Slashdot Mirror
Miyamoto Scrutinizes Mario, Zelda, Hails Portal
eldavojohn writes "Nintendo icon Shigeru Miyamoto stated in an interview that 'What I've been saying to our development teams recently is that The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess was not a bad game, by any means. But, still, it felt like there was something missing. And while, personally, I feel like Super Mario Galaxy was able to do some things that were very unique, at the same time, from another perspective, certain elements of it do feel somewhat conservative. This is something I've been talking to both of those teams about ... hopefully [the next Mario and Zelda] will feel newer and fresher than their most recent versions.' MTV Multiplayer also commented on Portal's mechanics and gameplay, to which Miyamoto responded, 'I think Portal was an amazing game, too.' GameSetWatch has a related article criticizing Nintendo for relying on the Wii's input devices to develop game franchises rather than improving actual gameplay."
Miyamoto is someone who has a lot of weight behind what he says. You can bet that Valve are grinning like idiots and that the teams working on the next Zelda and Mario are breaking a sweat.
He's always taken a unique view at looking at games, and finding out what makes something fun to play, and he's not worried to look back at his own works and locate things that could be improved upon.
I know this post could be considered "redundant", since his genius is obvious, but I love him!
"Intelligence has nothing to do with politics!"
-Londo Mollari
He's right on both counts and it doesn't take anything away from either game to point out they could have been better/more adventurous. I doubt that guy got to where he is "settling" for the level of his games. There is always a new level to reach. I own both and from an end user point of view, they were awesome. No complaints.
I hope this means there will be another Mario game for Wii. It has been a disappointing feature of the latest Nintendo consoles, that only one Mario is released per generation. With the absolute crap that is mostly coming out for the Wii, they really need to step up and rely on the strong franchises to maintain interest.
I record my sleeptalking
Meh. As long as they keep making games in the same genre, I see no reason not to keep making games for that genre be part of the same franchise. I still love the Action/Adventure genre as much now as I did in the 80s when The Legend of Zelda basically invented it, so what purpose does it serve for Nintendo to make a new action-adventure game that doesn't use the Zelda brand?
Beyond Good and Evil is an action/adventure that I recommend to friends by calling it "a better Zelda that Zelda", but that wasn't because it didn't feature Zelda characters. It was because it had excellent gameplay in exploration, combat, and sneaking sequences, tightly integrated dungeons, and a lack of time-killing hunt-and-find quests. Okay, the story was also significantly better than your average action-adventure too, but there's nothing that says a Zelda can't have a good story either (and some do).
If StarFox Adventures had been whatever it was before being getting slapped with the license, would it still have been a piece of crap? Most likely, though getting to play as the female character for more than an intro sequence as originally planned might have taken the edge off the suck.
Mario Kart would be an ever better example for a genre where having it be the same franchise makes little to no difference to me.
So, I guess my point is... As long as I like the genre, I don't mind a franchise in that genre. Of course it's very nice when they inject originality into the franchise... But honestly, did Twilight Princess disappoint Miyamoto because the Zelda franchise locks the developers into certain cliches of gameplay (which are equally well cliches in nearly all other games in the genre), or because coming up with completely original gameplay is hard regardless of whether or not you call your game "Zelda", and the dev team just failed to be creative enough?
The enemies of Democracy are
While I do agree with you, I must say I think that the Zelda and Mario franchises are bad examples, at least in the earlier iterations. Mario 1, 2, 3, and 64 were completely different games, as were the Zelda's up to and including Ocarina of Time.
IMHO staying within the setting but building a completely new game around it is no problem at all.
Repeating the same game but with fancier graphics or two added gimmicks is a whole different thing. And that is where the newer versions probably went wrong. Although I still liked them :p
The gameplay is radically different? Which game are you referring to?
Mario Galaxy radically different than Super Mario Sunshine?
Mario Kart Wii radically different than Mario Kart DS?
Metroid?
Zelda?
Smash Bros?
