Was I the only one not surprised by the vitality sensor? They had already released one for the N64. I mean, it didn't get an E3 spot but it was basically a retread of something they had already done.
Erf, that damn vitality sensor. Usually whenever Nintendo announces something new, they attach it to a game or something that will give you an idea of how it's used. Though most of us hated the E3 where their conference was at least 75% the balance board, they showed how it could be used with Wii Fit. And the Wii U announcement had the demos and the video full of potential ideas. The vitality sensor, on the other hand, was "by the way, this exists!" Major PR misfire.
cloudeagle on
Switch: 3947-4890-9293
0
Options
Linespider5ALL HAIL KING KILLMONGERRegistered Userregular
Given the lack of any associated games or any followup whatsoever, I'd almost be willing to claim the Vitality Sensor was some kind elaborate ruse or joke, just to see if the other guys would chase after this wild goose Nintendo said they'd found. I mean, Nintendo didn't even make a case for the concept. They always do that if they bring the thing out, always.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
By the way Atomic, have you played Skyward Sword? It was actually an extremely good integration of 1:1 arm movement, yet it didn't overexert you. Very nice integration of motion controls... though if I had to guess I don't think you'd ever believe me. :P
It's one of two Wii titles on my to-get list, that and Donkey Kong Country.
But then I think I'm done with the Wii. There's no other titles I know of coming out that hold any interest for me.
And it's not that I wouldn't believe you about the motion controls. I think the usability of the motion controls on the Wii is astoundingly good. I just often don't see the point of replacing a button with a waggle.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
edited February 2012
I use a vitality sensor every day at my job.
It's actually called a pulse oximeter, and is REALLY important in hospitals.
But not so much for games.
Atomika on
0
Options
Donkey KongPutting Nintendo out of business with AI nipsRegistered Userregular
edited February 2012
Skyward Sword's motion gameplay works ok, but the calibration fucks up from time to time and the lag on it is infuriating.
Donkey Kong on
Thousands of hot, local singles are waiting to play at bubbulon.com.
By the way Atomic, have you played Skyward Sword? It was actually an extremely good integration of 1:1 arm movement, yet it didn't overexert you. Very nice integration of motion controls... though if I had to guess I don't think you'd ever believe me. :P
It's one of two Wii titles on my to-get list, that and Donkey Kong Country.
But then I think I'm done with the Wii. There's no other titles I know of coming out that hold any interest for me.
Those are pretty much the two to get to go out on a high note.
Though there really isn't much coming out in the near future, barring a last-minute surprise from Nintendo (which they've done in the past -- Donkey Kong Country was announced at E3 and came out that fall). But I wouldn't count on it.
I personally didn't notice any lag when playing Skyward Sword... I think my only real control gripe was keeping the bird aloft, but that was a bizarre design decision.
The next Xbox will be a matt-black media hub with a mission to bring games to life in your living room with augmented reality, directional sound, and a four-player finger-tracking Kinect. We told you all that last month. This month, our sources tell us it will have a touchscreen, too.
Microsoft are experimenting with a tablet-like controller with a shape closer to Sony's sleek Vita handheld / Apple's iPad than Wii U's bulky unit - it's an HD screen surrounded by the traditional 360 buttons and sticks.
On 360 that touchscreen will be second only to Kinect in how you operate your console. It could be a remote control when you're watching TV, a browser when you're on the internet, extra buttons and information when playing a game or a portable display when you want to take your game with you.
The next Xbox will be a matt-black media hub with a mission to bring games to life in your living room with augmented reality, directional sound, and a four-player finger-tracking Kinect. We told you all that last month. This month, our sources tell us it will have a touchscreen, too.
Microsoft are experimenting with a tablet-like controller with a shape closer to Sony's sleek Vita handheld / Apple's iPad than Wii U's bulky unit - it's an HD screen surrounded by the traditional 360 buttons and sticks.
On 360 that touchscreen will be second only to Kinect in how you operate your console. It could be a remote control when you're watching TV, a browser when you're on the internet, extra buttons and information when playing a game or a portable display when you want to take your game with you.
..
Expect to see the next Xbox at E3 this June.
Wow.
I would be moderately shocked to see Xbox announce a new console this year, unless it's just a gimmicky peripheral thing.
I think we're still two to four years out from the next generation.
0
Options
Linespider5ALL HAIL KING KILLMONGERRegistered Userregular
The next Xbox will be a matt-black media hub with a mission to bring games to life in your living room with augmented reality, directional sound, and a four-player finger-tracking Kinect. We told you all that last month. This month, our sources tell us it will have a touchscreen, too.
Microsoft are experimenting with a tablet-like controller with a shape closer to Sony's sleek Vita handheld / Apple's iPad than Wii U's bulky unit - it's an HD screen surrounded by the traditional 360 buttons and sticks.
On 360 that touchscreen will be second only to Kinect in how you operate your console. It could be a remote control when you're watching TV, a browser when you're on the internet, extra buttons and information when playing a game or a portable display when you want to take your game with you.
..
Expect to see the next Xbox at E3 this June.
