Oh, Serebii
Love your optimism Grazza, always a pleasure.
As much as I believe Nintendo have the capability and know-how, I can only judge or anticipate them based on what they have been doing from recent times. I think something has distinctly changed at Nintendo HQ - maybe its confidence, ideals or even creativity.
Oh, I do completely agree with you. I've been disappointed with more Directs than I've enjoyed; I just think there's reason to believe they could get it right next time.
For example, I could certainly believe they've had difficulty adjusting to HD development times. It's like with the PS2 - I played both ICO and Shadow of the Colossus - they seemed like they were made by a very capable team, and I had no idea the 3rd game wouldn't be out until the PS4. Regarding Nintendo, I would hope that once they've got their HD game engines sorted (ie. for Metroid, Zelda), they have got a good base to work from and aren't too proud to keep putting out games on a regular basis. Not everyone agrees with the Call of Duty/Assassin's Creed model, but it least it gives fans something to play.
Another thing is the (probable) merging of handheld and console. Assuming Nintendo is going to be one system from now on (like iOS), it will give us a chance to see how much developing for two systems really was limiting then. It might be genuine, or it might have been an excuse, but at least we'll get to see either way.
I've just been browsing the Wii U eShop and it's actually quite impressive. I can't wait to have a handheld that can play all the games I've built up from Nintendo over the years - SNES, GBA, Wii U eShop.
Anyway, those are three reasons I'm optimistic about NX, but you're right. I'm not going to pretend it's good if the reveal doesn't have the promise. If they just show Donkey Kong Country Returns 3, they can forget it! 
Cant say for sure if they can recapture that simple magic that was evident from OOT and MM based on last years showing alone. They did the same mind tricks when presenting TP at E3 - nice epic trailers, but short of its potential in the finished product (IMO).
That's very true. I think what we've seen so far indicates a return to TP-quality, if not the true magic of OOT/MM/WW. Quite honestly though, that would still be extremely welcome from my point of view.
Another thing is the (probable) merging of handheld and console. Assuming Nintendo is going to be one system from now on (like iOS), it will give us a chance to see how much developing for two systems really was limiting then. It might be genuine, or it might have been an excuse, but at least we'll get to see either way.
I think that point has been exaggerated somewhat through the community.
From 2011 through to the end of 2015 (assuming no further delays or announcements), Nintendo have developed or published 159 titles:
36 Wii U Retail titles
10 Wii U Download titles
17 Wii titles
7 DS titles
59 Nintendo 3DS retail titles
30 Nintendo 3DS download titles
That's an average of one retail title a month for Wii U and one a month for the 3DS
Only issue is that they've not got third parties to fill the gaps and Nintendo don't make it easy on themselves because they do months sometimes with two or three released...sometimes the same day.
I believe the issue won't suddenly "resolve" on the new platform, especially as they'll still have console exclusive and handheld exclusive titles, it's just some may be crossplatform.
What makes it worse is they invented motion controls
No they didn't.
From 2011 through to the end of 2015 (assuming no further delays or announcements), Nintendo have developed or published 159 titles:
36 Wii U Retail titles
10 Wii U Download titles
17 Wii titles
7 DS titles
59 Nintendo 3DS retail titles
30 Nintendo 3DS download titles
That's an average of one retail title a month for Wii U and one a month for the 3DS
I'm not necessarily saying there would be more games, just that all Nintendo's staff could be focused on the same system.
In the past, console and handheld games have been very different things, but the difference is beginning to disappear. As I understand it, Nintendo staff have traditionally been shuffled between various Zelda games - handheld and console. However, assuming Nintendo's next handheld is similar to a portable Wii U, will we still need the thing that is "Handheld Zelda"? Will we need top-down games like A Link Between Worlds? Even if they're done occasionally, there will not be as much need for a sub-console experience.
Mario, too. Super Mario 3D World is so similar to 3D Land it might as well be considered a direct sequel. And New Super Mario Bros started on handhelds, but now flits between handheld and console. In future, I'm sure there will be less need to separate the two.
Good points Grazza, I think rather than NX being a hybrid console which we already know won't be happening, this shared architecture between both home console and portable will definitely be leveraged for all of its possibilities of which there are many.
There's a good chance it will be able to attract third-parties, especially for games such as Monster Hunter because why wouldn't you have a portable and a home console version if the architecture permits it to be be produced with minimum effort. You could start playing on your NX-micro (portable) then have your save file synced via your integrated NNID account - thanks to DeNA - so you can carry on where you left off on your NX on the big screen in full 1080p along with all other home console comforts, or choose to keep the NX-micro on at the same time so you can use it as an extra screen just like the Wii U gamepad.
Of course Virtual Console games would come into their own here as well, finally a portable version of Super Metroid because you already own it on your NX home console because you have a linked purchase history from when you presumably purchased it on the Wii U less than three years or so ago - assuming NX comes out on May 12 in 2017 or thereabouts - so away you go as you are able to start playing the game as it has already been downloaded for you because you were looking at it earlier on your home console and you just happened to select the 'play on the go' option which your portable machine picked up while it was in sleep mode.
