You guys are pathetic. I bet most of you read the title and assumed you knew what the article meant. He means Zelda is changing in the same way it changed between A Link to the Past and Ocarina of Time, and Mario is changing in same way it did between Super Mario World and Super Mario 64. As new features become available, games can take advantage of new gameplay possibilites not available before. The best example of this was the transition between 2D and 3D. Miyamoto is suggesting the Revolution is opening new doors to expand both the Mario and Zelda series. You guys should actually think about what you're saying.
Yeah, and everyone *has* been focusing on the negatives of the DS ever since the thing was announced, while this is honestly the first negative article about the PSP I've seen from a major game journalist. I'm glad they're finally starting to balance it out.
A friend of mine goes around to garage sales and buys any videogame systems he can find, and he's been doing it for years. There's a room in his basement with random systems just stacked to the ceiling, just about any console you can think of (yes, even that one). He says the reason he does it is because he can grab an NES or an SNES for $10 or less at a garage sale then sell it for $50+ to desperate people on Ebay around Christmas time. Works wonders.
Also, I don't think they'll return to being a cutthroat nasty monopoly if they get back to the top- Yamauchi resigned, man. He was the main reason that Nintendo was mean in the first place, that guy was ruthless. Iwata's a much more cuddly president. I do expect Nintendo to be very strict with the market if they get back on top, but I think it's ignorant to say they'll go back to being how they were, especially when how they were is why they're how they are now. Just think these things through.
Since when has any company been good anyway? The only one I can think of is Google, and they're certainly the exception to the rule, not the rule itself.
So yes, I do think Nintendo's primary motivation for being nicer is money. But then again, I think the primary motivation for any company is money, Nintendo included. Nintendo gets built up as this loving, caring company, and while I do think that most, if not all, of them honestly do want to make great games and improve the industry, they're still a company and the purpose of any company is to make money.
I don't know, maybe since Iwata took over Nintendo actually does want to be nice, but people shouldn't be surprised when they do some cutthroat or nasty things to make a profit, they're just managing a business, managing a business like anyone else would do (if they wanted to make money).
I think you'll notice that I never said Nintendo was nice and courteous now, I just said they're not as monopolistic, nowhere near it. But they still do have the tendencies, just like everyone else, so singling them out is pointless, especially when there are dozens are corporations much worse.
"For Nintendo's April through June quarter, the company saw operating profit of 3.75 billion yen ($33.35 million), down from 17.47 billion yen in the same period last year. The company reports net profit of 14.12 billion yen ($125.6 million) compared to last year's net profit of 22.64 billion yen.
So which is it? Are Nintendo's profits down 80% (down 13.72 billion yen from 17.47 billion yen to 3.75 billion yen) or down to 80% (down 3.75 billion yen from 17.47 billion yen to 13.72 billion yen). There's a pretty big difference.
Whoops, forgot about Mario Party. Yeah, I know it's the same thing over and over again, even I'm not happy about that, but apparently a lot of people are because each game in the series is a platinum seller. So that's 26 franchises.
Sega went out of business because they released a bunch of add-ons and consoles that sold terribly. All in all they were terrible at business, despite how good they were at making games. Sega had billions of dollars in debt and no way to make them up. Where does Nintendo fit in? Oh, you mean because you don't like the DS, Nintedo is going the way of Sega? Nevermind the millions of other people that have made the DS a sales phenomenon? Yeah, OK, I guess that makes sense....
I think the key word in your entire post is what Nintendo did. Yes, Nintendo was a very nasty monopoly (I don't know about worse than MS in their heyday, but at least very close).
However, it wasn't the lawsuits that got them to stop, it was the fact that they were seriously pissing off anyone who could support them. They made mortal enemies out of Namco and Square, and alienated a ton of other 3rd parties. That's a huge reason the Genesis did so well, because all the 3rd parties Nintendo had been screwing over jumped ship to the much nicer Sega and a bunch of Nintendo's customers went with them. Then they went with Sony and the Playstation instead of the N64 because Nintendo still insisted on being nasty.
And you know what happened? It came around and bit them in the ass and is arguably what started their fall from being the sales leader. They realized that being a sinister monopoly wasn't a viable market plan in the videogame industry and started being nicer. I'd say their evil streak ended when Yamauchi resigned and the much nicer Iwata took over.
So now, tell me, what evil monopolistic practices have they done lately that can even compare to what they did before? You can stop speaking in the past tense and get with the times- Nintendo is nowhere near as evil as they used to be, and they're trying to repair a lot of their damaged relationships they had with 3rd parties (they're great buddies with Square and Namco, now). Iwata is really turning the company away from their cutthroat past, and not losing any of the profit-making abilities, either.