Wow.
My prediction?
$500.00 for the core unit, not including the most expensive 1st party controller in the history of gaming.
Both Sony and Microsoft have denied there will be a new console from them available in 2012. Still, the rumor is that they'll both announce one at this year's E3 for a 2013 release. With the Wii U hitting, that seems plausible to me. But we'll see.
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Here's a nice article about one guy's suggestions for the launch of the Console Formerly Known As Wii-U.
The Sum-Up:
Do:
- Immediately justify its market presence with great launch titles of both first-party and original third-party content.
- Make an obvious effort to be a console for mainstream gamers by offering desirable third-party content.
- Have a market price that isn't a ridiculous sum; after all, this still isn't really a next-gen system.
- Offer an attractive and intuitive online network for multiplayer.
- Allow WiiWare and Virtual Console purchases to transfer across platforms.
- Pimp 3rd-party involvement, hard.
Don't:
- Pimp the gimmicky potential for the console as its primary function or selling point. Having a peripheral tablet means very little in a marketplace that hasn't shown an outright demand for them already.
- Pimp the backwards compatibility with Wii peripherals. The Wii was always inexpensive; no one is buying the new console to have a Wii experience.
- Go 180, and stop developing AAA first-party titles. People will always want Mario/Metroid/Zelda games, even if just not exclusively.
- Fail to adapt to changes in the marketplace, or continue to back a failing company philosophy. The minute you decide "we're not in competition with So-and-so," you're absolutely not.
- Continue to insist that your potential customers aren't looking for added utility of function.
Holy shit I was completely unaware that Nintendo released an accessory for the 3DS that gives you a right-sided analog stick and extra shoulder buttons.
I'M NOT FINISHED WITH YOU!!!
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
A great article on how Zelda kind of sucks now and what could be done to right the ship. It's a bit wordy, but a lot of really salient points.
To test your receptiveness, the author initially offers that every Zelda game since A Link to the Past, with the exceptions of Majora's Mask and Wind Waker, were fundamentally broken experiences. Temper your expectations accordingly.
Also, interesting fact: Eiji Aonuma, lead project director on all things Zelda since Ocarina of Time, doesn't like the original Zelda and has never finished it.
A great article on how Zelda kind of sucks now and what could be done to right the ship. It's a bit wordy, but a lot of really salient points.
To test your receptiveness, the author initially offers that every Zelda game since A Link to the Past, with the exceptions of Majora's Mask and Wind Waker, were fundamentally broken experiences. Temper your expectations accordingly.
Also, interesting fact: Eiji Aonuma, lead project director on all things Zelda since Ocarina of Time, doesn't like the original Zelda and has never finished it.
I thought Ocarina was considered the best game since the first one?
You had to burn random bushes and shit to find a dungeon? Yehhh.
Also, fuck that guy. The Zelda games are great, including the hand-held editions that have been released.
Link to the Past is my favorite, though I base that mainly on nostalgia.
TehSpectre on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
I think at the core of that author's very wordy lament is the fact that since Link to the Past (and more prominently, OOT), the Zelda series has become a very linear experience. He's absolutely right that the series has become largely about paying service to the traditions of itself, and in doing so has become an entirely predictable experience that's almost a rail-shooter. Link's toolbag IS a keychain to the linear plot unfurling, and at this point it's all scripting that driving every aspect of the gameplay.
Largely, I don't think the author is upset at any one game in particular, but rather how the series is now just a template to be continually reset with a new coat of paint slapped on. It's the same quest in the same dynamics with the same objectives and same tools in the same world with the same characters, over and over and over, with only the slightest changes to separate the experiences. How do I know I'm playing Twilight Princess and not, say, OOT? Because my fairy guide looks different, or because I don't have a blue costume option, or because I don't have a slingshot. That's all just wallpaper and dressing.
Honestly, this gross homogenization of the franchise is prominently why I don't yet own Skyward Sword- it just feels like something I've already done . . . a lot.
If that guy feels every Zelda game is worse than the last, why does he keep playing them to completion? "Aw, man, this new Zelda game is the same old shit on a new console. This is going to be a rough 30 hour playthrough."
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
If that guy feels every Zelda game is worse than the last, why does he keep playing them to completion? "Aw, man, this new Zelda game is the same old shit on a new console. This is going to be a rough 30 hour playthrough."
". . . and the last thing that sprung forth from Pandora's Box . . . was hope."
I think at the core of that author's very wordy lament is the fact that since Link to the Past (and more prominently, OOT), the Zelda series has become a very linear experience. He's absolutely right that the series has become largely about paying service to the traditions of itself, and in doing so has become an entirely predictable experience that's almost a rail-shooter. Link's toolbag IS a keychain to the linear plot unfurling, and at this point it's all scripting that driving every aspect of the gameplay.
Largely, I don't think the author is upset at any one game in particular, but rather how the series is now just a template to be continually reset with a new coat of paint slapped on. It's the same quest in the same dynamics with the same objectives and same tools in the same world with the same characters, over and over and over, with only the slightest changes to separate the experiences. How do I know I'm playing Twilight Princess and not, say, OOT? Because my fairy guide looks different, or because I don't have a blue costume option, or because I don't have a slingshot. That's all just wallpaper and dressing.