Following your completion of Super Metroid you then have a notification suggesting that because you enjoyed playing that perhaps you'd like to try out Metroid II Return of Samus DX - a remake of the original in full colour with a map plus many extras - which you can again either opt to play on the sharp small screen or on the big screen with amazingly detailed textures.
Then you decide to round off your day with some online multiplayer in Metroid Prime: Federation Force II where you can enjoy up to 32-player death-matches with anyone around the world, your friends or a combination of the two all while utilising voice chat via the Nin-speak built in application running at OS level.
Well... one can dream anyway but with any luck something like that will become a reality in the not too distant future. : peace:
Look, I get the motto "you don't always get what you want", BUT...there are certain standards. These days, an avatar account, online, and achievments are essentially "standard". Achievments being extra incentives to try new stuff and go that extra mile. Take Pokemon Black/White 2, the "achievment/medals" were extra incentive to try out new stuff, do loads of extras (I didn't like them moving them to global account, I miss them in the main game). Sometimes they're done wrong, but when done right it can get you to experiment or see/do stuff you'd never do. The few Nintendo games that have them...you can't deny you get that litte bit extra out of it. To me, it even feels like something Nintendo would have invented, and they seem to be ignoring it because other companies have done it and don't want to be copy cats or something.
Which is how I see them with online, not wanting to be copies. Not all games need it, some massively benefit from it, and some it just adds a bit extra. I feel Starfox would be between massive benefit and extra. Online dog fights between Team Fox and Team Wolf? Team battle/solo. Horde mode with zillions of andross fighters... Co-op story mode levels, with teams of four (skippable scenes, if not entirely removed). Mission packs with remixed levels that have objectives for co-op? Do I think the main game will be excellent? YES, it seems to have gone back to the full proper shooter fans have been kicking Nintendo about. But that doesn't mean they have to cut online, and in this case it was a mistake as it adds so much more and massive replayability...for obviously minimum effort compared to fleshing out another main game. OF COURSE, they could easily "splatoon" us and releases content/modes after...which could be already planned (they do love their secrets), but if not, fans need to make it clear to them they love the game but they NEED more.
Don't get me wrong though, but to Serebii, you may change your tune if Nintendo realizes they can make more money from Pokemon Amiibo/cards/endless quick put together spinoff games and has GF so spread thin than main Pokemon games become super sparse. Nintendo have learned that fans will snap up "quicker" put together games just as much as "years upon years" in developement games.
NOTE; I'm NOT saying the current spinoffs are quick put together, but referencing literally choosing quicker put together games as better options to resources spent on main games. It can be seen happening across Nintendo's whole line. Still great games? YES, but the quality IS dropping, and we're seeing more and more games that fans just don't see as full main entries in a series.
Edited by Mr_Master_X2To be fair, @Mr_Master_X2, Nintendo doesn't control Pokémon and Game Freak don't do the spin-offs :p
I'm not necessarily saying there would be more games, just that all Nintendo's staff could be focused on the same system.
In the past, console and handheld games have been very different things, but the difference is beginning to disappear. As I understand it, Nintendo staff have traditionally been shuffled between various Zelda games - handheld and console. However, assuming Nintendo's next handheld is similar to a portable Wii U, will we still need the thing that is "Handheld Zelda"? Will we need top-down games like A Link Between Worlds? Even if they're done occasionally, there will not be as much need for a sub-console experience.
Mario, too. Super Mario 3D World is so similar to 3D Land it might as well be considered a direct sequel. And New Super Mario Bros started on handhelds, but now flits between handheld and console. In future, I'm sure there will be less need to separate the two.
While I agree with much of what you said, A Link Between Worlds is awesome. Why is it looked down on because it's top down rather than a 3D adventure? That's as much a game as any other.
I dislike how the industry has shifted to looking down on a few types of games as if they're inferior.
Edited by SerebiiAutomerged Doublepost
To be fair, @Mr_Master_X2, Nintendo doesn't control Pokémon and Game Freak don't do the spin-offs :p
While I agree with much of what you said, A Link Between Worlds is awesome. Why is it looked down on because it's top down rather than a 3D adventure? That's as much a game as any other.
I dislike how the industry has shifted to looking down on a few types of games as if they're inferior.
ALBW is one of the best Zelda games, any reviewer that looks down on it just because its top down aka an old style is an idiot (on invariably i've seen the same ones praise indie games that are side scrollers)
JonnasI will add that I, too, feel that the Zelda handheld games get overlooked for little reason.
I even remember in forums reading someone say "We haven't had a a new Zelda in X years", and I was literally playing Spirit Tracks during that time. I've also noticed that games like the Oracles, Minish Cap and Link's Awakening get talked about less than their 3D counterparts (Minish Cap is a noteworthy case, since it is often considered "overlooked" or "underrated", which is so weird for the only original Zelda game in its own system)
I want to say that it's because they're handhelds (rather than 2D), but Fire Emblem gets the inverse of this, so who knows?
I guess it's because a large 3D adventure makes it easier for a lot of people to feel really immersed within the gameworld.
