That said, I wish we could have just one single Zelda game that reached even that level of maturity. Oh, and characters capable of speech. Sersly, Nintendo. I'm tired of the text walls.
Wasn't Majora's Mask fairly dark?
Anyway, the average Zelda game reminds me of a Pixar movie. Fairly mature story arc, some mature themes, plenty of stuff to appeal to young'uns. And I've never come out of a Pixar movie thinking, "Wow, if only that was more mature."
Also, honestly? I prefer the text in most games. Because even when the voice acting is good, there's often a lot of speech, and I would rather be playing the game than listening to people yammer. I generally turn subtitles on, read the text myself, and then skip through the voice work. I recognize I'm probably a minority here, though.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
There have been a fair number of mature games, Metroid included. Red Steel was notable. And, of course, there have been a number of hyper-violent games like Mad World.
If your definition of "adult" is simply "not stereotypically kiddie," then adult games abound. Problem is the ones that get labeled as "kiddie games" tend to kick the shit out of them. I would rather play Mario Galaxy versus Red Steel any day of the week. Or, for that matter, almost any "adult" game released for the 360 or PS3. Ditto NSMBW, Paper Mario, and plenty more besides.
Like, what makes something "kiddie" anyway? What about Looney Tunes? I mean, they're cartoons. Miyazaki anime films? They tend to star little kids...
For me personally I don't have a beef with most of Nintendo's games. I think their key franchises are at the appropriate level of maturity with little exception.
Except, of course, the Zelda franchise. I'm kind of all-or-nothing on that one. I'd much rather play something light and airy like Wind Waker than something that can't quite commit one way or the other, like Majora's Mask or Twilight Princess. I want a cheery G-rated Zelda, or a gritty and solemn PG, but the general wishy-washyness of most of the Zelda titles leave me somewhat dissatisfied, despite their solid gameplay.
Atomika on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
That said, I wish we could have just one single Zelda game that reached even that level of maturity. Oh, and characters capable of speech. Sersly, Nintendo. I'm tired of the text walls.
Wasn't Majora's Mask fairly dark?
I don't particularly want grimdark in Zelda games, just a mature tone that doesn't worry about pandering to Nintendo's youngest players.
Twilight Princess was the most aggravating, as it was 90% perfect, 10% dumb.
Too many generalities here. Where are the examples? What about the games would you change?
I know this is slightly tangential, but the "matureness" of games seems to be central to the problems people have with Nintendo.
I think delineating the definition of "mature" is the first, most-important step. I don't think blood, boobs, and f-bombs particularly makes a game all that mature if the only people playing it are hopped-up little kids getting a thrill out of softcore titillation.
What I'd like to see in a Zelda game, if only just once, is a game that tells a story with the general deft aplomb that we've come to expect in Zelda games, but without the peripheral silliness, like your Tingles and cartoon fairies and dancing seed-people and whatnot. A fantasy on the same maturity level of something like Shadow of the Colossus or some of the older-gen RPGs; something not entirely unwelcoming of younger players, but not actively pandering to them.
Too many generalities here. Where are the examples? What about the games would you change?
I know this is slightly tangential, but the "matureness" of games seems to be central to the problems people have with Nintendo.
I think delineating the definition of "mature" is the first, most-important step. I don't think blood, boobs, and f-bombs particularly makes a game all that mature if the only people playing it are hopped-up little kids getting a thrill out of softcore titillation.
What I'd like to see in a Zelda game, if only just once, is a game that tells a story with the general deft aplomb that we've come to expect in Zelda games, but without the peripheral silliness, like your Tingles and cartoon fairies and dancing seed-people and whatnot. A fantasy on the same maturity level of something like Shadow of the Colossus or some of the older-gen RPGs; something not entirely unwelcoming of younger players, but not actively pandering to them.
The undertones of what Tingle the fairies and those dancing seed people was fairly "mature". Tingle's a freak who refuses to grow up and not in the cute Disney way, but in the creepy ohdeargodwhatisthat way. The fairies have been all over the place in dark undertones, especially the queen in Wind Waker. And the dancing seeds were the same Kokori from OoT, transformed over time into plants so that they could use themselves as a method of re-foresting the world after a great flood.
I wouldn't use "pandering to kids" to describe any of this.
I think delineating the definition of "mature" is the first, most-important step. I don't think blood, boobs, and f-bombs particularly makes a game all that mature if the only people playing it are hopped-up little kids getting a thrill out of softcore titillation.
What I'd like to see in a Zelda game, if only just once, is a game that tells a story with the general deft aplomb that we've come to expect in Zelda games, but without the peripheral silliness, like your Tingles and cartoon fairies and dancing seed-people and whatnot. A fantasy on the same maturity level of something like Shadow of the Colossus or some of the older-gen RPGs; something not entirely unwelcoming of younger players, but not actively pandering to them.
Thank you, I think this sums up what I've felt Nintendo's missed ever since the SNES. Their games are either filled with nothing but perpetual silliness that waters down any emotional impact or they're third party ports that may have some severed limbs or violence but no real depth beyond that. I need sufficient levels of both to find a game enjoyable.
I mean Chrono Trigger didn't have blood or boobs but I'd be hard pressed to find a game that had a level of grit and story similar to that after the SNES and if there were any games like that they sure didn't get any real marketing behind them. Also, regarding Tingle and such: I'm sorry but if you have to really search several layers deep to find any grit or depth to a character then you're just grasping for straws.
