnas]

I've seen plenty of good points here, mainly from Hellfire, Chris the Great and Deathborn.

 

Anyway, as long as they actually have a good idea for the next Zelda, it should be fine. Let's take a look:

 

-Legend of Zelda: The entire concept of adventure and exploration was the idea;

-A Link to the Past: Introducing new items, and the dual-world system were the main ideas. This isn't one my favourite Zeldas, but I'd say those ideas were what made the game's reputation;

-Link's Awakening: Can't quite figure out this one. It just seems like they were aiming for a slightly different, more accessible 2D Zelda;

-Ocarina of Time: Reinventing the concepts of the previous games, by making them 3D. Pretty successful in that;

-Majora's Mask: Regretfully, I've never played this one, but it's pretty obvious the main idea was the 3-day system;

-Oracle of Seasons & Ages: Making a 2 game adventure was the idea. Not only it turned out pretty well, they introduced a bunch of sweet new items and puzzles (more on that later);

-Wind Waker: Taking the exploration elements from previous games, and apply them to a sailing/islands theme. Obviously;

-Minish Cap: Perfecting the 2D formula seemed to be the goal here. I'd say they were successful;

-Phantom Hourglass: Making the formula for a proper DS adventure game. Unfortunately, everything was easy as hell, but they're objective was definately accomplished;

-Twilight Princess: I'm not sure what they were going for, honestly. I just didn't notice anything connecting the game together. If anything, they got graphical ambience right, so if that was what they were going for, they did well.

 

Of course, the charm of the game is also important, but as long as the main idea is good, the rest will most likely turn out well. The only games that didn't have clear ideas (IMO) were LA and TP. LA was saved by a good, simple story and charm, while TP was saved by a few features, although none of them related.

 

Anyway, I've been replaying the handheld Zeldas recently (including Seasons for the first time) and I've noticed some of these items were never translated into 3D. How awesome could the Gust Jar and the Magnetic Glove be in a 3D game?

 

Four Swords, Crossbow training, Minish Cap, Oracles, Wind Waker and Twilight Princess are all bif failures. Zelda should be the Creme de la Creme of Nintendo games. The development time should be as long as it takes to acheive the result, and so shuould the budget be.

 

Zelda 1, A Link to the Past and Ocarina of time were all considered to be the best game ever when they were released, and Link's Awakening was considered the best portable game ever. Nintendo have damaged the Zelda reputation immencily since then, with cashcows and half-assed attempts. Nintendo should have made a second games series, rather than making Zeldas that dissapoint certain fans, and don't reach the level of quality that fans have gotten used to.

 

By that logic, only 4 Zeldas are good in a series of about 15 games. If Zelda is "the best series ever", then that is an extremely flawed logic.

 

Anyway, Nintendo has better series. Most Metroids are nearly flawless (and the "flaws" that exist are just gameplay quirks and differences that don't sit well with everybody. Not unlike, say, Zelda), and Fire Emblem is one of my favourite Nintendo series, despite being virtually unknown (even among the hardcore audience) and most of its games inaccessible.

 

So I really don't know why Zelda has to be the alpha and omega of everything.

 

Another great post by RPGfan... But I fear that Nintendo don't give a rat's arse about 'customer care' now. Why should they [now]? They can just make a simpleton demo tech "game", add some colour, employ 'real-like' Wii-remote gestures, punt it down the high street and it will sell by the shipload. I don't believe this New Nintendo have the exhuberence and vigour they once had.

 

But they do.

Just like when people accused them of "losing it" in the times of the N64 (where Sony was making better marketing decisions. Of course, no one noticed Nintendo was the one paving the way of good 3D games) or the Gamecube (where people complained about the lack of quantity of games...despite the quality of them being among the highest)

 

Right now, they're (once again) paving the way for a new kind of gaming, while simultaneously releasing about the same kind of quality games of the Cube era. And even that new kind of gaming is better made by Nintendo than by, let's say, Ubisoft.

 

It's not that, it's like the game is physically programmed to fuck me over at this point. When Vaati charges up and you have to turn into 4 Links to send the attack back, one always goes off on a diagonal angle.

 

Here's a tip: While charging your sword, light up 3 of the tiles. Don't light the 4th one yet. Dodge all of Vaati's attacks that way. When the attacks stop, light the 4th one. It should give you time to attack.