Actually, the Revolution controller is apparently going to be very compatible (after all, it's going to be able to play NES, SNES, N64, and Revolution games). Check out this statement from Iwata on this exact issue:
Finally, Iwata spoke on the Revolution's unique interface and if it would alienate third-party developers.
"Well, of course, the idea is that the Revolution will sell and sell and sell so it becomes the standard in the industry," Iwata mused. "However, at least for the launch period, we designed the controller so it can play any of the different conventional styles. After all, we are talking about it playing games from our past machines (i.e. the virtual console). So don't worry."
So what you're really saying is you just don't dig Nintendo's games. That's fine, they're not for everyone. But that's not Nintendo's problem, it's not anyone's problebm. The Gamecube simply just isn't the console for you. I don't know why you should feel angry that Nintendo doesn't make games you like, though- there are plenty of companies that make games I don't like, but I'm not angry, I just don't play them. It's a really good strategy, you should try it sometime.
Nintendo has more franchises than any other single developer out there, except for maybe Sega. It really pisses me off when I see people saying how Nintendo relies on just their "key franchises". Really, it's this whole double standard issue that pisses me off.
Let's list some of Nintendo's franchises, shall we?
Mario
Zelda
Donkey Kong
Kirby
F-Zero
Star Fox
Wars
Fire Emblem
Pikmin
Animal Forest/Crossing
Metroid
Mother/Earthbound
Kid Icarus
Waverace
Pokemon
Pilotwings
Star Tropics
Now let's list their franchises starring the rest of their characters. Spare me the flame, they're still very good and have very different gameplay, which qualifies them as seperate games, even if they do utilize the Mario name:
Mario Kart
Super Smash Bros.
Wario Land
WarioWare
Mario Tennis
Mario Golf
Donkey Konga
Mario RPG
Now let's list some of their recent and upcoming new properties:
Nintendogs
Elctroplankton
Odama
Geist
Jam With the Band
Polarium
Mario Baseball
Mario Strikers
So, what is that? 25 franchises and another 8 brand new ones, with more promised? Seriously, do you guys ever actually do any research into this stuff? Let's go even further: how many actual Mario and Zelda games did we have this generation for the Gamecube? One Mario game and two Zelda games. Conversely, how many Jak and Daxter games? Three. How many Ratchet and Clank games? Three. How many Sly Cooper games? Two. How many Gran Turismo games? 2. Plus there are those franchise's respective spinoffs. Why doesn't any complain about this? Two reasons. One, it's Sony, who can (as we've seen) make mistakes without anyone getting upset. And two, they're good games, so it doesn't matter so much that they're falling back on their names.
So why doesn't the same apply to Nintendo? When they do release a game with the Mario or Zelda name, it's always very good, and if you look beyond those two huge properties there is a plethora of new ones just waiting for you to play them. But Nintendo gets bashed for "relying on their franchises". If you don't like Nintendo's games, just so so- I don't care, you're fully entitled to your opinion. But don't make up bullshit about what's wrong with Nintendo because you clearly don't know what you're talking about. I hate double standards, and I hate people like you for propagating them.
Halo is loosely connected to the Marathon series and Grand Theft Auto, of course, was around much longer than its first PS2 entry (hence the 3 at the end of its name). So, uh, neither of those debuted on the XBox and PS2.
On the other side of the fence, are you implying that the "If everyone likes it then it must be good" "mainstream" mentality is good? Some people's taste in music just happens to not be what the public likes at the moment, and their are always going to be music snobs, but it doesn't make their opinions and statements any less valid just because they're arrogant and elitist about it.
Also I agree that Windwaker was boring. It got cut a lot of slack just because it was a Zelda game.
It was cut some slack because it was a Zelda game? I think it's just the opposite, it was scrutinized more because it was a Zelda game, it had a standard to live up that was set by what many consider the best games there are. If Wind Waker had been released by a different developer and without the Zelda property, it would've been hailed as a masterpiece. But because it was a Nintendo game, and especially because it was a Zelda game, people picked it apart and talked about every little problem the game had.
It's not illegal to sell R-rated movies to minors, though, it's just store policy. As well, it's also not illegal for minors to see R-rated movies, it's just theater policy. It gets irritating that so many people think these are laws when they're really not. Of course, they may be soon if this kind of legislation becomes widespread.
I can't wait for when the people running this country are the ones who grew up on videogames. Then maybe we can put all this behind us.