The fact that you have to make a mental exercise of it shows that the entire Nintendo environment is so watered down in the name of family friendliness that they can only make vague allusions to mature themes really shows that they are just not equipped or willing to venture into telling an adult story in an adult way. Think about this, we haven't seen a Final Fantasy mainstay on a Nintendo console for how many decades now? The lack of a FF title to me is a very big symptom of the overall problem.
If the best you can come up with against someone who's patently ignorant is to yell back at him, "Yeah? Well there's BOOKS, and they say you're WRONG!"
Then honestly you're not coming out of this looking great either.
I like how someone mentions Tingle as a character added to appeal to the kiddies.
Read his dialogue in MM a bit more carefully; he's the darkest, creepiest character in the entire series, and that includes face humping zombie mummies.
I think delineating the definition of "mature" is the first, most-important step. I don't think blood, boobs, and f-bombs particularly makes a game all that mature if the only people playing it are hopped-up little kids getting a thrill out of softcore titillation.
What I'd like to see in a Zelda game, if only just once, is a game that tells a story with the general deft aplomb that we've come to expect in Zelda games, but without the peripheral silliness, like your Tingles and cartoon fairies and dancing seed-people and whatnot. A fantasy on the same maturity level of something like Shadow of the Colossus or some of the older-gen RPGs; something not entirely unwelcoming of younger players, but not actively pandering to them.
Thank you, I think this sums up what I've felt Nintendo's missed ever since the SNES. Their games are either filled with nothing but perpetual silliness that waters down any emotional impact or they're third party ports that may have some severed limbs or violence but no real depth beyond that. I need sufficient levels of both to find a game enjoyable.
I mean Chrono Trigger didn't have blood or boobs but I'd be hard pressed to find a game that had a level of grit and story similar to that after the SNES and if there were any games like that they sure didn't get any real marketing behind them. Also, regarding Tingle and such: I'm sorry but if you have to really search several layers deep to find any grit or depth to a character then you're just grasping for straws.
The fact that you have to make a mental exercise of it shows that the entire Nintendo environment is so watered down in the name of family friendliness that they can only make vague allusions to mature themes really shows that they are just not equipped or willing to venture into telling an adult story in an adult way. Think about this, we haven't seen a Final Fantasy mainstay on a Nintendo console for how many decades now? The lack of a FF title to me is a very big symptom of the overall problem.
Ah.. the "Games are serious business!" argument. It's funny. Quite a few people can play these games and never feel insulted, or watered down or any of that. They talk about how fun they are and the part that stick in their heads. The emotional moments, the story, ect. Haters on the other seem to think that their interaction with the game however is the one true interruption. No others could posable see the games in a different light.
As for the Squarenix titles, they may have not been a mainline FF, but the Crystal Chronicles (As well as all those pesky DS titles.) beg to differ about the "deep" and "serious" titles. Just because you have the perception of something that is shared with others of like mind doen't make it any more real then experiences of others.
Mattnyx on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Actually all of the FF:CC titles have fairly well told stories, including the masterful storytelling in the first game, which was done almost entirely by letters written by the narrator.
Xenogears of Bore on
3DS CODE: 3093-7068-3576
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
I like how someone mentions Tingle as a character added to appeal to the kiddies.
No one said that. He's just a silly character, and part of a larger endemic silliness inherent to many (most?) of the Zelda games.
A hallmark silliness, I'll add, that didn't really show up in the series until Ocarina of Time, which was the fifth Zelda game released.
Then I must have dreaming about greedy monkeys , chain-chomp pet dogs, wild chicken attacks, fish-man flipper exchanges, ect. ect.
I think the rose-coloured glass are being used a bit heavily here.
The series did have whimsical elements as far back as LttP, true, but it seemed to really embrace the camp by OoT.
Regardless, I still could do with a straight-forward Zelda game. I am not, however, holding my breath.
And many people consider all those elements that you complained about as whimsical or even pleasantly divergent. Quite few players also feel that those elements are what gives Zelda it's distinctive atmosphere. Take them away and you are left with something... well not Zelda.
Mattnyx on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
And many people consider all those elements that you complained about as whimsical or even pleasantly divergent. Quite few players also feel that those elements are what gives Zelda it's distinctive atmosphere. Take them away and you are left with something... well not Zelda.
Much like I tell people who complain that Casino Royale wasn't a good Bond film due to its lack of gadgets or moonrakers, the warm comforts of yesteryear do not vanish because something new has been tried.
The first two Zelda games were ostensibly straight-forward. Wind Waker was highly whimsical. OoT and Twilight Princess were somewhere in between. There is room in the Zelda franchise for different tones and approaches; I would just appreciate one that hasn't really be tried yet.
And many people consider all those elements that you complained about as whimsical or even pleasantly divergent. Quite few players also feel that those elements are what gives Zelda it's distinctive atmosphere. Take them away and you are left with something... well not Zelda.
Well when it feels like this Whimsicality is the soul embodiment of Nintendo's console content it begins to make the entire experience feel completely stale for someone looking for either a deeper emotionally moving experience via story, or some stress relief through senseless violence. Either way I've seen maybe only a few games released post SNES that appealed to either of those sensibilities on any level.
I think it's fair to at least call them out for it when it does seem to be pretty endemic to their entire console experience.
If the best you can come up with against someone who's patently ignorant is to yell back at him, "Yeah? Well there's BOOKS, and they say you're WRONG!"
