Nintendo @ E3 2016

[Dcubed]

I wouldn't be surprised if the original "Zelda only" idea was entirely his, and that the change was down to the new people. I hope so.

 

It's more likely that an NX reveal at E3 was originally his idea; before they "delayed" it till next year.

[S.C.G]

Exactly, let's give Iwata some credit!

 

As much as I'm stil looking forward to E3 - yes, even with just Zelda and Pokémon! - it's not going to be the same and it never will be, that's something we just have to come to terms with.

[Agent Gibbs]

I have never been so un hyped for an E3 ever.

 

Seems Nintendo have either miscommunicated their e3 showings, or (like serebii said) are scrambling to fill it with more than one game after realising they have stuff

 

uhh its just a shambles

 

Not bothered about MS and Sony either, i've little interest in a slightly upgraded console.

 

I might enjoy what gets shown at e3 but the hype is gone this year, utterly gone

[Josh64]

Is this what people are always worried about when it's suggested Nintendo should go third party? A lack of releases and fading into obscurity? Because it feels that way lately anyway. Honestly, back in 2007 if you'd have told me Nintendo wouldn't host a press conference and only have a handful of games to show off at E3 I'd have laughed. If you'd have told me they'd pull off the Twiligt Princess trick again I'd have really thought you were taking the piss. Sad times indeed.

[Hogge]

Exactly, let's give Iwata some credit!

 

As much as I'm stil looking forward to E3 - yes, even with just Zelda and Pokémon! - it's not going to be the same and it never will be, that's something we just have to come to terms with.

Regardless of what the case is, it speaks in his discredit.

If the release had to be pushed back by five months to make sure there's enough games, Iwata was planning on releasing a console with too few games. Again.

If he planned Zelda only from the get go, it shows how out of touch he was and how little he understood how to market his brand.

 

I'm seriously starting to wonder if he didn't get a stroke at some point. Not as in "oh, he's a dumbass, must have stroke, LOL!!oneone", but as in a genuine question about his mental ability to cope with the job he had.

[Pestneb]

Regardless of what the case is, it speaks in his discredit.

If the release had to be pushed back by five months to make sure there's enough games, Iwata was planning on releasing a console with too few games. Again.

If he planned Zelda only from the get go, it shows how out of touch he was and how little he understood how to market his brand.

 

I'm seriously starting to wonder if he didn't get a stroke at some point. Not as in "oh, he's a dumbass, must have stroke, LOL!!oneone", but as in a genuine question about his mental ability to cope with the job he had.

 

tbh I find that a little distasteful.

 

We don't know what Nintendo were planning, we don't know what their partners told them, we don't know why the nx has been pushed back. There are a lot of unknowns, 10 months is plenty of time to have several spanners thrown into the works. For example, did he know about the Neo?

 

Also I imagine his death has had a detrimental effect on the staff at Nintendo, particularly those he was in regular contact with - ie the people who are at the top who are making these weird decisions now...

 

Just seems like a cheap shot with no basis other than an apparently strong dislike for Iwata.

[Hogge]

tbh I find that a little distasteful.

 

We don't know what Nintendo were planning, we don't know what their partners told them, we don't know why the nx has been pushed back. There are a lot of unknowns, 10 months is plenty of time to have several spanners thrown into the works. For example, did he know about the Neo?

 

Also I imagine his death has had a detrimental effect on the staff at Nintendo, particularly those he was in regular contact with - ie the people who are at the top who are making these weird decisions now...

 

Just seems like a cheap shot with no basis other than an apparently strong dislike for Iwata.

Like I said, it wasn't meant to be a diss against him. We know that his health wasn't good for at least the last year of his life. And with the experience I've had with a few relatives of mine, strokes are usually followed by other ailments. And oftentime the person in question doesen't even realise he/she has a stroke. And we can't ignore the fact that he made some really bone headed decisions.

 

It is true that we know very little. But Nintendo are giving us very little to soften the backlash from what's going on. What we have is Kimishima's comment on the lack of launch software. Which I'm assuming is the straight up truth.

That either suggests he thought that Iwata's original launch lineup wasn't good enough (in terms or quality or quantity... or that Kimishima outright revoked the greenlight on some of the games and made the teams start on new, different projects), or that Iwata made a disastrous misjudgement of how long it takes to develop games (because I doubt they delayed the release of the console for five months because of ONE game, it must have been a meaningful portion of the launch lineup and launch window lineup).