Obviously the customer feedback is mixed, or else we wouldn't be having this debate right now. I see your point that Nintendo shouldn't forego all customer appreciation to ensure they make a profit, but in this case I'm glad Nintendo saved that extra cash instead of pleasing a couple hundred thousand fans. And now Nintendo can please both the whiny few AND make a profit, so in the end, everyone wins, you just didn't get to play online as soon as you would have liked. I'm sorry.
"The fact is, game companies like Nintendo have avoided online play because they don't understand it and aren't willing to take the sort of risk that's necessary to make it happen."
Eh? Every Nintendo home console ever made has had some sort of online feature- arguably Nintendo understands how the internet applies to consoles better than anyone else.
"Console developers, on the other hand, are constantly at the mercy of the console creators, who, until the XBox was released, never once shipped a console with any sort of online gaming ability built-in. If it ain't in the box when it ships, good luck getting people to buy it."
Are you sure? I seem to remember a console called the Dreamcast released stateside back in 1999. I also seem to remember it being packaged with a modem- in fact, the modem was already connected. all you had to do to play games online was get a Seganet subscription- sounds a lot like XBox Live, doesn't it?
Anyway, I don't know why you seem intent on making Nintendo out to be ravenously anti-internt. It's already been explained, they just didn't think pushing online play on consoles was profitable yet, and if I were you, I'd be trusting Nintendo on what's profitable, not companies like Sony, who struggles to make have as much money on games as Nintendo, or Microsoft, who has lost billions of dollars on games.
I'll admit, I'm impressed that Microsoft made such a good online plan, and practically right out of the gate, too. And I don't doubt that XBox Live will probably help Microsoft in the long run. But it also most likely caused them to lose a ridiculous amount of money. That's a loss Microsoft can afford because they have Windows. It's not a loss that Nintendo can afford, because all they have is their games. Nintendo has to wait for the best time to push online play, and I think they've chosen a plan that's perfect for both them and the industry.
First off, the question of high definition support is entirely beside the point. I personally would love to play Mario and Zelda in glorious high definition, but if you honestly think it's going to contribute to Nintendo's "failure" next generation, you need to get a clue.
First off, the analog shut out won't be in 2006, it most likely won't even be in 2007, according to the FCC itself. They won't even do the analog shutout until at least 85% of household TVs can receive all digital broadcasts, which some estimate could be another 20 years. Realistically we're not looking at switching over to all digital broadcasts until 2010-2015, which falls squarely into the realm of "the generation after next".
Secondly, now that we've established that Nintendo isn't somehow cutting off all their customers, we can move on to the other flaw in your argument- high definition video was never going to be a selling point of the Revolution anyway, it's *not* a system like the Xbox 360 or PS3. Whether the Revolution succeeds or fails will be based entirely on its supposedly mind blowing new concept, *not* what resolution it outputs in, it was never going to figure into a customer's decision to purchase it. Hell, the DS (unfortunately) outputs in a drastically lower resolution than the PSP and is currently stomping it worldwide. That's proof that if you pack your system full of enough other features, stuff like resolution doesn't matter. Not to say I *condone* this practice- not at all, I think the money Nintendo is saving by foregoing high definition support will be trivial at best- but I *am* saying that this isn't as big an issue as many people are making it out to be.
Now that we have that garbage out of the way, let's move on to the real issue at hand. I'm going to explain exactly why I don't think the Revolution will fail at all.
E3 was a very revealing show this year; not literally, in the sense that the PS3 and Xbox 360 were physically unveiled, but in the sense that know exactly where all 3 major competitors are heading next generation. Sony and Microsoft are at each other's throats, they're going to fight to death over the 18-24 male demographic and have designed systems that are almost identical. Both companies will be pouring millions upon millions of dollars to edge out the other and it's going to end up being a stalemate, mainly because Sony has a much larger user base and Microsoft has a much larger bank account. Nintendo, however, is taking an entirely different approach. I've come to realize now that the DS was more or less a field test for that they're doing with the Revolution- it's a piece of electronics that introduces something completely new and innovative which offers the possibility for radically different games and is appealing to people who have never even had a casual interest in gaming. In an interview, the head of Nintendo's European division commented that, despite everyone's expectations (including mine), the DS is *not* eating into the sales of the GBA, and that's because it's attracting a different type of gamer for the most part. Nintendo hopes to replicate this phenomenon on a much larger scale with the Revolution- it is going to be a system that introduces an entirely new way to play games, and that is going to attract brand new gamers. While Sony and Microsoft duke it out over the established gaming public, which, admittedly, is very large, Nintendo is going after the vast untapped *sea* of potential customers that are the non-gamers, and they're doing this right under Sony and Microsoft's noses. I think Nintendo has finally realized that they simply can't compete on a marketing level with Sony and Microsoft- they don't have the vehemence, they don't have the sheer will, and they certainly don't have the talent for it. So instead of trying to wrestle customers away from their deeper-pocketed competitors, they're going down an entirely different route and making brand new customers.