Then honestly you're not coming out of this looking great either.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
And many people consider all those elements that you complained about as whimsical or even pleasantly divergent. Quite few players also feel that those elements are what gives Zelda it's distinctive atmosphere. Take them away and you are left with something... well not Zelda.
Well when it feels like this Whimsicality is the soul embodiment of Nintendo's console content it begins to make the entire experience feel completely stale for someone looking for either a deeper emotionally moving experience via story, or some stress relief through senseless violence. Either way I've seen maybe only a few games released post SNES that appealed to either of those sensibilities on any level.
I think it's fair to at least call them out for it when it does seem to be pretty endemic to their entire console experience.
My primary concern is that the decision to entrench such a penchant for whimsy and triviality is based not on creative innovation, but on mass appeal, i.e., the bottom line.
Nintendo has taken on the feel of a company that doesn't want to branch out creatively too far because it's doing just fine with the status quo. And that's the difference between a first-party system and a third-party system; if the former can find a successful niche, the financial incentive mandates that they milk it until it's dry, whereas the latter depends on a constant stream of new experiences.
And many people consider all those elements that you complained about as whimsical or even pleasantly divergent. Quite few players also feel that those elements are what gives Zelda it's distinctive atmosphere. Take them away and you are left with something... well not Zelda.
Much like I tell people who complain that Casino Royale wasn't a good Bond film due to its lack of gadgets or moonrakers, the warm comforts of yesteryear do not vanish because something new has been tried.
The first two Zelda games were ostensibly straight-forward. Wind Waker was highly whimsical. OoT and Twilight Princess were somewhere in between. There is room in the Zelda franchise for different tones and approaches; I would just appreciate one that hasn't really be tried yet.
Witch get's into the question of why Zelda then. Why not Darkstriders, or Okami, or... Wanting something to change into something that it's not seems pointless. Why not just make a new series? Casino Royal was a great example of "why bother"? It was a wonderful action flick. Sucked ass as Bond movie though. All those things people were expecting have become part of the what "Bond" is. Much in the way that those elements could be handled differently or approached differently, as long as they are still present it will still "feel" correct as the "hole" that would be left from their removal no longer stands out. The whimsical parts of Zelda are much the same. Majora's Mask and Twilight Princess both go in an Alice like direction with them and have a different feeling as a result.
I'm sorry, I'm still trying to get over the use of Final Fantasy as a series that knows how not to blow the serious vibe with silliness.
I have yet to play a FF game that is not pocked with silliness, slapstick, and lighthearted humor. Heck, FFX-2 had cutsie camp as its entire raison d'etre. Good adult story-telling is not afraid to use more whimsical elements at times, and often it makes the darker moments more poignant.
Anyway, the best Zelda game ever is clearly Wind Waker.
This is incontrovertible fact.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
And many people consider all those elements that you complained about as whimsical or even pleasantly divergent. Quite few players also feel that those elements are what gives Zelda it's distinctive atmosphere. Take them away and you are left with something... well not Zelda.
Well when it feels like this Whimsicality is the soul embodiment of Nintendo's console content it begins to make the entire experience feel completely stale for someone looking for either a deeper emotionally moving experience via story, or some stress relief through senseless violence. Either way I've seen maybe only a few games released post SNES that appealed to either of those sensibilities on any level.
I think it's fair to at least call them out for it when it does seem to be pretty endemic to their entire console experience.
My primary concern is that the decision to entrench such a penchant for whimsy and triviality is based not on creative innovation, but on mass appeal, i.e., the bottom line.
Nintendo has taken on the feel of a company that doesn't want to branch out creatively too far because it's doing just fine with the status quo. And that's the difference between a first-party system and a third-party system; if the former can find a successful niche, the financial incentive mandates that they milk it until it's dry, whereas the latter depends on a constant stream of new experiences.
At this point I shall bow out of the topic. There can be no discussion between those that feel the experiences have homogenized and those that haven't. You see your' experiences as "truth" and any others as not or flawed or what ever.
And just as you seemed to have missed the point earlier, quite a few people have not seen the experiences that Nintendo, and other game developers for that matter, have been making in the same way you have. I can appreciate that Nintendo hasn't made things that connect with you, but to assume that the feelings you experienced, or didn't, are the same for all shows a lack of empathy towards other on you'r part.
<Gah. That's reading harder then I mean it to. I just feel we're not understanding each other, and I rather not argue over what boils down to personal feelings and opinion. Those type of discussions have a way of going bad quickly on the internet.>
And many people consider all those elements that you complained about as whimsical or even pleasantly divergent. Quite few players also feel that those elements are what gives Zelda it's distinctive atmosphere. Take them away and you are left with something... well not Zelda.
Well when it feels like this Whimsicality is the soul embodiment of Nintendo's console content it begins to make the entire experience feel completely stale for someone looking for either a deeper emotionally moving experience via story, or some stress relief through senseless violence. Either way I've seen maybe only a few games released post SNES that appealed to either of those sensibilities on any level.
I think it's fair to at least call them out for it when it does seem to be pretty endemic to their entire console experience.
My primary concern is that the decision to entrench such a penchant for whimsy and triviality is based not on creative innovation, but on mass appeal, i.e., the bottom line.
Nintendo has taken on the feel of a company that doesn't want to branch out creatively too far because it's doing just fine with the status quo. And that's the difference between a first-party system and a third-party system; if the former can find a successful niche, the financial incentive mandates that they milk it until it's dry, whereas the latter depends on a constant stream of new experiences.