I guess it's a matter of opinion, but to me, the radical changes to Nintendo IPs mostly happened during the N64 era, and to a lesser extent, the Gamecube era, when games were making the switch from 2d to 3d. All of the games I've mentioned above share quite a bit in common with their N64 and Gamecube counterparts.
Finally, I ask, what's so wrong with wanting original IP's? Why do some people get so defensive when this is asked for?
While I applaud his candid response, I wouldn't have had anything against him saying, "well folks, we've put out the two best games in their respective series"... because I feel both were. Twilight Princess combind the timeless epic quality of Ocarina of Time, but gave it the drama and heart that I feel that the series has lacked. Mario Galaxy may not quite beat out Mario 3 in my book, but both felt eerily similar in their inspired quality, and I think that Mario Galaxy is the best game since Mario 3. Now, all I feel they need to do with Zelda is do to TP, what Majora's Mask did to OoT, ie: fuck with it, do something out of left field that's not "normal" for Zelda. MM was my favorite game in the series until TP came along. TP is now probably my favorite game... period.
Portal was wonderful, don't get me wrong. However, it didn't present me with a full emotional and gameplay spectrum the way that Zelda or Mario do... it was a short vignette of a game, a very perfect one, for that matter. Don't know why I can put ICO at the top of my list but not Portal (similarly short), but something keeps Portal from reaching that high eschellon for me.
Multiplayer Gaming (defined): Sitting around, discussing single-player games with my friends, at the bar.
Mario Galaxy radically different than Super Mario Sunshine?
Yes, absolutely. Although I see your point with the others. (I say this despite personally having a lot of affection for Twilight Princess.)
Finally, I ask, what's so wrong with wanting original IP's? Why do some people get so defensive when this is asked for?
It was this line: "Why do gaming companies have to make 100 versions of the same franchise?"
Nintendo in particular is pretty darned good at making a compelling sequel. In a world where the vast majority of sequels are, at best, expansion packs of the original game, Nintendo still finds ways to keep them compelling. I never would have thought I'd prefer a Tetris game over the original Game Boy version. But Tetris DS came along and blew me away. Multiplayer Tetris, over the internet, on a portable system. Suh-weeet. Mario Kart DS? Same deal. Zelda? Do a search for GameTrailers Zelda Retrospective. The epic scale of that franchise is mind-boggling. Compare all that to say Grand Theft Auto. Now, I love Grand Theft Auto. I've played the heck out of all the non-portable versions, even before it went 3D. But when I look back, yeah the sequels were fun, but honestly I don't see that big of difference between them. The stories are different, that's what keeps me coming back, but fundamentally we were given a few trivial upgrades to the original premise. I won't be waiting in line for the next GTA game anymore. Even Bully could be considered an unofficial GTA sequel. It's just so... tried and true. It's hard to look at a series like that then criticize Nintendo for their sequels.
Even then, I really don't have a problem with criticism of Nintendo's games. Not every game works with everybody. But you wouldn't seriously say that Nintendo doesn't try new things, would you? Wii Fit? Wii Sports? (The best selling game of 2007 and it's.. bowling?!) Brain Age? Strikers? Seriously man, when you say things like you did, it sounds like somebody who read the title and jumped to conclusions about what the game is. You're going to receive criticism for that by people who know better. It's like saying: "I don't like vegetables because I hate spinach, give me something original." I'm not sure what else you'd expect, honestly.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
What the hell are you talking about? Ever heard of something like Wii Fit? Wii Music? The entire Wii console?
You have no idea what you're talking about, do you?
but there's nothing that says a Zelda can't have a good story either (and some do).
They all do! For one,
SPOILER WARNING
In Twilight Princess, Ganondorf kidnaps princess Zelda.
SPOILER OVER
See?
And controller-wise, the other consoles are little more than same old, same old. Why are better graphics better than a new controller exactly?
Just like the focus on graphics in the other consoles is just a "gimmick"?
You have an interesting definition of "gimmick". Wii is a lot more mainstream and reaches a lot more people than the other consoles with its controller, which makes it easier for people to pick up and play a game. That's not a gimmick.
And the other consoles have "underpowered" controllers.