It won't be an overnight thing, but their army of converted gamers will grow and grow to the point where Nintendo will
I'm not debating the fact that art style figures prominently into a game- Wind Waker demonstrated that better than any game I've ever played. But Zelda was never all that whimsical, and even the most whimsical looking installment still had dark undertones to it (just look at Wind Waker's ending for crying out loud- making it look cutesy doesn't change the fact that the game was very serious). The new art style isn't losing any "vision" you think you saw in any game.
I'm also still confused as to how you're such an expert on what the series is meant to be, when you've mearely played the games, as opposed to Miyamoto, the father of the entire franchise. Do you really think Miyamoto would take his child where he didn't want? And don't say Nintendo's making him, because we both know that's bullshit- the man convinced the company to completely throw out the initial incarnation of Wind Waker and do a 180 on its design, *knowing* it would piss everyone off.
YOU may have your opinions as to what Zelda's "vision" is (use as many synonyms as you want, you're still spewing the same crap), but that applies to your personal enjoyment of the next game and *nothing* more. Don't act like your opinion actually means something here.
I had line breaks when I typed it, I swear, but they disappeared! o_O
Those are all good examples, too, but whole unapplicable. Those are all single products, with a definitive style. Zelda is *not* in the same category. There are 10 installments in the Zelda series now, Ninja, ranging over nearly half a dozen different artistic styles. This game will be the 11th, and it, too, introduces a new style. there *is* no definitive "Zelda style"- that's where the fault in your argument lies. Zelda's art *changes* styles and always has, and this game is simply continuing that trend. Don't you see? It's impossible to ruin whatever style you claim Zelda had because it doesn't exist! Zelda II looked different from LoZ, LttP looked different from LoZ, OoT and MM looked different from LoZ, Wind Waker looked different from LoZ, Minish Cap looked different from LoZ- these are all different styles, yet no one will complain that they are bad games (well, some might say Zelda II is, but they're wrong).
Zelda is a very organic series artistically- it changes almost with each new game. You can't cling on to one artistic style and have every subsequent game be a carbon copy of it. Miyamoto's avoidance of just that is precisely what has kept the franchise so fresh, in my opinion. He's always finding new ways to express the classic Zelda gameplay. Just because you happen to think Wind Waker had the best style so far doesn't mean that's the *definitive* style, and I think it's pretty arrogant to think that.
Zelda is constantly being reinterpreted and reimagined- you may not like the latest reimagining, at least not as much as the last one, but that doesn't mean your opinion pervades throughout all of us and becomes the official viewpoint, especially when that opinion is misguided to begin with, based on misconceptions and faulty notions. You have to realize that Zelda HAS no artistic style, so it is impossible to say which one is the RIGHT one.
You make some good points, Ninja, but you shouldn't be applying them to Zelda. I've told this to you before, but here we go again.
Who are we to say what is and isn't the "spirit" of Zelda? This is Shigeru Miyamoto's work, he's the only one that can decide what falls into step with Zelda. If anything, Zelda's "spirit" is not its artistic style-- the game has changed artistic styles more than almost any other series-- but rather its *gameplay*, which has remained just as true to the original NES title as ever, and I don't think this game will buck that trend.
You can assume all you want by watching the videos, but that's just speculation. You seem to assume M means bad- it's a typical Nintendo fanboy response that really gets on my nerves. "M" is just a videogame content rating, just as "R" is a movie content rating, and doesn't necessarily reflect quality in any way. I will agree that the industry is unfortunately shifting more towards the notion that blood and guts make a game, but that doesn't mean every game sporting blood and guts is bad. You automatically assume that Zelda going realistic was a reaction to the fans, but perhaps it was a creative choice? Why does every decision that leads to a darker, more realistic theme have to be just a fan-pleaser while the "real" innovation lies purely in cel shading? You're sounding like those art critics, who, when they found out that the common people liked the same art they did, had to start liking art that no normal person could *possibly* like to seperate themselves. You're more worried about the game being part of the mainstream than about it being good. You equate mainstream with bad, which is pretty narrow minded. I'd rather have Miyamoto pour his heart into this realistic Zelda (which I *know* he'll do) than have him be forced to choose a style that simulates something crazy like fabric cutouts, just so that it can be "different".