Honestly, this gross homogenization of the franchise is prominently why I don't yet own Skyward Sword- it just feels like something I've already done . . . a lot.
But.. the vast majority of video games are linear to some degree - are we supposed to expect all adventure games to be a bethesda rpg/GTA sandbox now? Also I don't think of the first two zeldas as game design mecca either, and he clearly puts them on a pedestal, so that is driving a large amount of his criticism. While I agree that the traditional zelda mechanics have been getting stale with the most recent games (I'm thinking twilight princess onward) I don't think they were some inherently flawed structure day one with a link to the past or ocarina of time with the 3d transition.
I don't really get the criticism of ocarina of time. I mean if you don't like how zelda plays, or at least how it plays in 3d, then cool that's how your taste in games are. But i don't think it translated the "wrong" aspects of zelda (what that means exactly beyond his nebulous and subjective laundry list i don't know). It's pretty much bare bones zelda in 3d and innovated quite a few things in gaming that have since become commonplace'; for better or worse depending on how you liked the game. I felt both Majora's Mask and Wind Waker made earnest attempts at shaking things up while still distinctly remaining zelda games. Since he's leaving it with just the console games that leaves only twilight princess, which was literally made as ocarina of time fanservice to frothy rejections at the previous two games, and skyward sword which does have similar issues in that the core formula is stale now, but at least tried doing things somewhat differently for the wii platform. I don't see how this makes the franchise some long-running broken thing that has been needing "saving," unless.. you just don't like zelda in general, which kind of renders the wordy thesis moot.
It's not really profound or controversial to say that the franchise needs to deviate from the traditional path now, and trying to make that point with earlier games seems slightly disingenuous, unless it took him the greater part of a decade to realize that zelda games were just not for him. Is he correct in some observations like the item hoarding and later games lacking a visceral sense of danger in combat, sure but I don't think they became serious issues until the most recent games which again isn't a view that is unique to hold towards the series.
CptKemzik on
0
Options
Linespider5ALL HAIL KING KILLMONGERRegistered Userregular
If that guy feels every Zelda game is worse than the last, why does he keep playing them to completion? "Aw, man, this new Zelda game is the same old shit on a new console. This is going to be a rough 30 hour playthrough."
". . . and the last thing that sprung forth from Pandora's Box . . . was hope."
Exactly. It's easy to continue to play a poor game, if the game is long-form with a relatively open world. You can always think the blinders will come off at any second, and finally the REAL game will begin.
Of course, the REAL game was won and lost a long time ago, when you signed your heart and fifty dollars on a preorder after seeing the announcement trailer.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
I think at the core of that author's very wordy lament is the fact that since Link to the Past (and more prominently, OOT), the Zelda series has become a very linear experience. He's absolutely right that the series has become largely about paying service to the traditions of itself, and in doing so has become an entirely predictable experience that's almost a rail-shooter. Link's toolbag IS a keychain to the linear plot unfurling, and at this point it's all scripting that driving every aspect of the gameplay.
Largely, I don't think the author is upset at any one game in particular, but rather how the series is now just a template to be continually reset with a new coat of paint slapped on. It's the same quest in the same dynamics with the same objectives and same tools in the same world with the same characters, over and over and over, with only the slightest changes to separate the experiences. How do I know I'm playing Twilight Princess and not, say, OOT? Because my fairy guide looks different, or because I don't have a blue costume option, or because I don't have a slingshot. That's all just wallpaper and dressing.
Honestly, this gross homogenization of the franchise is prominently why I don't yet own Skyward Sword- it just feels like something I've already done . . . a lot.
But.. the vast majority of video games are linear to some degree - are we supposed to expect all adventure games to be a bethesda rpg/GTA sandbox now? Also I don't think of the first two zeldas as game design mecca either, and he clearly puts them on a pedestal, so that is driving a large amount of his criticism. While I agree that the traditional zelda mechanics have been getting stale with the most recent games (I'm thinking twilight princess onward) I don't think they were some inherently flawed structure day one with a link to the past or ocarina of time with the 3d transition.
I don't really get the criticism of ocarina of time. I mean if you don't like how zelda plays, or at least how it plays in 3d, then cool that's how your taste in games are. But i don't think it translated the "wrong" aspects of zelda (what that means exactly beyond his nebulous and subjective laundry list i don't know). It's pretty much bare bones zelda in 3d and innovated quite a few things in gaming that have since become commonplace'; for better or worse depending on how you liked the game. I felt both Majora's Mask and Wind Waker made earnest attempts at shaking things up while still distinctly remaining zelda games. Since he's leaving it with just the console games that leaves only twilight princess, which was literally made as ocarina of time fanservice to frothy rejections at the previous two games, and skyward sword which does have similar issues in that the core formula is stale now, but at least tried doing things somewhat differently for the wii platform. I don't see how this makes the franchise some long-running broken thing that has been needing "saving," unless.. you just don't like zelda in general, which kind of renders the wordy thesis moot.