I dunno, this sounds a bit like claiming Ferrari has stagnated because all they make are awesome sports cars.
Games approachable by all ages is sort of Nintendo's thing. It's not stagnation, it's just their niche, and they're awesome at it.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
edited April 2011
my sense is that Nintendo is obligated to say that their console will blow the other guys out of the water technically and that it's going to be the most advanced thing yet and so on. But the truth is that their market of casual gamers, old people and parents with young children is a much more desirable market overall than the market of hardcore gamers.
They printed money with the Wii without even needing to lure good developers or invest heavily in quality games. Why would they go in a new direction?
I think Nintendo is in an interesting spot, basically because they started with some serious street cred among the hardcore gamers, and then made a system that the "traditional gamer" eventually came to view as cheap and gimmicky and a medium for seriously shitty shovelware. And yet they made a asshiton of money off of it and "won the console wars" according to MSM, because the other 90% people who weren't traditional gamers accepted it as the new thing to have and bought it (and played it once). Also because it was significantly cheaper than the other two.
Unfortunately I don't think that the non-gamers are all now converted to hardcore gamers by this experience, and I don't think many of them will be standing in line for the Wii 2. Nor do I think as many hardcore gamers will be fooled by the Nintendo name and a cheaper price tag this time, either.
Basically, what Irond Will said, except one significant difference - casual gamers aren't as likely to give two shits that there is a 'Wii 2" now.
I think Nintendo is in an interesting spot, basically because they started with some serious street cred among the hardcore gamers, and then made a system that the "traditional gamer" eventually came to view as cheap and gimmicky and a medium for seriously shitty shovelware. And yet they made a asshiton of money off of it and "won the console wars" according to MSM, because the other 90% people who weren't traditional gamers accepted it as the new thing to have and bought it (and played it once). Also because it was significantly cheaper than the other two.
Unfortunately I don't think that the non-gamers are all now converted to hardcore gamers by this experience, and I don't think many of them will be standing in line for the Wii 2. Nor do I think as many hardcore gamers will be fooled by the Nintendo name and a cheaper price tag this time, either.
Basically, what Irond Will said, except one significant difference - casual gamers aren't as likely to give two shits that there is a 'Wii 2" now.
Yeah, that's kinda the interesting thing about the Wii. Other then the Nintendo dead-dog-beating-franchises, it's been rather dismissed by the "hardcore gamer" type crowd. And, to be fair, not without some reason. But at the same time, it made absolutely assloads of money.
It's an odd, if apparently extremely profitable, spot to be in. I'm curious where they go from here.
Is this "more powerful then X" thing trying to win back some of the hardcore crowd? Or are they gonna try and repeat the success? And what are the odds they can get the same people to pony up for a Wii2 if it's not significantly different experience wise from the Wii (beyond just being more powerful of course)?
And many people consider all those elements that you complained about as whimsical or even pleasantly divergent. Quite few players also feel that those elements are what gives Zelda it's distinctive atmosphere. Take them away and you are left with something... well not Zelda.
Well when it feels like this Whimsicality is the soul embodiment of Nintendo's console content it begins to make the entire experience feel completely stale for someone looking for either a deeper emotionally moving experience via story, or some stress relief through senseless violence. Either way I've seen maybe only a few games released post SNES that appealed to either of those sensibilities on any level.
I think it's fair to at least call them out for it when it does seem to be pretty endemic to their entire console experience.
My primary concern is that the decision to entrench such a penchant for whimsy and triviality is based not on creative innovation, but on mass appeal, i.e., the bottom line.
Nintendo has taken on the feel of a company that doesn't want to branch out creatively too far because it's doing just fine with the status quo. And that's the difference between a first-party system and a third-party system; if the former can find a successful niche, the financial incentive mandates that they milk it until it's dry, whereas the latter depends on a constant stream of new experiences.
I dunno, this sounds a bit like claiming Ferrari has stagnated because all they make are awesome sports cars.
Games approachable by all ages is sort of Nintendo's thing. It's not stagnation, it's just their niche, and they're awesome at it.
I don't think "games approachable by all ages" is what Nintendo is stagnating at. Or frankly, is what they do alot of the time or what Atomic Ross is talking about.
You can make a great game that's approachable by all ages, but it doesn't have to be, say, yet another Zelda that's basically the exact same thing yet again. It really feels sometimes like Nintendo is milking their core franchises like gangbusters and not branching out almost at all because it's so damn profitable.
Or, basically, they've got no reason to stretch creatively because people will buy anything with Mario/Zelda/Metroid/etc on the cover.
I'm sorry, I'm still trying to get over the use of Final Fantasy as a series that knows how not to blow the serious vibe with silliness.
I have yet to play a FF game that is not pocked with silliness, slapstick, and lighthearted humor. Heck, FFX-2 had cutsie camp as its entire raison d'etre. Good adult story-telling is not afraid to use more whimsical elements at times, and often it makes the darker moments more poignant.
I agree about FF and the sillyness. Though frankly, I find it endemic to alot of Japanese games and so on. I always figure it's some weird cultural thing.
And I don't think either FF or Zelda has ever used it for more poignant adult story-telling, if either has ever even done poignant adult-story telling in the first place anyway.
And many people consider all those elements that you complained about as whimsical or even pleasantly divergent. Quite few players also feel that those elements are what gives Zelda it's distinctive atmosphere. Take them away and you are left with something... well not Zelda.