I personally choose not to speculate off the video but off the franchise's history, and when I look back and realize that there has, in my opinion, not been a *single* Zelda game I'd consider less than fantastic, I have renewed faith in the next installment, because I know Miyamoto and Aonuma are going to make this game the best it can be. I for one am excited to see what they can do with a brand new style for the Zelda series, because I like to see new outlets for their immense imaginations, rather than the same thing over and over and over again, which is what you're asking for.
Slashdot Mirror
Since when has Zelda been apart of Mario Kart? Mario Kart only uses characters from the Mario universe. How do you even type?
You guys are pathetic. I bet most of you read the title and assumed you knew what the article meant. He means Zelda is changing in the same way it changed between A Link to the Past and Ocarina of Time, and Mario is changing in same way it did between Super Mario World and Super Mario 64. As new features become available, games can take advantage of new gameplay possibilites not available before. The best example of this was the transition between 2D and 3D. Miyamoto is suggesting the Revolution is opening new doors to expand both the Mario and Zelda series. You guys should actually think about what you're saying.
Yeah, and everyone *has* been focusing on the negatives of the DS ever since the thing was announced, while this is honestly the first negative article about the PSP I've seen from a major game journalist. I'm glad they're finally starting to balance it out.
A friend of mine goes around to garage sales and buys any videogame systems he can find, and he's been doing it for years. There's a room in his basement with random systems just stacked to the ceiling, just about any console you can think of (yes, even that one). He says the reason he does it is because he can grab an NES or an SNES for $10 or less at a garage sale then sell it for $50+ to desperate people on Ebay around Christmas time. Works wonders.
Also, I don't think they'll return to being a cutthroat nasty monopoly if they get back to the top- Yamauchi resigned, man. He was the main reason that Nintendo was mean in the first place, that guy was ruthless. Iwata's a much more cuddly president. I do expect Nintendo to be very strict with the market if they get back on top, but I think it's ignorant to say they'll go back to being how they were, especially when how they were is why they're how they are now. Just think these things through.
Since when has any company been good anyway? The only one I can think of is Google, and they're certainly the exception to the rule, not the rule itself.
So yes, I do think Nintendo's primary motivation for being nicer is money. But then again, I think the primary motivation for any company is money, Nintendo included. Nintendo gets built up as this loving, caring company, and while I do think that most, if not all, of them honestly do want to make great games and improve the industry, they're still a company and the purpose of any company is to make money.
I don't know, maybe since Iwata took over Nintendo actually does want to be nice, but people shouldn't be surprised when they do some cutthroat or nasty things to make a profit, they're just managing a business, managing a business like anyone else would do (if they wanted to make money).
I think you'll notice that I never said Nintendo was nice and courteous now, I just said they're not as monopolistic, nowhere near it. But they still do have the tendencies, just like everyone else, so singling them out is pointless, especially when there are dozens are corporations much worse.
The IGNCube article says something different:
"For Nintendo's April through June quarter, the company saw operating profit of 3.75 billion yen ($33.35 million), down from 17.47 billion yen in the same period last year. The company reports net profit of 14.12 billion yen ($125.6 million) compared to last year's net profit of 22.64 billion yen.
So which is it? Are Nintendo's profits down 80% (down 13.72 billion yen from 17.47 billion yen to 3.75 billion yen) or down to 80% (down 3.75 billion yen from 17.47 billion yen to 13.72 billion yen). There's a pretty big difference.
Whoops, forgot about Mario Party. Yeah, I know it's the same thing over and over again, even I'm not happy about that, but apparently a lot of people are because each game in the series is a platinum seller. So that's 26 franchises.
Sega went out of business because they released a bunch of add-ons and consoles that sold terribly. All in all they were terrible at business, despite how good they were at making games. Sega had billions of dollars in debt and no way to make them up. Where does Nintendo fit in? Oh, you mean because you don't like the DS, Nintedo is going the way of Sega? Nevermind the millions of other people that have made the DS a sales phenomenon? Yeah, OK, I guess that makes sense....
I think the key word in your entire post is what Nintendo did. Yes, Nintendo was a very nasty monopoly (I don't know about worse than MS in their heyday, but at least very close).
However, it wasn't the lawsuits that got them to stop, it was the fact that they were seriously pissing off anyone who could support them. They made mortal enemies out of Namco and Square, and alienated a ton of other 3rd parties. That's a huge reason the Genesis did so well, because all the 3rd parties Nintendo had been screwing over jumped ship to the much nicer Sega and a bunch of Nintendo's customers went with them. Then they went with Sony and the Playstation instead of the N64 because Nintendo still insisted on being nasty.
And you know what happened? It came around and bit them in the ass and is arguably what started their fall from being the sales leader. They realized that being a sinister monopoly wasn't a viable market plan in the videogame industry and started being nicer. I'd say their evil streak ended when Yamauchi resigned and the much nicer Iwata took over.