It's not really profound or controversial to say that the franchise needs to deviate from the traditional path now, and trying to make that point with earlier games seems slightly disingenuous, unless it took him the greater part of a decade to realize that zelda games were just not for him. Is he correct in some observations like the item hoarding and later games lacking a visceral sense of danger in combat, sure but I don't think they became serious issues until the most recent games which again isn't a view that is unique to hold towards the series.
I don't know if it's fair to hold OOT's feet to the flames, either. It was the first 3D Zelda game, and it's well-roundedness and novelty forced it to become somewhat a victim of its own success. Majora's Mask and Wind Waker were more or less failures because they weren't carbon copies of OOT, and that seems to have stuck in Nintendo's craw.
What I can hold Nintendo responsible for is basically looking at OOT and saying "This is what Zelda is now." I strongly feel that there is a great adventure game to be had within that franchise still, but if Skyward Sword is their model for the future, that's one boring and staid future, and one that I have no real interest in.
The author of that piece is absolutely right in that Nintendo has no shown interest in innovating that actual things that gamers look for in games, like depth and scope and engaging narratives and an obvious throughline. Instead of branching out, Nintendo is retreating inwardly. There's no ambition left in this franchise. It's become rote.
If that guy feels every Zelda game is worse than the last, why does he keep playing them to completion? "Aw, man, this new Zelda game is the same old shit on a new console. This is going to be a rough 30 hour playthrough."
". . . and the last thing that sprung forth from Pandora's Box . . . was hope."
Exactly. It's easy to continue to play a poor game, if the game is long-form with a relatively open world. You can always think the blinders will come off at any second, and finally the REAL game will begin.
Of course, the REAL game was won and lost a long time ago, when you signed your heart and fifty dollars on a preorder after seeing the announcement trailer.
Welcome to the reason I sold FF13 while it was still worth something. I hear it "opens up" at...some point. I'll never know, and I'm cool with that.
Also, Wind Waker is the only once since Ocarina I've even played. I hadn't felt like I was missing anything. According to that article, I was mostly right.
You know what does a really good job tracking my fingers?
Buttons and thumbsticks.
Yup. Basically, I had a long-ish post written a while back that I never really finished up to try and de-troll-ify, but basically I feel like there's such a thing as too much innovation. Like, you can go and accidentally innovate away the parts that work. Which is exactly how I felt about the Wii. There were a few great games for it that really wouldn't work on a standard controller. A few. There were a couple great games that worked okay, but would have been better on a standard controller. Then there were...the rest.
Like, I want to think there's a better gaming interface out there than the usual gamepad, but the Wiimote+Nunchuk just wasn't it.
mcdermott on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
I feel like there's such a thing as too much innovation. Like, you can go and accidentally innovate away the parts that work. Which is exactly how I felt about the Wii. There were a few great games for it that really wouldn't work on a standard controller. A few. There were a couple great games that worked okay, but would have been better on a standard controller. Then there were...the rest.
Like, I want to think there's a better gaming interface out there than the usual gamepad, but the Wiimote+Nunchuk just wasn't it.
That's exactly how I've felt about the Wii, and to a lesser extent, a lot of previous Nintendo products. The motion controls for the Wii were utterly novel and really great . . . for the games that naturally presupposed the intuitiveness of such a control scheme. It should have been left as a really neat peripheral for the GameCube for the half-dozen games it works well for, and then left to rot in the bin alongside your PowerGlove.
Instead, Nintendo used the logic of, "Hey, if you like eating sushi with chopsticks, you're going to love USING CHOPSTICKS FOR EVERY ACTION YOU EVER PERFORM."
Zelda hasn't really felt like an adventure game most of the time.
I think the author's point, and I don't agree with all of it cause he really talks up the first two games, is largely about Zelda having become as scripted an experience as any CoD game. The entire world seems reduced to a series of linear sections continually gated by the items the game hands out as your progress.
This is apparently not what he wants.
My personal feeling is that the above isn't necessarily a bad design for a series, but Zelda sees fit to be doubly boring by never changing up even the trappings of the linear scripted experience. It's always the same story, same items, same puzzles, etc.
Let's get original here motherfuckers. I don't need a boomerang/hookshot/etc every single game. Ditch that shit and throw a new set of items and puzzles at me.
I've never felt that way about a previous Nintendo product...but then, I didn't own a Virtual Boy. But, for instance, the DS was fine. The second screen only added to the game, and could largely be ignored. The touch screen didn't need to be used, you had a fully functional set of "classic" controls (for a portable) analogous to the GBA available. And plenty of games did just that...used it like a high-powered GBA and largely ignored its "DS-ness."
But the Wiimote really didn't let you do that. It simply didn't have the same kind of control options as the Cube or other modern consoles. Which is why we got tacked-on waggle...because unlike the DS, which only added to the "standard" controls, the Wiimote took quite a bit away (in the form of an entire stick, analog triggers, multiple buttons, and general form factor).