Neo having any influence is hopefully not true. Because if it does, Iwata had planned to yet again release a console which would be obsolete within a couple of years. And even if that were the case, how do you solve that? Pull a Saturn and just throw in some random chips and hope third parties don't ignore them?

 

I truly sympathise with Kimishima for having to solve this mess.

 

And believe it or not, I don't dislike Iwata. In the Nintendo Directs and in interviews, he seemed very sympathetic and he seemed able to joke about himself. The people who worked with him seemed to like him a lot. He just wasn't fit to be the CEO of Nintendo. He could have done wonders if he'd be put in charge of his own internal studio. But running the whole shabang? No, just no.

Edited June 3, 2016 by Hogge

[Mr-Paul]

What you're saying is pretty disgusting even with your clarifications.

 

You're just spouting baseless speculation. He was the President of Nintendo, he didn't make every single decision of the company.

 

He had bile duct cancer. Which is pretty much the worst kind you can get. I know this from experience, my best friend passed away from it 3 months after Iwata. It's a vile disease.

 

He did well to get back to work in any capacity at all. I imagine he spent a lot of his time back at work, off ill. It's likely he knew his days were numbered.

 

Show a bit of respect.

[Serebii]

Regardless of what the case is, it speaks in his discredit.

If the release had to be pushed back by five months to make sure there's enough games, Iwata was planning on releasing a console with too few games. Again.

If he planned Zelda only from the get go, it shows how out of touch he was and how little he understood how to market his brand.

 

I'm seriously starting to wonder if he didn't get a stroke at some point. Not as in "oh, he's a dumbass, must have stroke, LOL!!oneone", but as in a genuine question about his mental ability to cope with the job he had.

 

Delays that happened ~8 months after his passing are not exactly his fault.

 

Games get delayed. This is s fact.

[Mr_Master_X2]

I don't know why some of you are still going on about "only Zelda." It was always "only one PLAYABLE game; Zelda." There's likely ALWAYS been trailers for other stuff planned for later days. As for Pokemon S/M; last minute? No idea. I could've sworn we've known about E3 Pokemon for months, it was just never confirmed on Nintendo's list until now. The "playable first five minutes" is probably most definitely new if people at the show other than Treehouse can play it. Unless...

 

You need to look at it from Nintendo's perpsective; this isn't just one of the last Wii U games, it's the FIRST NX game. Everything else comes after it in their eyes. I truly can't fathom why anyone would believe only one game would be shown over E3 (especially since they never even said that...at no time did they say one game shown only "just Zelda") It has to be the focus. It's a Zelda game that will sell on two consoles, likely their biggest game EVER, and will be a huge money earner. If I were them I'd make it the star focus of the show and put everything else to later days trailer too...and it would be perfectly understandable and not some "those misunderstanding and whining internet guys Nintendo ALWAYS ignores...they won it for us this time and got Nintendo to change their mind! YIPPEE!!"

 

I'm not saying it ISN'T true (one never knows), but c'mon "what" is more likely...? Internet misunderstand (even if their dialogue was obvious) or Nintendo listening to people on the internet/fans/trolls?

Edited June 4, 2016 by Mr_Master_X2

[Ashley]

I don't think it was internet misinterpretation, it was just bad communication from Nintendo. Even their E3 site only started listing other games this week: http://web.archive.org/web/20160512181132/http://e3.nintendo.com

[Pestneb]

Really? The fact they specified "playable" strongly insinuated that there would be other titles present that weren't playable.

[Ashley]

There's no use of that word in the link I supplied...

[Mr-Paul]

It's a clear change of strategy to me. And if the plan was always to stream everything else, they just didn't say earlier, why not let those at the show actually play them? It makes no sense at all.

 

Previously:

 

Nintendo’s kickoff to the E3 show happens at 9 a.m. PT Tuesday, June 14, when Nintendo of America President and COO Reggie Fils-Aime introduces Nintendo Treehouse: Live, which will be dedicated to a day of live-streamed gameplay of The Legend of Zelda. This will be the world’s first in-depth look at the game, which will also include commentaries by Nintendo developers. The Legend of Zelda gameplay will be streamed from the E3 show floor via Nintendo’s channels on YouTube and Twitch, as well as on http://e3.nintendo.com. The stream will include game coverage, behind-the-scenes info and plenty of fun.