So now, tell me, what evil monopolistic practices have they done lately that can even compare to what they did before? You can stop speaking in the past tense and get with the times- Nintendo is nowhere near as evil as they used to be, and they're trying to repair a lot of their damaged relationships they had with 3rd parties (they're great buddies with Square and Namco, now). Iwata is really turning the company away from their cutthroat past, and not losing any of the profit-making abilities, either.
Actually, the Revolution controller is apparently going to be very compatible (after all, it's going to be able to play NES, SNES, N64, and Revolution games). Check out this statement from Iwata on this exact issue:
Finally, Iwata spoke on the Revolution's unique interface and if it would alienate third-party developers.
"Well, of course, the idea is that the Revolution will sell and sell and sell so it becomes the standard in the industry," Iwata mused. "However, at least for the launch period, we designed the controller so it can play any of the different conventional styles. After all, we are talking about it playing games from our past machines (i.e. the virtual console). So don't worry."
So what you're really saying is you just don't dig Nintendo's games. That's fine, they're not for everyone. But that's not Nintendo's problem, it's not anyone's problebm. The Gamecube simply just isn't the console for you. I don't know why you should feel angry that Nintendo doesn't make games you like, though- there are plenty of companies that make games I don't like, but I'm not angry, I just don't play them. It's a really good strategy, you should try it sometime.
Nintendo has more franchises than any other single developer out there, except for maybe Sega. It really pisses me off when I see people saying how Nintendo relies on just their "key franchises". Really, it's this whole double standard issue that pisses me off.
Let's list some of Nintendo's franchises, shall we?
Mario
Zelda
Donkey Kong
Kirby
F-Zero
Star Fox
Wars
Fire Emblem
Pikmin
Animal Forest/Crossing
Metroid
Mother/Earthbound
Kid Icarus
Waverace
Pokemon
Pilotwings
Star Tropics
Now let's list their franchises starring the rest of their characters. Spare me the flame, they're still very good and have very different gameplay, which qualifies them as seperate games, even if they do utilize the Mario name:
Mario Kart
Super Smash Bros.
Wario Land
WarioWare
Mario Tennis
Mario Golf
Donkey Konga
Mario RPG
Now let's list some of their recent and upcoming new properties:
Nintendogs
Elctroplankton
Odama
Geist
Jam With the Band
Polarium
Mario Baseball
Mario Strikers
So, what is that? 25 franchises and another 8 brand new ones, with more promised? Seriously, do you guys ever actually do any research into this stuff? Let's go even further: how many actual Mario and Zelda games did we have this generation for the Gamecube? One Mario game and two Zelda games. Conversely, how many Jak and Daxter games? Three. How many Ratchet and Clank games? Three. How many Sly Cooper games? Two. How many Gran Turismo games? 2. Plus there are those franchise's respective spinoffs. Why doesn't any complain about this? Two reasons. One, it's Sony, who can (as we've seen) make mistakes without anyone getting upset. And two, they're good games, so it doesn't matter so much that they're falling back on their names.
So why doesn't the same apply to Nintendo? When they do release a game with the Mario or Zelda name, it's always very good, and if you look beyond those two huge properties there is a plethora of new ones just waiting for you to play them. But Nintendo gets bashed for "relying on their franchises". If you don't like Nintendo's games, just so so- I don't care, you're fully entitled to your opinion. But don't make up bullshit about what's wrong with Nintendo because you clearly don't know what you're talking about. I hate double standards, and I hate people like you for propagating them.
Halo is loosely connected to the Marathon series and Grand Theft Auto, of course, was around much longer than its first PS2 entry (hence the 3 at the end of its name). So, uh, neither of those debuted on the XBox and PS2.
On the other side of the fence, are you implying that the "If everyone likes it then it must be good" "mainstream" mentality is good? Some people's taste in music just happens to not be what the public likes at the moment, and their are always going to be music snobs, but it doesn't make their opinions and statements any less valid just because they're arrogant and elitist about it.
I can't wait for when the people running this country are the ones who grew up on videogames. Then maybe we can put all this behind us.
Jet Set Radio OST stands to this day as my favorite ever, along with SimCity 3000's and ICO's.
Obviously the customer feedback is mixed, or else we wouldn't be having this debate right now. I see your point that Nintendo shouldn't forego all customer appreciation to ensure they make a profit, but in this case I'm glad Nintendo saved that extra cash instead of pleasing a couple hundred thousand fans. And now Nintendo can please both the whiny few AND make a profit, so in the end, everyone wins, you just didn't get to play online as soon as you would have liked. I'm sorry.