I can't think of a previous Nintendo product, aside perhaps from the VB, that forced the hand of both developers and gamers as hard as the Wii did.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Zelda hasn't really felt like an adventure game most of the time.
I think the author's point, and I don't agree with all of it cause he really talks up the first two games, is largely about Zelda having become as scripted an experience as any CoD game. The entire world seems reduced to a series of linear sections continually gated by the items the game hands out as your progress.
This is apparently not what he wants.
My personal feeling is that the above isn't necessarily a bad design for a series, but Zelda sees fit to be doubly boring by never changing up even the trappings of the linear scripted experience. It's always the same story, same items, same puzzles, etc.
Let's get original here motherfuckers. I don't need a boomerang/hookshot/etc every single game. Ditch that shit and throw a new set of items and puzzles at me.
I think some of the frustration the author talks about is that the 3D Zelda games give the illusion of being an open, explorable world, but it's not at all, and pushes the linear narrative all the way. Zelda is already a fairly narrative-bereft game; you don't get to control your quest or your dialogue options or your outcome- you just follow the trail of clues in the only way the game allows, getting the bombs and hookshot and master sword, completing all the dungeons in order, fighting the same kind of bosses with the same easily-spotted weaknesses. Oh, look, here's a Stalfos, I wonder if my hookshot will remove his shieldohlookittotallydidsupershocked.
What I really miss in the Zelda games, and what I look for in many games, is the ability to control my own narrative and quest. The only options you ever get are whether or not you chose to engage in the endless fetchquests offered by people in towns. Maybe it's a bit more Western than Nintendo is ever going to be ready for, but I wouldn't mind a little Dragon Age/Shadow of the Colossus flavoring up my Zelda soup. Maybe I want to take on Death Mountain right away; maybe I'm going to get my ass kicked. Oh well.
The greater point is, overall, Zelda isn't trying to do anything besides be Zelda. And I'm so bored.
Zelda hasn't really felt like an adventure game most of the time.
I think the author's point, and I don't agree with all of it cause he really talks up the first two games, is largely about Zelda having become as scripted an experience as any CoD game. The entire world seems reduced to a series of linear sections continually gated by the items the game hands out as your progress.
This is apparently not what he wants.
My personal feeling is that the above isn't necessarily a bad design for a series, but Zelda sees fit to be doubly boring by never changing up even the trappings of the linear scripted experience. It's always the same story, same items, same puzzles, etc.
Let's get original here motherfuckers. I don't need a boomerang/hookshot/etc every single game. Ditch that shit and throw a new set of items and puzzles at me.
I think some of the frustration the author talks about is that the 3D Zelda games give the illusion of being an open, explorable world, but it's not at all, and pushes the linear narrative all the way. Zelda is already a fairly narrative-bereft game; you don't get to control your quest or your dialogue options or your outcome- you just follow the trail of clues in the only way the game allows, getting the bombs and hookshot and master sword, completing all the dungeons in order, fighting the same kind of bosses with the same easily-spotted weaknesses. Oh, look, here's a Stalfos, I wonder if my hookshot will remove his shieldohlookittotallydidsupershocked.
What I really miss in the Zelda games, and what I look for in many games, is the ability to control my own narrative and quest. The only options you ever get are whether or not you chose to engage in the endless fetchquests offered by people in towns. Maybe it's a bit more Western than Nintendo is ever going to be ready for, but I wouldn't mind a little Dragon Age/Shadow of the Colossus flavoring up my Zelda soup. Maybe I want to take on Death Mountain right away; maybe I'm going to get my ass kicked. Oh well.
The greater point is, overall, Zelda isn't trying to do anything besides be Zelda. And I'm so bored.
See, but I think you are agreeing with me here somewhat. Like, the bolded is what I'm talking about. It's predictable. Not because it's linear, but because it's so rote. There will always be a hookshot basically. You expect it
Zelda seems like the ultimate surrender to the fanboys. A series that seems deathly afraid of change because "boomerang and master sword is what makes it a Zelda game" or something. Instead of doing something interesting with the Zelda gameplay type, they recycle the exact gameplay period. The fans want a hookshot, so they'll get the exact same hookshot as always. It's like some getting up on stage and telling the exact same jokes from The Holy Grail over and over again every night. Sure, they were and are funny, but at some point you aren't making jokes anymore, you are just going "Hey, remember when ...". Or maybe a better analogy is it's like watching The Holy Grail with that friend of yours who, every time one of the famous jokes is about to come up, is like "Oh, here it comes. You gotta watch this part. Wait for it, wait for it ..... Knights Who Say Nee, hahahahaha! Increased purse size!"
Like, I don't know if the developers are afraid to change or just can't conceive of changing or what. But what they really need to do is go "No, hookshot has been done. Here's something new and different."
As for controlling your own quest and narrative, I just don't think Zelda is about that anymore. If it ever even really was. You can wish for it, and it'd probably be fun as hell, but it's not what the series is. There's been more games and more time with the new style then with the old. At some point, you've got to admit that it's the open world Zelda's that are the anomaly and not the other way around.
It just seems kinda, I guess, silly at some point to be asking for the series to be something it's never really been.