Well when it feels like this Whimsicality is the soul embodiment of Nintendo's console content it begins to make the entire experience feel completely stale for someone looking for either a deeper emotionally moving experience via story, or some stress relief through senseless violence. Either way I've seen maybe only a few games released post SNES that appealed to either of those sensibilities on any level.
I think it's fair to at least call them out for it when it does seem to be pretty endemic to their entire console experience.
My primary concern is that the decision to entrench such a penchant for whimsy and triviality is based not on creative innovation, but on mass appeal, i.e., the bottom line.
Nintendo has taken on the feel of a company that doesn't want to branch out creatively too far because it's doing just fine with the status quo. And that's the difference between a first-party system and a third-party system; if the former can find a successful niche, the financial incentive mandates that they milk it until it's dry, whereas the latter depends on a constant stream of new experiences.
I dunno, this sounds a bit like claiming Ferrari has stagnated because all they make are awesome sports cars.
Games approachable by all ages is sort of Nintendo's thing. It's not stagnation, it's just their niche, and they're awesome at it.
I don't think "games approachable by all ages" is what Nintendo is stagnating at. Or frankly, is what they do alot of the time or what Atomic Ross is talking about.
You can make a great game that's approachable by all ages, but it doesn't have to be, say, yet another Zelda that's basically the exact same thing yet again. It really feels sometimes like Nintendo is milking their core franchises like gangbusters and not branching out almost at all because it's so damn profitable.
Or, basically, they've got no reason to stretch creatively because people will buy anything with Mario/Zelda/Metroid/etc on the cover.
I don't really see a problem with this. Disney has been doing this for 80 years. Does that make them any less innovative? Mario and Link are becoming iconic. Why wouldn't they continue to use them?
It's not at all a problem from a business standpoint.
But to expand on the Disney analogy, how much do you respect Disney as a maker of art? Lack of innovation breeds creative stagnation. If you make money hand over fist reprinting the exact same formula again and again, you're far less likely to take a risk on something new and untested. Better to make Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past 4 - Ganon's Anus Boogaloo whose only new feature involves thrusting the Wiimote with a twisting motion on some levels.
Yes, Nintendo sure doesn't take risks. The Wii was totally accepted as soon as they announced it, as was the DS! And if they hadn't basically shut up the haters with those systems, I bet the 3DS would have been greeted incredibly skeptically.
They take risks with their hardware and then don't with software, especially IP wise. Hard to blame them when they have the group of iconic franchises that they do. I really don't give a shit about creativity as long as they make fun games. I mean, my two favorite developers are them and Blizzard. The last time Blizzard took a creative risk, it was like, 1998.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
But you're right that they took a big risk on their tech this generation. However, and I may be remembering wrong, but I don't recall a lot of doomsaying over the Wii around the time of its announcement. Actually, for most people I talked to, they were more weirded out about the stupid name than anything. The Wii was always going to sell a lot of systems because it's Nintendo - and as mentioned many times this thread, they sell at a profit.
Plus, if the motion sensor thing turned out to be total garbage, you could still play with your GameCube controllers. And regardless of the tech's success, a large majority would still buy it because of the strength of the company's brands.
So while Nintendo certainly innovated on the technology, I'm not sure if it was really a big 'risk.'
I seem to recall it being derided as a gimmick and people were skeptical basically until they got their hands on Wii Sports.
Anyway, I've never understood the need for new IPs idea. Blizzard has three, and they're the most successful developer on the planet. Are the games fun is the only question I think should matter.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
0
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
edited April 2011
You know, that makes me think of a complaint I had about SC2. A big, massive complaint.
I am fucking tired of character designs in this generation. Epic is the worst offender by far, but WoW is guilty of this and now SC2 and I'm sure it's only getting worse. Hypermasculinization of the males, all alpha males, massively built. Hyperfeminization of the women wearing armor that belongs in a sexual role play.
Jesus fucking Christ Blizzard used to have great, original character designs. What the fuck happened?
EDIT: It just occurred to me that I ranted about companies that aren't developing for Nintendo in the Nintendo thread. Carry on.
I think Nintendo is in an interesting spot, basically because they started with some serious street cred among the hardcore gamers, and then made a system that the "traditional gamer" eventually came to view as cheap and gimmicky and a medium for seriously shitty shovelware.
Imagine if Valve focused on just Half-Life because it was successful.
Again, from a business standpoint, they'd make tons of money. And the games would be fun.... But you wouldn't have Portal 1+2. Or TF2. Or... etc.
There's also the fact that some IPs just get stale after a while. People didn't get on Nintendo's case for reprinting their brands like this nearly as bad ten or even five years ago.
Imagine if Valve focused on just Half-Life because it was successful.
Again, from a business standpoint, they'd make tons of money. And the games would be fun.... But you wouldn't have Portal 1+2. Or TF2. Or... etc.
There's also the fact that some IPs just get stale after a while. People didn't get on Nintendo's case for reprinting their brands like this nearly as bad ten or even five years ago.
"Since it raised a generation of latch key kids and everything it seems that Nintendo is the only company that we allow to get away with this kind of thing. Imagine if anyone else did it. Imagine if Valve released Half-Life then a few years later the released Half-Life again with exactly the same plot but with better graphics, different level design and maybe one new gun, like a tube that shoots lemons. We'd think they'd all gone raving mad, they'd be in drug rehab before Half-Life: Citrus Bazooka could hit shelves."