It's easier to imagine yourself being in a world when the graphics become more "realistic".
Of course some people are easier immersed than others. (text based adventures/RPG's also still exist 
)
I will add that I, too, feel that the Zelda handheld games get overlooked for little reason.
I even remember in forums reading someone say "We haven't had a a new Zelda in X years", and I was literally playing Spirit Tracks during that time. I've also noticed that games like the Oracles, Minish Cap and Link's Awakening get talked about less than their 3D counterparts (Minish Cap is a noteworthy case, since it is often considered "overlooked" or "underrated", which is so weird for the only original Zelda game in its own system)
I want to say that it's because they're handhelds (rather than 2D), but Fire Emblem gets the inverse of this, so who knows?
I'd say they get overlooked for a big reason - they're not as good. :p
I'd say they get overlooked for a big reason - they're not as good. :p
You're correct. They're better.
ALBW is one of the best Zelda games, any reviewer that looks down on it just because its top down aka an old style is an idiot (on invariably i've seen the same ones praise indie games that are side scrollers)
Agreed.
An amazing game!!!
You're correct. They're better.
Well you may think that, but you're wrong. (hurhur)
At least in terms of addressing Jonnas's original point, it's probably because more people think the way I do as the reason why the handheld titles are, in relative terms, overlooked (OoT tops best game ever polls, the handheld titles don't).
Also ALTTP, OoT, MM, WW. Handheld titles are great, don't get me wrong, but not as great. The DS titles though were miles behind, IMO. Phantom Hourglass was dogshit.
I disagree with the Miyamoto stuff somewhat. Pikmin 3 didn't need online. I don't like how everything is given an online mode these days. It often feels shoehorned into various games. Seriously, why did The Last of Us have an online mode? It's bizarre.Starfox, though. I am disappointed that it doesn't have it.
Is that some kind of joke?
I think that point has been exaggerated somewhat through the community.
From 2011 through to the end of 2015 (assuming no further delays or announcements), Nintendo have developed or published 159 titles:
36 Wii U Retail titles
10 Wii U Download titles
17 Wii titles
7 DS titles
59 Nintendo 3DS retail titles
30 Nintendo 3DS download titles
That's an average of one retail title a month for Wii U and one a month for the 3DS
Only issue is that they've not got third parties to fill the gaps and Nintendo don't make it easy on themselves because they do months sometimes with two or three released...sometimes the same day.
I believe the issue won't suddenly "resolve" on the new platform, especially as they'll still have console exclusive and handheld exclusive titles, it's just some may be crossplatform.
I believe that, at least for the Wii U, the games all feel the same.
Had Nintendo made 46 completely varied games in every conceivable genre, mixing realistic with arcade, new franchises with old, staples with long-dormant franchises, people wouldn't complain so bad and the console would sell accordingly.
As is now, Nintendo announced and released mostly games for casuals for the systems first year on the market.
For the NX, Nintendo need to do the same as they did with the Wii: at the very unveiling of the system, they need to clearly state that we'll see most of our favorite franchises within 18 months of launch. Then they need to maintain a packed release schedule for the duration of the systems lifespan.
Last week it was COD, this week it's Zelda. Anyone care to suggest a game for discussion next week in the Nintendo NX - New Hardware Codename thread?
While I agree with much of what you said, A Link Between Worlds is awesome. Why is it looked down on because it's top down rather than a 3D adventure? That's as much a game as any other.
I dislike how the industry has shifted to looking down on a few types of games as if they're inferior.
ALBW is one of the best Zelda games, any reviewer that looks down on it just because its top down aka an old style is an idiot (on invariably i've seen the same ones praise indie games that are side scrollers)
Just to be clear, I don't look down on 2D Zeldas. A Link Between Worlds was a great game. My point is more that, from now on, handheld Zeldas won't need to be that style every time.
Top-down Zelda is an art form in its own right, but I'd argue it's better when kept as pure 2D (pixel art). Link's Awakening and Minish Cap fully embrace 2D, and so I quite agree they are classics. Just my opinion, but as soon as top-down Zeldas started to use polygons, I became less keen on them.
Just to be clear, I don't look down on 2D Zeldas. A Link Between Worlds was a great game. My point is more that, from now on, handheld Zeldas won't need to be that style every time.
Top-down Zelda is an art form in its own right, but I'd argue it's better when kept as pure 2D (pixel art). Link's Awakening and Minish Cap fully embrace 2D, and so I quite agree they are classics. Just my opinion, but as soon as top-down Zeldas started to use polygons, I became less keen on them.
So basically the DS ones........which i'd agree are the worst, wit only the CDI games being worse than them
Recommended Posts
Serebii
A Nintendo E3 review but if you scroll to the last 2 mins or so, this guy really speaks some truth with regards to Nintendo..
He really seems surprised the Wii U can do decent graphics. Yeesh. And the fact he thought the 3DS would bomb. Oish.
The rest, just seems he wants Nintendo to be the same as the rest. Meh :p
Edited by SerebiiLink to comment
Share on other sites