It's funny when on one hand you're complaining about "innovation for innovation's sake" while at the very same time complaining "Zelda's too boring and samey."
The 3D Zelda games are basically a genre withing themselves - I can't think of much before Ocarina of Time that really represents their style of gameplay (except the forgotten-but-oh-so-awesome Mystical Ninja / Ganbare Goemon, which only predates OoT by a few months). On the one hand, if you want that more free-form experience that the first LoZ provides, you're not going to get it from newer Zelda games. On the other, it's not like the refinements and shift to more structured gameplay weren't long in the offing.
After playing Shadow of the Colossus, I must admit that I was left wanting for a Zelda game in a similar style - SotC was amazing for its sense of place and providing an enormous world that was interesting to explore in its own right. The problem was, other than the nifty sense of discovery, there was no need nor benefit for exploring everything. What I wanted was a similar, beautifully crafted and cohesive world that was still structured in such a way as to make my discoveries in one part of the world relevant in others, without delving into the "Insert Plot Key A into Plot Tab B" gamey-ness that Zelda-styled adventure games can invoke. Okami was a closer fit but still leaned too heavily on that approach. Western RPGs like Skyrim also scratch the itch a bit but they tend to reward "adventuring" in very general, non-specific ways (XP or money or randomized loot).
Really, I just want a big, 3D version of the original The Legend of Zelda.
That being said, I play Zelda games and enjoy them thoroughly. They're still the pinnacle of their own form, for whatever that is worth - it's just their form is highly structured and "gamey", which I've come to realize is just how they're going to be. Their novelty and innovation for me is like discovering the action to some very complex machine, with things interoperating in set and very mechanistic ways. I find many Japanese-developed games operate on similar principles, but it seems that the trend in Western gaming is moving toward more emergent gameplay.
Posts
Was I the only one not surprised by the vitality sensor? They had already released one for the N64. I mean, it didn't get an E3 spot but it was basically a retread of something they had already done.
It's one of two Wii titles on my to-get list, that and Donkey Kong Country.
But then I think I'm done with the Wii. There's no other titles I know of coming out that hold any interest for me.
And it's not that I wouldn't believe you about the motion controls. I think the usability of the motion controls on the Wii is astoundingly good. I just often don't see the point of replacing a button with a waggle.
It's actually called a pulse oximeter, and is REALLY important in hospitals.
But not so much for games.
Those are pretty much the two to get to go out on a high note.
Though there really isn't much coming out in the near future, barring a last-minute surprise from Nintendo (which they've done in the past -- Donkey Kong Country was announced at E3 and came out that fall). But I wouldn't count on it.
I personally didn't notice any lag when playing Skyward Sword... I think my only real control gripe was keeping the bird aloft, but that was a bizarre design decision.
A couple weeks back patent papers came out showing Sony's take on integrating a tablet and TV with video games. Now this:
Wow.
Great things.
Buttons and thumbsticks.
"yo what are these things on my hand that are finging all over the place"
And even if you lost track
Kinect wouldn't
Word.
Give me a few months to get to DKCR and Skyward Sword, and I might take you up on that.
Probably not, though. It's currently serving as my guest-room Netflix/old GameCube games apparatus.
And I have that awesome Zelda game that has all the old ports, and I'm never getting rid of that.
I would be moderately shocked to see Xbox announce a new console this year, unless it's just a gimmicky peripheral thing.
I think we're still two to four years out from the next generation.
My prediction?
There was even a controller for the NES that had an LCD display. I had it. It was lame.
The Dreamcast certainly was ahead of its time, with a tablet-styled touch screen controller.
Wait...
Switch: 6200-8149-0919 / Wii U: maximumzero / 3DS: 0860-3352-3335 / eBay Shop
The Sum-Up:
Do:
- Immediately justify its market presence with great launch titles of both first-party and original third-party content.
- Make an obvious effort to be a console for mainstream gamers by offering desirable third-party content.
- Have a market price that isn't a ridiculous sum; after all, this still isn't really a next-gen system.
- Offer an attractive and intuitive online network for multiplayer.
- Allow WiiWare and Virtual Console purchases to transfer across platforms.
- Pimp 3rd-party involvement, hard.
Don't:
- Pimp the gimmicky potential for the console as its primary function or selling point. Having a peripheral tablet means very little in a marketplace that hasn't shown an outright demand for them already.
- Pimp the backwards compatibility with Wii peripherals. The Wii was always inexpensive; no one is buying the new console to have a Wii experience.
- Go 180, and stop developing AAA first-party titles. People will always want Mario/Metroid/Zelda games, even if just not exclusively.
- Fail to adapt to changes in the marketplace, or continue to back a failing company philosophy. The minute you decide "we're not in competition with So-and-so," you're absolutely not.
- Continue to insist that your potential customers aren't looking for added utility of function.
To test your receptiveness, the author initially offers that every Zelda game since A Link to the Past, with the exceptions of Majora's Mask and Wind Waker, were fundamentally broken experiences. Temper your expectations accordingly.