Yes, Nintendo sure doesn't take risks. The Wii was totally accepted as soon as they announced it, as was the DS! And if they hadn't basically shut up the haters with those systems, I bet the 3DS would have been greeted incredibly skeptically.
They take risks with their hardware and then don't with software, especially IP wise. Hard to blame them when they have the group of iconic franchises that they do. I really don't give a shit about creativity as long as they make fun games. I mean, my two favorite developers are them and Blizzard. The last time Blizzard took a creative risk, it was like, 1998.
Or 2002. Or 2004. Just because it's the same IP doesn't mean there's not creative risks going on.
I'd say Nintendo often isn't just the same IP, but practically the same game. Zelda is particularly bad for this.
Mario less so. Galaxy was a nice step up from Mario64. Some new interesting shit there. Although Galaxy 2: The Expansion Pack leaves me wondering where they'll go next. Mostly Mario suffers from being the exact same lame story every single time, but given it's all just about the levels, it's not so noticeable.
From a business standpoint, it's an obvious winner to just churn out another set of major franchise games and rake in the cash. But creatively it's kinda dull imo.
shryke on
0
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
edited April 2011
Or they're id software.
Come on, Nintendo is not unique in milking their IPs. id finally has a new one, Rage, but for years it was Wolfenstein, Doom and Quake. Valve is Half-Life, Portal and Team Fortress. Blizzard is Warcraft, Diablo and Starcraft (Diablo was bought in the first place, anyway). Square has been milking the Final Fantasy gravy train for 20 years.
Mortal Kombat 9, Street Fighter Super Turbo Awesome 2 The Sequel, Prince of Persia, Dragon Quest....
However, you know what Nintendo has done with their IPs that people are claiming are always the same? Innovate. The original Super Mario Brothers is not Mario 64 is not Sunshine is not Galaxy. Yeah, he's usually trying to save the princess, but I challenge you to find one Mario Brothers hardcore fan who plays Mario because they find the story compelling. It's about playing what has always been one of the best platformers around.
Posts
Wasn't Majora's Mask fairly dark?
Anyway, the average Zelda game reminds me of a Pixar movie. Fairly mature story arc, some mature themes, plenty of stuff to appeal to young'uns. And I've never come out of a Pixar movie thinking, "Wow, if only that was more mature."
Also, honestly? I prefer the text in most games. Because even when the voice acting is good, there's often a lot of speech, and I would rather be playing the game than listening to people yammer. I generally turn subtitles on, read the text myself, and then skip through the voice work. I recognize I'm probably a minority here, though.
For me personally I don't have a beef with most of Nintendo's games. I think their key franchises are at the appropriate level of maturity with little exception.
Except, of course, the Zelda franchise. I'm kind of all-or-nothing on that one. I'd much rather play something light and airy like Wind Waker than something that can't quite commit one way or the other, like Majora's Mask or Twilight Princess. I want a cheery G-rated Zelda, or a gritty and solemn PG, but the general wishy-washyness of most of the Zelda titles leave me somewhat dissatisfied, despite their solid gameplay.
I don't particularly want grimdark in Zelda games, just a mature tone that doesn't worry about pandering to Nintendo's youngest players.
Twilight Princess was the most aggravating, as it was 90% perfect, 10% dumb.
I know this is slightly tangential, but the "matureness" of games seems to be central to the problems people have with Nintendo.
I think delineating the definition of "mature" is the first, most-important step. I don't think blood, boobs, and f-bombs particularly makes a game all that mature if the only people playing it are hopped-up little kids getting a thrill out of softcore titillation.
What I'd like to see in a Zelda game, if only just once, is a game that tells a story with the general deft aplomb that we've come to expect in Zelda games, but without the peripheral silliness, like your Tingles and cartoon fairies and dancing seed-people and whatnot. A fantasy on the same maturity level of something like Shadow of the Colossus or some of the older-gen RPGs; something not entirely unwelcoming of younger players, but not actively pandering to them.
The undertones of what Tingle the fairies and those dancing seed people was fairly "mature". Tingle's a freak who refuses to grow up and not in the cute Disney way, but in the creepy ohdeargodwhatisthat way. The fairies have been all over the place in dark undertones, especially the queen in Wind Waker. And the dancing seeds were the same Kokori from OoT, transformed over time into plants so that they could use themselves as a method of re-foresting the world after a great flood.
I wouldn't use "pandering to kids" to describe any of this.
Thank you, I think this sums up what I've felt Nintendo's missed ever since the SNES. Their games are either filled with nothing but perpetual silliness that waters down any emotional impact or they're third party ports that may have some severed limbs or violence but no real depth beyond that. I need sufficient levels of both to find a game enjoyable.
I mean Chrono Trigger didn't have blood or boobs but I'd be hard pressed to find a game that had a level of grit and story similar to that after the SNES and if there were any games like that they sure didn't get any real marketing behind them. Also, regarding Tingle and such: I'm sorry but if you have to really search several layers deep to find any grit or depth to a character then you're just grasping for straws.
The fact that you have to make a mental exercise of it shows that the entire Nintendo environment is so watered down in the name of family friendliness that they can only make vague allusions to mature themes really shows that they are just not equipped or willing to venture into telling an adult story in an adult way. Think about this, we haven't seen a Final Fantasy mainstay on a Nintendo console for how many decades now? The lack of a FF title to me is a very big symptom of the overall problem.