 

Clearly just Zelda.

 

Now:

 

Nintendo @ E3 starts at 9 a.m. PT on Tuesday, June 14. Tune in starting at 9 a.m. PT to see Pokémon Sun and Pokémon Moon in action, followed by the world’s first in-depth look at the new Legend of Zelda game. The day will continue with livestreamed gameplay and behind-the-scenes info from the game experts of Nintendo Treehouse—live and unscripted from the show floor.

 

Then be sure to come back for a second day of livestreaming, starting at 10 a.m. PT on June 15. The day will start with a special Pokémon GO developer Q&A session. Then Nintendo Treehouse: Live will showcase upcoming games such as Monster Hunter Generations, Dragon Quest VII: Fragments of the Forgotten Past, and Tokyo Mirage Sessions #FE.

 

They've backtracked because of the backlash.

Still going to be an ultra disappointing E3 by the sounds of it.

[Pestneb]

There's no use of that word in the link I supplied...

 

There's no mention of "only" either... is there?? maybe I've missed something but I don't see anything that says that nintendo's e3 will exclusively feature zelda, only that it would be predominantly focused on zelda...

[FireMeowth]

No matter what they originally had planned, I think we can all agree that they should've been faster to confirm that they had more to show. Could have saved us all from a lot of the doom and gloom the "Zelda-only" E3 announcement brought...

[Pestneb]

 

 

 

Clearly just Zelda.

 

Hmm.. not what I got from it. Again I only read that as a strong focus on Zelda. Where does it state there won't be any other games??? Obviously only I'm not seeing this "we will bring zelda and categorically won't show anything else" everyone else is reading I must be missing something obvious!!

 

But when they stated 800k Wii U for this FY.. that told me this is going to be an uneventful year as far as Nintendo are concerned for me. It's all good though, lets me focus on other things!

[darksnowman]

Yeah come on, after the success of the Treehouse stream before they weren't gonna just drop it entirely.

[Mr-Paul]

Hmm.. not what I got from it. Again I only read that as a strong focus on Zelda. Where does it state there won't be any other games??? Obviously only I'm not seeing this "we will bring zelda and categorically won't show anything else" everyone else is reading I must be missing something obvious!!

 

But when they stated 800k Wii U for this FY.. that told me this is going to be an uneventful year as far as Nintendo are concerned for me. It's all good though, lets me focus on other things!

 

There have been 3 stages to their E3 announcements.

 

1) Only Zelda playable.

2) Treehouse Live announced - Whole day of Zelda.

3) Revised Treehouse Live schedule - Zelda plus everything else.

 

If there were plans for all this stuff added, there's no logic in announcing that it's a whole day of Zelda and not detailing anything else, then changing it to what it is now. It's obvious from the fact that it's gone from Zelda straight away at the start of the day and all day long to instead having Pokémon kicking things off instead. Sure, as you say there's no categorical denial they wouldn't be showing anything else, but if there was plans to show more at that stage, it makes sense to say so.

 

There's no Nintendo Direct or press conference. That's what'd normally be on at 9am that day.

 

And like I said before, there's absolutely no logic in showing these games on stream but not having them playable at E3 at all. Plans have clearly changed.

[Pestneb]

Ok... Zelda is the main focus - that hasn't changed. This first came to light at an investors meeting didn't it? So it makes sense to me that they didn't go into masses of detail on the E3 plans "then Aonuma will walk on stage an say "

 

It's an overview... essentially, "yes E3 will be low key, basically we'll put zelda in the spotlight and really put all our effort into promoting that title".

 

Then to the internet "ok so you already know this, yes it is happening."

 

Then when they have finalised plans, spoken to the pokemon company, made sure the other games being showed will definitely have a presentable form in time for E3 (they probably wanted to avoid showing rough representations after last year) they release a bit more information, rather than saying "yes this will be there" only for it to look terrible/be removed from the list at a later point.