[EEVILMURRAY]

Here's a tip: While charging your sword, light up 3 of the tiles. Don't light the 4th one yet. Dodge all of Vaati's attacks that way. When the attacks stop, light the 4th one. It should give you time to attack.

I don't even become 4-Links until Vaati stops attacking.

[Jonnas]

I don't even become 4-Links until Vaati stops attacking.

 

Doh! Sorry, I read that wrong. I thought you had trouble dodging the electric attack. My bad.

 

About that, yeah it's hard. The best advice I have is...trying to be as close as possible, and swing the sword like a madman to reflect his attack, as the diagonal path won't trouble you much. But you probably already tried that, anyway.

[Goron_3]

To whoever it was that said Mario Bros. 3 was toned down and made easier...well, I lol'd.

 

The game is still one of the hardest games ever.

[Emasher]

To whoever it was that said Mario Bros. 3 was toned down and made easier...well, I lol'd.

 

The game is still one of the hardest games ever.

 

QFT, it may seem easy in the beginning but then...

[...]

To whoever it was that said Mario Bros. 3 was toned down and made easier...well, I lol'd.

 

The game is still one of the hardest games ever.

 

Still, the concept of giving you free power ups for you to use before entering a level IS making it more accessible to people, whether you want it or not. It also gives you vast ammounts of 1-ups. I'm on the 5th world with 40+ lives.

[The-chosen-one]

in the next zelda i want to see fierce deity back and i want the ocarina and i want to fight Dark link

[Jonnas]

Still, the concept of giving you free power ups for you to use before entering a level IS making it more accessible to people, whether you want it or not. It also gives you vast ammounts of 1-ups. I'm on the 5th world with 40+ lives.

 

Is it? It gives you more options, and may make the game easier, but SMB is definately more accessible than SMB3.

[Emasher]

Still, the concept of giving you free power ups for you to use before entering a level IS making it more accessible to people, whether you want it or not. It also gives you vast ammounts of 1-ups. I'm on the 5th world with 40+ lives.

 

So you're saying that any sequel that adds an inventory system is dumbed down? I think it added more depth to the game, a new level of strategy.

[...]

So... starting a level fully powered up instead of making you power up again after dying isn't making it easier on the gamer?

Is it so hard to see that their philosophy has always been the same? To make games accessible to anyone?

[Emasher]

Yes, but that was balanced out by the levels being harder.

[Falcon_BlizZACK]

By dumbed down, I mean a game that has noticeably been made easier than its predecessor. The amount of hearts you lost in ocarina of Time from an attack compared with the amount of hearts you lose in Twilight Princess is a great example. I mean, why do that?

 

A game with no difficulty settings must be varied in difficulty rather than constantly set on 'very easy'.

[darkjak]

But...what atmosphere did it have! TP just WAS NOT ZELDA. TP was a generic kinda game with Zelda slapped onto it, as I said before, it was totally lacking in charm(well not totally, but alot compared to the others). One thing I felt it lacked that I don't think I mentioned was a variety of item use, the items felt very much like you use them a ton in the dungeon you get them, then never again really, and that was a shame cos it had some well cool items(the ball and chain, the spinner). If it were like older Zeldas, there'd have been plenty of oppurtunity for reusing said items in the overworld of sidequests(ball and chain minigame? spinner minigame?).

I think a lack of magic, which I'd forgotten about, whilst seeming quite minor may have had some larger knockon, as it meant all items had to be designed magic free. I remember using fire arrows/din's fire back in OoT and MM for burning webs and stuff down holes though(again, more item interaction with the world). The older Zeldas were less linear, maybe even comparable in ways to Metroid in that when you got an item, it wouldn't JUST get you through your dungeon, it'd open up a few optional possibilities for you on the overworld(LttP - new gloves new rocks, hammer can get you to new places, longshot/hookshot, goron bracelet in OoT etc).

Zelda games just aren't meant to be as Linear as TP was, and I think that is what made its biggest downfall, the sidequests they DID put in were a bit rubbish too with no real decent rewards, and also a bit too much on the long side. Instead of three long side quests, I'd rather take 6 short ones with variety.

 

I can agree that TP had flaws, but I think it was much more Zelda than let's say Wind Waker. TP had a lot of good sides which many of you seem to be forgetting. Twilight Princess was, for me, the best Nintendo game for a very long time.