Also, interesting fact: Eiji Aonuma, lead project director on all things Zelda since Ocarina of Time, doesn't like the original Zelda and has never finished it.
I thought Ocarina was considered the best game since the first one?
You had to burn random bushes and shit to find a dungeon? Yehhh.
Also, fuck that guy. The Zelda games are great, including the hand-held editions that have been released.
Link to the Past is my favorite, though I base that mainly on nostalgia.
Largely, I don't think the author is upset at any one game in particular, but rather how the series is now just a template to be continually reset with a new coat of paint slapped on. It's the same quest in the same dynamics with the same objectives and same tools in the same world with the same characters, over and over and over, with only the slightest changes to separate the experiences. How do I know I'm playing Twilight Princess and not, say, OOT? Because my fairy guide looks different, or because I don't have a blue costume option, or because I don't have a slingshot. That's all just wallpaper and dressing.
Honestly, this gross homogenization of the franchise is prominently why I don't yet own Skyward Sword- it just feels like something I've already done . . . a lot.
". . . and the last thing that sprung forth from Pandora's Box . . . was hope."
But.. the vast majority of video games are linear to some degree - are we supposed to expect all adventure games to be a bethesda rpg/GTA sandbox now? Also I don't think of the first two zeldas as game design mecca either, and he clearly puts them on a pedestal, so that is driving a large amount of his criticism. While I agree that the traditional zelda mechanics have been getting stale with the most recent games (I'm thinking twilight princess onward) I don't think they were some inherently flawed structure day one with a link to the past or ocarina of time with the 3d transition.
I don't really get the criticism of ocarina of time. I mean if you don't like how zelda plays, or at least how it plays in 3d, then cool that's how your taste in games are. But i don't think it translated the "wrong" aspects of zelda (what that means exactly beyond his nebulous and subjective laundry list i don't know). It's pretty much bare bones zelda in 3d and innovated quite a few things in gaming that have since become commonplace'; for better or worse depending on how you liked the game. I felt both Majora's Mask and Wind Waker made earnest attempts at shaking things up while still distinctly remaining zelda games. Since he's leaving it with just the console games that leaves only twilight princess, which was literally made as ocarina of time fanservice to frothy rejections at the previous two games, and skyward sword which does have similar issues in that the core formula is stale now, but at least tried doing things somewhat differently for the wii platform. I don't see how this makes the franchise some long-running broken thing that has been needing "saving," unless.. you just don't like zelda in general, which kind of renders the wordy thesis moot.
It's not really profound or controversial to say that the franchise needs to deviate from the traditional path now, and trying to make that point with earlier games seems slightly disingenuous, unless it took him the greater part of a decade to realize that zelda games were just not for him. Is he correct in some observations like the item hoarding and later games lacking a visceral sense of danger in combat, sure but I don't think they became serious issues until the most recent games which again isn't a view that is unique to hold towards the series.
Exactly. It's easy to continue to play a poor game, if the game is long-form with a relatively open world. You can always think the blinders will come off at any second, and finally the REAL game will begin.
Of course, the REAL game was won and lost a long time ago, when you signed your heart and fifty dollars on a preorder after seeing the announcement trailer.
I don't know if it's fair to hold OOT's feet to the flames, either. It was the first 3D Zelda game, and it's well-roundedness and novelty forced it to become somewhat a victim of its own success. Majora's Mask and Wind Waker were more or less failures because they weren't carbon copies of OOT, and that seems to have stuck in Nintendo's craw.
What I can hold Nintendo responsible for is basically looking at OOT and saying "This is what Zelda is now." I strongly feel that there is a great adventure game to be had within that franchise still, but if Skyward Sword is their model for the future, that's one boring and staid future, and one that I have no real interest in.
The author of that piece is absolutely right in that Nintendo has no shown interest in innovating that actual things that gamers look for in games, like depth and scope and engaging narratives and an obvious throughline. Instead of branching out, Nintendo is retreating inwardly. There's no ambition left in this franchise. It's become rote.
Welcome to the reason I sold FF13 while it was still worth something. I hear it "opens up" at...some point. I'll never know, and I'm cool with that.
Also, Wind Waker is the only once since Ocarina I've even played. I hadn't felt like I was missing anything. According to that article, I was mostly right.
Yup. Basically, I had a long-ish post written a while back that I never really finished up to try and de-troll-ify, but basically I feel like there's such a thing as too much innovation. Like, you can go and accidentally innovate away the parts that work. Which is exactly how I felt about the Wii. There were a few great games for it that really wouldn't work on a standard controller. A few. There were a couple great games that worked okay, but would have been better on a standard controller. Then there were...the rest.
Like, I want to think there's a better gaming interface out there than the usual gamepad, but the Wiimote+Nunchuk just wasn't it.
That's exactly how I've felt about the Wii, and to a lesser extent, a lot of previous Nintendo products. The motion controls for the Wii were utterly novel and really great . . . for the games that naturally presupposed the intuitiveness of such a control scheme. It should have been left as a really neat peripheral for the GameCube for the half-dozen games it works well for, and then left to rot in the bin alongside your PowerGlove.