 

I agree, it probably is the case that NX was originally intended to be unveiled, but they may have been worried about competing for attention against the Neo - and unless NX is an absolute beast of a machine I imagine those concerns would be well founded - as well as the potential for late additions to the NX itself. It might not be so much a lack of foresight and more of a case of new technologies becoming more readily available. Something they realised would elevate the final product sufficiently to justify a delay of several months. While a bad game can be patched, a piece of hardware can only be expanded by a very limited amount.

 

as for the logic of them being shown not played, making a demo isn't simply a case of cutting out access to certain parts of the game, the gameplay has to be close enough to the finished article so as to not give a terrible impression. It adds pressure to the development teams. A clip showing gameplay allows a lot of control as to what is seen - Nintendo can decide what meets the final standard and show case that, while avoiding maybe buggy situations. Same with tree house, they can be briefed what they can and cannot be doing.

 

Secondly it forces a focus on zelda.... why they are doing this a whole year ahead of time slightly concerns me to be honest.... it's as if we need time to come to terms with some of the changes they have decided to make...I mean, starfox was about the same length of time from E3 hands on to release, right? and there were a lot of people who didn't get on with the control scheme they went for.

Maybe on the Wii U the controls will be a bit... "unique" and NX will have really good controls? kinda like twlight princess had the different control schemes for each console...guess we find out in a few days...

[Ashley]

No they never said "we are only showing Zelda", but they did issue a press release about their E3 plans ("THE LEGEND OF ZELDA FOR Wii U WILL BE PLAYABLE FOR THE FIRST TIME AT E3" is the subject title) in which it only talks about Zelda and linked to their website which only mentioned Zelda.

 

Yes, they may have had plans to show more and were trying to finalise it (although releasing details while still finalising would be foolhardy but possible) but even a vague "Zelda will be the only playable but we'll be showcasing many more" and then give the details later.

 

Just as there's nothing ever saying Zelda will be the only title, there is also no suggestion or indication that at the point they announced the plans (May 5th) that other titles would be shown.

[Pestneb]

No they never said "we are only showing Zelda", but they did issue a press release about their E3 plans ("THE LEGEND OF ZELDA FOR Wii U WILL BE PLAYABLE FOR THE FIRST TIME AT E3" is the subject title) in which it only talks about Zelda and linked to their website which only mentioned Zelda.

 

"THE LEGEND OF ZELDA FOR Wii U WILL BE PLAYABLE FOR THE FIRST TIME AT E3"

To me the subject of that press release would be Zelda... more than Wii U and more than E3... But fine w/e Good thing they went back on their word I guess.

[Ashley]

When it's the only communiqué to discuss E3 it becomes the E3 press release.

 

Anyway nobody really knows and all I was trying to say is there are reasons for believing either side.

[Hero-of-Time]

For those interested, Nintendo have created an E3 Miiverse section. Its been fun reading the crazy expectations on there.

[Mr_Master_X2]

No they never said "we are only showing Zelda", but they did issue a press release about their E3 plans ("THE LEGEND OF ZELDA FOR Wii U WILL BE PLAYABLE FOR THE FIRST TIME AT E3" is the subject title) in which it only talks about Zelda and linked to their website which only mentioned Zelda.

 

Yes, they may have had plans to show more and were trying to finalise it (although releasing details while still finalising would be foolhardy but possible) but even a vague "Zelda will be the only playable but we'll be showcasing many more" and then give the details later.

 

Just as there's nothing ever saying Zelda will be the only title, there is also no suggestion or indication that at the point they announced the plans (May 5th) that other titles would be shown.

 

Ash...would there NEED to be though? The first announcement was about the only playable game, Zelda. Nowhere it said just Zelda being show, in any form, over E3 season. It was obvious others would be at least shown...yet anyone saying that and pointing out the only was just about there being only one playable game/Zelda on that first day (or maybe they meant that specific half of the day, which was the only unclear bit) got so much flack and treated like trolls/garbage by a huge percentage of forums. Now even on this site people are backtracking pretending words were unclear or have won some sort of war with Nintendo for the rest of us poor gamers (other sites that is, it's bloody hilarious the lengths people will go to rather than just admit they're wrong and misunderstood). Even though it was clear as fuck they meant only one playable game that day or at the start of that day (Pokemon S/M is a mystery though...it's been rumoured/said to be at E3 for months). The reasons the updates came out like they did is because Zelda is their focus, they want all thoughts on that. Last Wii U/First NX game?

 

If I'm wrong? I'll admit it.