Read his dialogue in MM a bit more carefully; he's the darkest, creepiest character in the entire series, and that includes face humping zombie mummies.
Ah.. the "Games are serious business!" argument. It's funny. Quite a few people can play these games and never feel insulted, or watered down or any of that. They talk about how fun they are and the part that stick in their heads. The emotional moments, the story, ect. Haters on the other seem to think that their interaction with the game however is the one true interruption. No others could posable see the games in a different light.
As for the Squarenix titles, they may have not been a mainline FF, but the Crystal Chronicles (As well as all those pesky DS titles.) beg to differ about the "deep" and "serious" titles. Just because you have the perception of something that is shared with others of like mind doen't make it any more real then experiences of others.
No one said that. He's just a silly character, and part of a larger endemic silliness inherent to many (most?) of the Zelda games.
A hallmark silliness, I'll add, that didn't really show up in the series until Ocarina of Time, which was the fifth Zelda game released.
Please don't use this word in a non-ironic context.
LttP had silliness. Like the guy who doubles your magic meter. And the magic sand bag turned ugly monsters into silly monsters.
Then I must have dreaming about greedy monkeys , chain-chomp pet dogs, wild chicken attacks, fish-man flipper exchanges, ect. ect.
I think the rose-coloured glass are being used a bit heavily here.
LA has a ton of sillyness including, but not limited to, a goat lying about her looks to get it on with a dude.
Complaining about context when quoting out of context.
The series did have whimsical elements as far back as LttP, true, but it seemed to really embrace the camp by OoT.
Regardless, I still could do with a straight-forward Zelda game. I am not, however, holding my breath.
And many people consider all those elements that you complained about as whimsical or even pleasantly divergent. Quite few players also feel that those elements are what gives Zelda it's distinctive atmosphere. Take them away and you are left with something... well not Zelda.
Much like I tell people who complain that Casino Royale wasn't a good Bond film due to its lack of gadgets or moonrakers, the warm comforts of yesteryear do not vanish because something new has been tried.
The first two Zelda games were ostensibly straight-forward. Wind Waker was highly whimsical. OoT and Twilight Princess were somewhere in between. There is room in the Zelda franchise for different tones and approaches; I would just appreciate one that hasn't really be tried yet.
Well when it feels like this Whimsicality is the soul embodiment of Nintendo's console content it begins to make the entire experience feel completely stale for someone looking for either a deeper emotionally moving experience via story, or some stress relief through senseless violence. Either way I've seen maybe only a few games released post SNES that appealed to either of those sensibilities on any level.
I think it's fair to at least call them out for it when it does seem to be pretty endemic to their entire console experience.
My primary concern is that the decision to entrench such a penchant for whimsy and triviality is based not on creative innovation, but on mass appeal, i.e., the bottom line.
Nintendo has taken on the feel of a company that doesn't want to branch out creatively too far because it's doing just fine with the status quo. And that's the difference between a first-party system and a third-party system; if the former can find a successful niche, the financial incentive mandates that they milk it until it's dry, whereas the latter depends on a constant stream of new experiences.
Witch get's into the question of why Zelda then. Why not Darkstriders, or Okami, or... Wanting something to change into something that it's not seems pointless. Why not just make a new series? Casino Royal was a great example of "why bother"? It was a wonderful action flick. Sucked ass as Bond movie though. All those things people were expecting have become part of the what "Bond" is. Much in the way that those elements could be handled differently or approached differently, as long as they are still present it will still "feel" correct as the "hole" that would be left from their removal no longer stands out. The whimsical parts of Zelda are much the same. Majora's Mask and Twilight Princess both go in an Alice like direction with them and have a different feeling as a result.
I have yet to play a FF game that is not pocked with silliness, slapstick, and lighthearted humor. Heck, FFX-2 had cutsie camp as its entire raison d'etre. Good adult story-telling is not afraid to use more whimsical elements at times, and often it makes the darker moments more poignant.
Anyway, the best Zelda game ever is clearly Wind Waker.
This is incontrovertible fact.
At this point I shall bow out of the topic. There can be no discussion between those that feel the experiences have homogenized and those that haven't. You see your' experiences as "truth" and any others as not or flawed or what ever.
And just as you seemed to have missed the point earlier, quite a few people have not seen the experiences that Nintendo, and other game developers for that matter, have been making in the same way you have. I can appreciate that Nintendo hasn't made things that connect with you, but to assume that the feelings you experienced, or didn't, are the same for all shows a lack of empathy towards other on you'r part.
<Gah. That's reading harder then I mean it to. I just feel we're not understanding each other, and I rather not argue over what boils down to personal feelings and opinion. Those type of discussions have a way of going bad quickly on the internet.>
I dunno, this sounds a bit like claiming Ferrari has stagnated because all they make are awesome sports cars.
Games approachable by all ages is sort of Nintendo's thing. It's not stagnation, it's just their niche, and they're awesome at it.
They printed money with the Wii without even needing to lure good developers or invest heavily in quality games. Why would they go in a new direction?
Unfortunately I don't think that the non-gamers are all now converted to hardcore gamers by this experience, and I don't think many of them will be standing in line for the Wii 2. Nor do I think as many hardcore gamers will be fooled by the Nintendo name and a cheaper price tag this time, either.
Basically, what Irond Will said, except one significant difference - casual gamers aren't as likely to give two shits that there is a 'Wii 2" now.