"The fact is, game companies like Nintendo have avoided online play because they don't understand it and aren't willing to take the sort of risk that's necessary to make it happen."
Eh? Every Nintendo home console ever made has had some sort of online feature- arguably Nintendo understands how the internet applies to consoles better than anyone else.
"Console developers, on the other hand, are constantly at the mercy of the console creators, who, until the XBox was released, never once shipped a console with any sort of online gaming ability built-in. If it ain't in the box when it ships, good luck getting people to buy it."
Are you sure? I seem to remember a console called the Dreamcast released stateside back in 1999. I also seem to remember it being packaged with a modem- in fact, the modem was already connected. all you had to do to play games online was get a Seganet subscription- sounds a lot like XBox Live, doesn't it?
Anyway, I don't know why you seem intent on making Nintendo out to be ravenously anti-internt. It's already been explained, they just didn't think pushing online play on consoles was profitable yet, and if I were you, I'd be trusting Nintendo on what's profitable, not companies like Sony, who struggles to make have as much money on games as Nintendo, or Microsoft, who has lost billions of dollars on games.
I'll admit, I'm impressed that Microsoft made such a good online plan, and practically right out of the gate, too. And I don't doubt that XBox Live will probably help Microsoft in the long run. But it also most likely caused them to lose a ridiculous amount of money. That's a loss Microsoft can afford because they have Windows. It's not a loss that Nintendo can afford, because all they have is their games. Nintendo has to wait for the best time to push online play, and I think they've chosen a plan that's perfect for both them and the industry.
First off, the question of high definition support is entirely beside the point. I personally would love to play Mario and Zelda in glorious high definition, but if you honestly think it's going to contribute to Nintendo's "failure" next generation, you need to get a clue. First off, the analog shut out won't be in 2006, it most likely won't even be in 2007, according to the FCC itself. They won't even do the analog shutout until at least 85% of household TVs can receive all digital broadcasts, which some estimate could be another 20 years. Realistically we're not looking at switching over to all digital broadcasts until 2010-2015, which falls squarely into the realm of "the generation after next". Secondly, now that we've established that Nintendo isn't somehow cutting off all their customers, we can move on to the other flaw in your argument- high definition video was never going to be a selling point of the Revolution anyway, it's *not* a system like the Xbox 360 or PS3. Whether the Revolution succeeds or fails will be based entirely on its supposedly mind blowing new concept, *not* what resolution it outputs in, it was never going to figure into a customer's decision to purchase it. Hell, the DS (unfortunately) outputs in a drastically lower resolution than the PSP and is currently stomping it worldwide. That's proof that if you pack your system full of enough other features, stuff like resolution doesn't matter. Not to say I *condone* this practice- not at all, I think the money Nintendo is saving by foregoing high definition support will be trivial at best- but I *am* saying that this isn't as big an issue as many people are making it out to be. Now that we have that garbage out of the way, let's move on to the real issue at hand. I'm going to explain exactly why I don't think the Revolution will fail at all. E3 was a very revealing show this year; not literally, in the sense that the PS3 and Xbox 360 were physically unveiled, but in the sense that know exactly where all 3 major competitors are heading next generation. Sony and Microsoft are at each other's throats, they're going to fight to death over the 18-24 male demographic and have designed systems that are almost identical. Both companies will be pouring millions upon millions of dollars to edge out the other and it's going to end up being a stalemate, mainly because Sony has a much larger user base and Microsoft has a much larger bank account. Nintendo, however, is taking an entirely different approach. I've come to realize now that the DS was more or less a field test for that they're doing with the Revolution- it's a piece of electronics that introduces something completely new and innovative which offers the possibility for radically different games and is appealing to people who have never even had a casual interest in gaming. In an interview, the head of Nintendo's European division commented that, despite everyone's expectations (including mine), the DS is *not* eating into the sales of the GBA, and that's because it's attracting a different type of gamer for the most part. Nintendo hopes to replicate this phenomenon on a much larger scale with the Revolution- it is going to be a system that introduces an entirely new way to play games, and that is going to attract brand new gamers. While Sony and Microsoft duke it out over the established gaming public, which, admittedly, is very large, Nintendo is going after the vast untapped *sea* of potential customers that are the non-gamers, and they're doing this right under Sony and Microsoft's noses. I think Nintendo has finally realized that they simply can't compete on a marketing level with Sony and Microsoft- they don't have the vehemence, they don't have the sheer will, and they certainly don't have the talent for it. So instead of trying to wrestle customers away from their deeper-pocketed competitors, they're going down an entirely different route and making brand new customers. It won't be an overnight thing, but their army of converted gamers will grow and grow to the point where Nintendo will
I'm not debating the fact that art style figures prominently into a game- Wind Waker demonstrated that better than any game I've ever played. But Zelda was never all that whimsical, and even the most whimsical looking installment still had dark undertones to it (just look at Wind Waker's ending for crying out loud- making it look cutesy doesn't change the fact that the game was very serious). The new art style isn't losing any "vision" you think you saw in any game.