Instead, Nintendo used the logic of, "Hey, if you like eating sushi with chopsticks, you're going to love USING CHOPSTICKS FOR EVERY ACTION YOU EVER PERFORM."
I think the author's point, and I don't agree with all of it cause he really talks up the first two games, is largely about Zelda having become as scripted an experience as any CoD game. The entire world seems reduced to a series of linear sections continually gated by the items the game hands out as your progress.
This is apparently not what he wants.
My personal feeling is that the above isn't necessarily a bad design for a series, but Zelda sees fit to be doubly boring by never changing up even the trappings of the linear scripted experience. It's always the same story, same items, same puzzles, etc.
Let's get original here motherfuckers. I don't need a boomerang/hookshot/etc every single game. Ditch that shit and throw a new set of items and puzzles at me.
But the Wiimote really didn't let you do that. It simply didn't have the same kind of control options as the Cube or other modern consoles. Which is why we got tacked-on waggle...because unlike the DS, which only added to the "standard" controls, the Wiimote took quite a bit away (in the form of an entire stick, analog triggers, multiple buttons, and general form factor).
I can't think of a previous Nintendo product, aside perhaps from the VB, that forced the hand of both developers and gamers as hard as the Wii did.
I think some of the frustration the author talks about is that the 3D Zelda games give the illusion of being an open, explorable world, but it's not at all, and pushes the linear narrative all the way. Zelda is already a fairly narrative-bereft game; you don't get to control your quest or your dialogue options or your outcome- you just follow the trail of clues in the only way the game allows, getting the bombs and hookshot and master sword, completing all the dungeons in order, fighting the same kind of bosses with the same easily-spotted weaknesses. Oh, look, here's a Stalfos, I wonder if my hookshot will remove his shieldohlookittotallydidsupershocked.
What I really miss in the Zelda games, and what I look for in many games, is the ability to control my own narrative and quest. The only options you ever get are whether or not you chose to engage in the endless fetchquests offered by people in towns. Maybe it's a bit more Western than Nintendo is ever going to be ready for, but I wouldn't mind a little Dragon Age/Shadow of the Colossus flavoring up my Zelda soup. Maybe I want to take on Death Mountain right away; maybe I'm going to get my ass kicked. Oh well.
The greater point is, overall, Zelda isn't trying to do anything besides be Zelda. And I'm so bored.
See, but I think you are agreeing with me here somewhat. Like, the bolded is what I'm talking about. It's predictable. Not because it's linear, but because it's so rote. There will always be a hookshot basically. You expect it
Zelda seems like the ultimate surrender to the fanboys. A series that seems deathly afraid of change because "boomerang and master sword is what makes it a Zelda game" or something. Instead of doing something interesting with the Zelda gameplay type, they recycle the exact gameplay period. The fans want a hookshot, so they'll get the exact same hookshot as always. It's like some getting up on stage and telling the exact same jokes from The Holy Grail over and over again every night. Sure, they were and are funny, but at some point you aren't making jokes anymore, you are just going "Hey, remember when ...". Or maybe a better analogy is it's like watching The Holy Grail with that friend of yours who, every time one of the famous jokes is about to come up, is like "Oh, here it comes. You gotta watch this part. Wait for it, wait for it ..... Knights Who Say Nee, hahahahaha! Increased purse size!"
Like, I don't know if the developers are afraid to change or just can't conceive of changing or what. But what they really need to do is go "No, hookshot has been done. Here's something new and different."
As for controlling your own quest and narrative, I just don't think Zelda is about that anymore. If it ever even really was. You can wish for it, and it'd probably be fun as hell, but it's not what the series is. There's been more games and more time with the new style then with the old. At some point, you've got to admit that it's the open world Zelda's that are the anomaly and not the other way around.
It just seems kinda, I guess, silly at some point to be asking for the series to be something it's never really been.
After playing Shadow of the Colossus, I must admit that I was left wanting for a Zelda game in a similar style - SotC was amazing for its sense of place and providing an enormous world that was interesting to explore in its own right. The problem was, other than the nifty sense of discovery, there was no need nor benefit for exploring everything. What I wanted was a similar, beautifully crafted and cohesive world that was still structured in such a way as to make my discoveries in one part of the world relevant in others, without delving into the "Insert Plot Key A into Plot Tab B" gamey-ness that Zelda-styled adventure games can invoke. Okami was a closer fit but still leaned too heavily on that approach. Western RPGs like Skyrim also scratch the itch a bit but they tend to reward "adventuring" in very general, non-specific ways (XP or money or randomized loot).
Really, I just want a big, 3D version of the original The Legend of Zelda.
That being said, I play Zelda games and enjoy them thoroughly. They're still the pinnacle of their own form, for whatever that is worth - it's just their form is highly structured and "gamey", which I've come to realize is just how they're going to be. Their novelty and innovation for me is like discovering the action to some very complex machine, with things interoperating in set and very mechanistic ways. I find many Japanese-developed games operate on similar principles, but it seems that the trend in Western gaming is moving toward more emergent gameplay.