Yeah, that's kinda the interesting thing about the Wii. Other then the Nintendo dead-dog-beating-franchises, it's been rather dismissed by the "hardcore gamer" type crowd. And, to be fair, not without some reason. But at the same time, it made absolutely assloads of money.
It's an odd, if apparently extremely profitable, spot to be in. I'm curious where they go from here.
Is this "more powerful then X" thing trying to win back some of the hardcore crowd? Or are they gonna try and repeat the success? And what are the odds they can get the same people to pony up for a Wii2 if it's not significantly different experience wise from the Wii (beyond just being more powerful of course)?
I don't think "games approachable by all ages" is what Nintendo is stagnating at. Or frankly, is what they do alot of the time or what Atomic Ross is talking about.
You can make a great game that's approachable by all ages, but it doesn't have to be, say, yet another Zelda that's basically the exact same thing yet again. It really feels sometimes like Nintendo is milking their core franchises like gangbusters and not branching out almost at all because it's so damn profitable.
Or, basically, they've got no reason to stretch creatively because people will buy anything with Mario/Zelda/Metroid/etc on the cover.
I agree about FF and the sillyness. Though frankly, I find it endemic to alot of Japanese games and so on. I always figure it's some weird cultural thing.
And I don't think either FF or Zelda has ever used it for more poignant adult story-telling, if either has ever even done poignant adult-story telling in the first place anyway.
I don't really see a problem with this. Disney has been doing this for 80 years. Does that make them any less innovative? Mario and Link are becoming iconic. Why wouldn't they continue to use them?
But to expand on the Disney analogy, how much do you respect Disney as a maker of art? Lack of innovation breeds creative stagnation. If you make money hand over fist reprinting the exact same formula again and again, you're far less likely to take a risk on something new and untested. Better to make Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past 4 - Ganon's Anus Boogaloo whose only new feature involves thrusting the Wiimote with a twisting motion on some levels.
PSN: ShogunGunshow
Origin: ShogunGunshow
They take risks with their hardware and then don't with software, especially IP wise. Hard to blame them when they have the group of iconic franchises that they do. I really don't give a shit about creativity as long as they make fun games. I mean, my two favorite developers are them and Blizzard. The last time Blizzard took a creative risk, it was like, 1998.
But you're right that they took a big risk on their tech this generation. However, and I may be remembering wrong, but I don't recall a lot of doomsaying over the Wii around the time of its announcement. Actually, for most people I talked to, they were more weirded out about the stupid name than anything. The Wii was always going to sell a lot of systems because it's Nintendo - and as mentioned many times this thread, they sell at a profit.
Plus, if the motion sensor thing turned out to be total garbage, you could still play with your GameCube controllers. And regardless of the tech's success, a large majority would still buy it because of the strength of the company's brands.
So while Nintendo certainly innovated on the technology, I'm not sure if it was really a big 'risk.'
PSN: ShogunGunshow
Origin: ShogunGunshow
Anyway, I've never understood the need for new IPs idea. Blizzard has three, and they're the most successful developer on the planet. Are the games fun is the only question I think should matter.
I am fucking tired of character designs in this generation. Epic is the worst offender by far, but WoW is guilty of this and now SC2 and I'm sure it's only getting worse. Hypermasculinization of the males, all alpha males, massively built. Hyperfeminization of the women wearing armor that belongs in a sexual role play.
Jesus fucking Christ Blizzard used to have great, original character designs. What the fuck happened?
EDIT: It just occurred to me that I ranted about companies that aren't developing for Nintendo in the Nintendo thread. Carry on.
That describes my view pretty well. Thank you.
Imagine if Valve focused on just Half-Life because it was successful.
Again, from a business standpoint, they'd make tons of money. And the games would be fun.... But you wouldn't have Portal 1+2. Or TF2. Or... etc.
There's also the fact that some IPs just get stale after a while. People didn't get on Nintendo's case for reprinting their brands like this nearly as bad ten or even five years ago.
PSN: ShogunGunshow
Origin: ShogunGunshow
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/13-Zelda-Phantom-Hourglass
Or 2002. Or 2004. Just because it's the same IP doesn't mean there's not creative risks going on.
I'd say Nintendo often isn't just the same IP, but practically the same game. Zelda is particularly bad for this.
Mario less so. Galaxy was a nice step up from Mario64. Some new interesting shit there. Although Galaxy 2: The Expansion Pack leaves me wondering where they'll go next. Mostly Mario suffers from being the exact same lame story every single time, but given it's all just about the levels, it's not so noticeable.
From a business standpoint, it's an obvious winner to just churn out another set of major franchise games and rake in the cash. But creatively it's kinda dull imo.
Come on, Nintendo is not unique in milking their IPs. id finally has a new one, Rage, but for years it was Wolfenstein, Doom and Quake. Valve is Half-Life, Portal and Team Fortress. Blizzard is Warcraft, Diablo and Starcraft (Diablo was bought in the first place, anyway). Square has been milking the Final Fantasy gravy train for 20 years.
Mortal Kombat 9, Street Fighter Super Turbo Awesome 2 The Sequel, Prince of Persia, Dragon Quest....
However, you know what Nintendo has done with their IPs that people are claiming are always the same? Innovate. The original Super Mario Brothers is not Mario 64 is not Sunshine is not Galaxy. Yeah, he's usually trying to save the princess, but I challenge you to find one Mario Brothers hardcore fan who plays Mario because they find the story compelling. It's about playing what has always been one of the best platformers around.