I'm also still confused as to how you're such an expert on what the series is meant to be, when you've mearely played the games, as opposed to Miyamoto, the father of the entire franchise. Do you really think Miyamoto would take his child where he didn't want? And don't say Nintendo's making him, because we both know that's bullshit- the man convinced the company to completely throw out the initial incarnation of Wind Waker and do a 180 on its design, *knowing* it would piss everyone off.
YOU may have your opinions as to what Zelda's "vision" is (use as many synonyms as you want, you're still spewing the same crap), but that applies to your personal enjoyment of the next game and *nothing* more. Don't act like your opinion actually means something here.
I had line breaks when I typed it, I swear, but they disappeared! o_O
Those are all good examples, too, but whole unapplicable. Those are all single products, with a definitive style. Zelda is *not* in the same category. There are 10 installments in the Zelda series now, Ninja, ranging over nearly half a dozen different artistic styles. This game will be the 11th, and it, too, introduces a new style. there *is* no definitive "Zelda style"- that's where the fault in your argument lies. Zelda's art *changes* styles and always has, and this game is simply continuing that trend. Don't you see? It's impossible to ruin whatever style you claim Zelda had because it doesn't exist! Zelda II looked different from LoZ, LttP looked different from LoZ, OoT and MM looked different from LoZ, Wind Waker looked different from LoZ, Minish Cap looked different from LoZ- these are all different styles, yet no one will complain that they are bad games (well, some might say Zelda II is, but they're wrong).
Zelda is a very organic series artistically- it changes almost with each new game. You can't cling on to one artistic style and have every subsequent game be a carbon copy of it. Miyamoto's avoidance of just that is precisely what has kept the franchise so fresh, in my opinion. He's always finding new ways to express the classic Zelda gameplay. Just because you happen to think Wind Waker had the best style so far doesn't mean that's the *definitive* style, and I think it's pretty arrogant to think that.
Zelda is constantly being reinterpreted and reimagined- you may not like the latest reimagining, at least not as much as the last one, but that doesn't mean your opinion pervades throughout all of us and becomes the official viewpoint, especially when that opinion is misguided to begin with, based on misconceptions and faulty notions. You have to realize that Zelda HAS no artistic style, so it is impossible to say which one is the RIGHT one.
You make some good points, Ninja, but you shouldn't be applying them to Zelda. I've told this to you before, but here we go again. Who are we to say what is and isn't the "spirit" of Zelda? This is Shigeru Miyamoto's work, he's the only one that can decide what falls into step with Zelda. If anything, Zelda's "spirit" is not its artistic style-- the game has changed artistic styles more than almost any other series-- but rather its *gameplay*, which has remained just as true to the original NES title as ever, and I don't think this game will buck that trend. You can assume all you want by watching the videos, but that's just speculation. You seem to assume M means bad- it's a typical Nintendo fanboy response that really gets on my nerves. "M" is just a videogame content rating, just as "R" is a movie content rating, and doesn't necessarily reflect quality in any way. I will agree that the industry is unfortunately shifting more towards the notion that blood and guts make a game, but that doesn't mean every game sporting blood and guts is bad. You automatically assume that Zelda going realistic was a reaction to the fans, but perhaps it was a creative choice? Why does every decision that leads to a darker, more realistic theme have to be just a fan-pleaser while the "real" innovation lies purely in cel shading? You're sounding like those art critics, who, when they found out that the common people liked the same art they did, had to start liking art that no normal person could *possibly* like to seperate themselves. You're more worried about the game being part of the mainstream than about it being good. You equate mainstream with bad, which is pretty narrow minded. I'd rather have Miyamoto pour his heart into this realistic Zelda (which I *know* he'll do) than have him be forced to choose a style that simulates something crazy like fabric cutouts, just so that it can be "different". I personally choose not to speculate off the video but off the franchise's history, and when I look back and realize that there has, in my opinion, not been a *single* Zelda game I'd consider less than fantastic, I have renewed faith in the next installment, because I know Miyamoto and Aonuma are going to make this game the best it can be. I for one am excited to see what they can do with a brand new style for the Zelda series, because I like to see new outlets for their immense imaginations, rather than the same thing over and over and over again, which is what you're asking for.